CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Council Report
January 6, 2015
To:

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

Douglas J. Schmitz, City Administrator

Submitted by:

Mike Branson, City Forester

Subject:

Consideration of an Appeal of the Forest and Beach Commission

Decision to Deny Removal of a Tree on Public Property the Applicant
Considers to Pose an Unreasonable Risk to adjacent Properties. The Tree is
Located on Torres Street, 2 houses Northeast of Ninth Avenue. The
Applicants are Robert and Judith Profeta.

RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the Forest and Beach Commission decision, staff
recommends denial of the appeal.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On September 11, 2014, the applicant, Robert Profeta, submitted
an application to remove a 30 diameter Monterey pine growing on public property in front of
his home on Torres St., 2 northeast of Ninth Ave. Mr. Profeta considers the tree to be an
unreasonable risk to his and neighboring structures. He also submitted an arborist report in
support of his application.
On November 13, 2014, the Forest and Beach Commission reviewed the tree removal
application. Two commissioners recused themselves due to professional and personal
relationships with the applicants. The three remaining commissioners voted 3 0 to deny the
application for tree removal with a condition that staff perform a Level III inspection of the tree
to evaluate the root crown, measure the angle of lean, and continue to monitor the tree for
any changes.
Robert and Judith Profeta filed an appeal of the Forest and Beach Commission decision on
November 19, 2014.
ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION:
Forest and Beach Commission Review and Staff Analysis
The Forest and Beach Commission considered the tree removal application on November 13,
2014. Staff presented a report regarding the site conditions, the health and condition of the
tree, and other issues relating to the tree in question. The staff report also presented a
recommendation for retention of the tree with additional pruning and monitoring of the trees
condition. The staff report included a staff assessment of the trees likelihood for failure of the
entire tree or upper crown failure or trunk failure as low to moderate. After receiving the staff
report, the Commission addressed questions to staff regarding monitoring the tree lean,
City Council Meeting of January 6, 2015
Page 17

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 1

removing asphalt, and what constituted a Level III tree risk assessment. The November 7,
2014 staff report is included as Attachment 1.
The applicant and his wife addressed the Commission with their concerns with the safety of
the tree, the potential of the tree to hit their house, and their willingness to plant a new tree.
The applicant also referred to the tree risk assessment report he had commissioned from
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC.
The Commission discussed monitoring of the tree, planting a new tree, pruning of the tree,
and performing a more detailed inspection of the tree. After discussion, the Commission voted
to deny the removal application and to have staff performs a Level III inspection to evaluate
the root crown and measurement of tree lean, as well as, continuing to monitor the tree for
any significant changes to its condition.
Basis for Appeal
The primary basis for the appeal are the applicants pre-existing concerns of the trees
condition and the tree risk assessment presented in the arborist report. The arborist report is
included as Attachment 2 to this staff report.
The arborist report identifies two defects or conditions that could lead to tree failure during
normal conditions. It should be noted that the arborist assessment is based on a three year
window under normal conditions for the area throughout the year, not on storm events or
other unusual conditions. A retention option is also offered in the arborist report.
Below is a summary of the issues raised by the report, along with staff responses.
1.

Bowed stem with poor taper and low live crown ratio

The arborist report identifies this tree as having a bowed stem and poor trunk taper with a
likelihood of failure as either possible or probable. Staffs assessment of the tree is having a
corrected lean or sweep rather than a bow. Corrected leans are characterized by a leaning
lower trunk and a more upright upper trunk. This type of tree is considered to be stable under
normal conditions but can be les stable under unusual loads. Staff does not consider the tree
to have poor taper or a particularly low live crown ratio. Trees with corrected leans are
considered to have a likelihood of failure as either unlikely or possible.
2.

Limited soil volume around the tree with a partially buried root collar

The arborist report indicates there is limited soil around the tree for root development. There
are two paved driveways to the north and south of the tree and two garages to the east. Staff
does not consider the two driveways to be significant obstructions to root development.
Typical driveways are 6- 8 inches deep with native soil beneath for roots to extend into. A
typical structure, such as a garage will have a 12 18 inch deep concrete footing that will
obstruct root penetration, but roots will grow parallel or under this type of footing. More
significant obstructions to root development are soil cuts to enable below grade construction,
compacted soils, or natural soil hardpans none of which seem to be present.
City Council Meeting of January 6, 2015
Page 18

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 2

The arborist report also discusses the partially buried root collar and problems associated with
this situation. Staff agrees that the root collar should not be buried and excavation and
evaluation of the root collar should be done.
3. Risk assessment table
The report presents a risk assessment table with a risk rating of the tree parts. Staff has
performed a similar risk rating as presented below.
Part
most
likely to
fail
Trunk

Target

Failure

Likelihood
of Impact

Failure
and
Impact

Consequences

Risk
Rating of
Part

People

Possible

Low

Unlikely

Low

Trunk

House

Possible

High

Trunk

Cars

Possible

Medium

Somewhat
Likely
Unlikely

Entire
Tree or
Upper
Crown
Entire
Tree or
Upper
Crown
Entire
Tree or
Upper
Crown

People

Possible

Low

Unlikely

Significant or
Severe
Significant or
Severe
Significant or
Severe
Significant or
Severe

House

Possible

High

Somewhat
Likely

Significant or
Severe

Moderate

Cars

Possible

Medium

Unlikely

Significant or
Severe

Low

4.

Moderate
Low
Low

Retention option

The arborist report provides an option for retention and monitoring which entails an advanced
inspection (Level III) focusing on excavation of the root collar and measurement and
monitoring the lean of the tree. Staff concurs with this following this option and continuing to
monitor the condition of the tree in the future.
Alternative Options
This hearing is a de novo hearing. The Council is responsible for reviewing the entire project
and is not bound by the decision of the Forest and Beach Commission. The November 13,
2014 Forest and Beach Commission staff report is included in Attachment 1 for the City
Councils consideration. Attachment 3 includes the meeting minutes. The applicants appeal
request with their arborist report is included in Attachment 2.

City Council Meeting of January 6, 2015

Page 19

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 3

Based on the Forest and Beach Commission's action, staff recommends that the City Council
deny the appeal and uphold the Forest and Beach Commission's decision.
Alternative 1: The Council could choose to approve the appeal and allow removal of the tree.
If the Council approves removal, staff recommends a condition that the applicant be required
to plant a 5 gallon size upper canopy tree on public property, as directed by the City Forester,
in the vicinity of the removed tree.
FISCAL IMPACT:

The City collects a fee of $304.82 when an appeal to the City Council is filed. This fee
defrays some of the staff time costs for processing the appeal, and staff costs beyond the
appeal fee are paid out of the City's General Fund .
Budgeted (yes/no)
Yes

Funding Source( general fund , grant,

state)
Ap_peal Fee and General Fund

PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION/DECISION HISTORY:

The Forest and Beach Commission considered and denied an application for tree removal
submitted by Robert Profeta during their regular meeting on November 13, 2014.
ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 -Forest and Beach Commission Staff Report November 7, 2014

Attachment 2 - Profeta Appeal Application - including arborist report
Attachment 3- 11/13/14 Forest and Beach Commission Meeting Minutes (relevant
excerpt)
APPROVED:

Date:

:Jt!J .ft:c .

('/

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page4

City Council Meeting of January 6, 2015

Page 20

Attachment 1

MEMORANDUM
TO:

Members of the Forest and Beach Commission

FROM:

Mike Branson, City Forester

DATE:

7 November 2014

SUBJECT:

Tree Removal (Public)

Block: 100 Lot: 14 & 16 A.P .N #: 010-053-012
E/ Torres St., 2 north of gth Ave .
Applicant/Owner: Robert Profeta I City of Carmel

Site Condition:

This site is on the Torres St. public right-of-way in front of a 6,000 sq. ft. lot with a single-family
home and two garages. The tree I located in a 7 foot wide, 15 foot long, unpaved area between
two private driveways. The area is planted with agapanthus and also has a utility pole that is
within 18" ofthe base ofthe tree trunk.
Size and species of trees(s) requested for removal/pruning:

Remove one Monterey pine on public property - 30" diameter.

Health and condition of tree requested for removal:

The pine tree of concern appears healthy and in good condition . No significant insect or disease
issues were observed. The trunk leans a little to the south and sweeps to the east at around 15
feet above the ground. Except for the narrow planted area, much of the area around the base
of the tree is covered with pavement from two driveways to the north and south of the tree
and an adjacent garage. The tree has been pruned in the past, and within the last couple of
years, to remove several limbs extend ing to the east in order to reduce the weight of the crown
over the nearby structures.
Previous requests and decisions:

None.
Reason for request- Description of Project:

The applicant considers the tree to pose an unreasonable risk to their property.
The importance of the tree(s) to the urban forest in the area:

The tree contributes to the upper canopy of the urban forest this neighborhood .
City Council Meeting of January 6, 2015
Page 21

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 5

Size and species of tree(s) that are to be preserved:

N/A
Impacts construction may have on trees that are to be preserved and suggested mitigation:

N/A
Options:

1. Approve the application.

2. Do not approve the application.
3. Postpone consideration.
Staff Recommendations:

Option #2. Do not approve the application. I recommend additional pruning and monitoring of
the tree for any changes in the tree's condition that may affect the level of risk the tree may
pose. Staffs assessment of the risk the tree poses for trunk failure, failure of the entire tree, or
upper crown failure is in the low to moderate levels.
The applicant has submitted an arborist report on the tree with a risk rating of moderate to
high for trunk failure, failure of the entire tree, or upper crown failure. The report also includes
a provision for retention and monitoring.
If the public tree is allowed to be removed, I recommend planting a new upper canopy tree in
the planting space in front where the existing tree is growing.

City Council Meeting of January 6, 2015

Page 22

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 6

Attachment 2

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

RECEIVED NOV

Jt 2014

APPEAL OF FOREST & BEACH CO:M:MISSION DECISION

(FILING FEE: $80-'/; 8Z)

;::::::::>

Appellant:

"-0~

Property Owner:
Mailing Address:

Phones: Day:(&i)
Fax:

P' 1

D
Received by City Clerk
Y vV!J//7~ 7/?oj:=&zz:l.-.

~.8~ \,/vLJ//7/- ~&,zzlj

R2r &x 7 ~ lf--,9 arb-tv~ ~c ' Q'_/~9oi I
~0/- ~2~2--
C->0 I ~ 3> :ZC, 7

~3/)

-~ -

Email:

/I);

0tJ (--

Evening: W})

teo

~2..~ 2.

I~ ?go 7

rp ~ -{;?_,-jq_

@(if/': L;M'J

j?<'t; / Lf

Date Board heard the matter:

5
Appeals to the City Council must be made fn writing in the office of the City Clerk within
10 working days following the date of action by the Forest & Beach Commission and
paying the requiredjilingfee as established by City Council resolution.
Physical location of property that is the subject of appeal:

To/2-#5 :2/JE 9'TJ-JLot(s}:

/IJ f;j

Block:

/DO

MN:

O/D-053-.o/2-

COMMISSION ACTION BEING A P P E A L E D : - - - - - - - - - - -

k)._fr?O/Ittl c-f C!drf' free:. bdehAI:J h?fj-'y?er/y

If you were NOT the original applicant or the applicant' s representative, please state the
evidence that you are an aggrieved party: - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE)

City Council Meeting of January 6, 2015

Page 23

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 7

9~

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: (State the specific basis for your appeal, such as errors or
omissions you believe were committed by the Commission in reaching its decision, etc.)

J~?zz.

~~, an ?MIL??..~lJ/1/4l'~ o~l=

I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE

AND CORRECT:
DATED

AT:~~

, THisd_DAYOF

(Staff Initial)

ltiem/;&-= ~ c;}tJj'f

Receipt #:

ATTEST:

~~--'-C_,.ity-1=--le-rk

_ __

*Article 9, Section 7, of the Constitution of the State of California authorizes a city to

impose fees. Also see California government Code, Section 54344.

IMPORTANT: If the appellant wishes to submit materials for duplication and

inclusion in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea's Council agenda packet, the materials must
be submitted to the City Clerk by

2'f:-t0

working days after the decision of the

Commission. This matter is tentatively scheduled to be heard on

flrtfT

~ t/,1 dt:Jtt;/i

Copt e<;; of A-bor;sh relorf a a_e_,~

City Council Meeting of January 6, 2015

Page 24

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 8

Tree Risk Assessment - Monterey Pine - 2 NE of 9th on Torres

July 21, 2014

it.v or<';=~' :-'1-by-the-Sea

NOV 2 0 2014

July 21 , 2014
Judie Profeta
P.O. Box 7249
Carmel, CA 93921

Consulting Arborists LLC

P.O. Box 1010
Felto n, CA 95018
831 . 331. 8 982

Mrs . Profeta contacted me and asked ifl could inspect the Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) in front
of 2 NE of 9th on Torres in Carmel (Appendix A). The tree is located in the front between the
neighbor's driveway and leans toward the house. I agreed to meet with Mrs. Profeta to discuss
the tree and perform a basic tree risk assessment.
On July 9, 2014 at 10:00 AM I met with Mrs. Profeta to inspect the tree. I inspected the crown,
trunk, trunk flare, above ground roots, and site conditions around the tree following the
guidelines published in the ANSI A300 (Part 9)-2011 Tree Risk Assessment a. Tree Structure
Assessment for a "level two basic assessment."
The purpose of this report is to inform the property owner about the condition of the tree and
provide a summary of my observations. The risk rating and assessment is to help determine the
likelihood of the tree failing and striking a target within the next three years, and what the
consequences may be.
The Monterey pine bas a trunk diameter of 30 inches at 4.5 feet above grade and is
approximately 45-50 feet tall. The tree is located in a small soil area between the two driveways
and about 90 percent of its potential root zine is covered with asphalt. There are utility wires
running through the crown and the utility pole is approximately 16 inches from the tree's base.
There bas been pruning performed on the tree and the lowest branches have been removed to
about halfway up the trunk resulting in low live crown ratio and poor taper. Some small dead
branches and twigs are scattered throughout the crown that are less than two inches in diameter.
The trunk has sap oozing down the stem in several locations. The tree has a bow and leans
toward the residence with some bulging response growth where the stem bends. The root
collar is partially buried however there is one visible buttress root on the compression side of the
Jean.
People frequently occupy the portion of the house most likely to be struck while the structure
and parked cars in the driveway are constantly present. All the targets are considered to be of
high value and the consequences of a large failure will be significant or severe.
Richard Gessner - Monarc h Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 33 1-8982- rick@monarcharborist.com
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018

City Council Meeting of January 6, 2015

Page 25

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 9

Tree Risk Assessment - Monterey Pine - 2 NE of 9th on Torres

July 21 , 2014

The tree risk assessment considers the likelihood of a portion of the tree to fail and impact a
target along with the consequences in a given time period. I used three years as the given time
period for this assessment because I believe that is a reasonable time frame for reassessment
given the health and condition of the tree. The risk evaluation is placed into an established
matrix provided by the International Society of Arboriculture (I SA) to derive at an overall risk
rating. The ratings never take into account unusual weather or storm events but consider normal
conditions for the area throughout the year.
There are two defects or conditions that could lead to tree failure during normal conditions
which are as follows:
Bowed stem with poor taper and low live crown ratio
Limited soil volume around the tree with a partially buried root collar
Trees with bows are characterized by the upper portion or crown of the tree bending over more
than the lower stem. Typically this architecture is caused by a partial failure of wood fibers at
some point in the life of the tree and was caused by either high winds or the tree being
suppressed by larger trees nearby. Trees with poor trunk taper, especially conifers or excurrent
trees like the Monterey pine, and those with low live crown ratio, will be less stable during storm
events or high winds (Dunster, 2009). Trees with bowed stems and poor trunk taper have a
likelihood of failure of either possible or probable (DUI1ster, J, Smiley, E, Matheny, N, and Lilly,
S. 2013 ). Because of the combination of bowed stem, low live crown ratio, and poor trunk taper
the likelihood of stem or tree failure is probable.
The tree has very limited soil volume that is not covered in asphalt or the residences. Small soil
volume will limit the development of strong structural roots. Because there are asphalt
driveways on two sides of the tree with the bouse and road on the other two sides there is very
limited space for roots to grow and develop. Any kind of obstruction of roots or the root collar
can contribute to tree failure. The California Tree Failure Report indicates that 34 percent of all
recorded Monterey pine failures occurred at the roots.
The root collar is the transition portion of the tree that attaches the roots to the main stem.
Because the root collar is actually part of the main stem and not the root system it is important to
keep moisture off of this area to help prevent rot conditions or vascular disorders. By excavating
the root collar you can keep moisture away and monitor the structural roots for decay and
disease. There is one visible buttress root and it is not possible to determine how structurally
sound this portion of the tree is at this time. To complicate the buried root collar the tree is
growing in an area of limited soil volume.

Richard Gessner- Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC- (831) 331-8982- rick@monarcharborist.com

P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018

City Council Meeting of January 6, 2015

Page 26

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 10

Tree Risk Assessment - Monterey Pine - 2 NE of 9th on Torres

July 21 , 2014

In conclusion the combination of the bowed stem, poor taper, low live crown ratio, buried root
collar, and limited soil volume create conditions that could lead to failure with the likelihood
being probable. Because the bouse, cars, and people are of significant value the consequences of
the tree or crown failing are significant or severe. The Monterey pine poses a high risk to the
bouse and a moderate risk to people and parked cars.
Below is the risk assessment table for the Monterey pine (Tables 1).
Tree one
Part Most
Likely to Fail

Target

Failure

Likelihood
Impact Failure and Consequences
Impact

Risk rating
of Part
Moderate

Trunk

People

Probable

Medium

Trunk

House

Probable

High

Trunk

Cars

Probable

Medium

Probable

Medium

Probable

High

Probable

Medium

Entire Tree or People

Upper Crown
Entire Tree or House
Upper Crown
Entire Tree or Cars
Upper Crown

Somewhat Significant or
Likely
Severe
Likely
Significant or
Severe
Somewhat Significant or
Likely
Severe
Somewhat Significant or
Likely
Severe
Likely
Significant or
Severe
Somewhat Significant or
Likely
Severe

High
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate

Table 1: Tree risk assessment

I recommend applying for a tree removal permit from the City of Carmel if the risk of failure
outweighs the benefits the tree provide for you.
Retention option
Retain and monitor: Monitor the tree and have a level three tree risk assessment performed, as
defined by ANSI A300 (Part 9)-2011 Tree Risk Assessment a. Tree Strncture Assessment, by a
qualified arborist. The advanced assessment should focus on measuring and monitoring the lean
and excavating the root collar.
Root collar excavation: Excavate the root collar to properly inspect the roots that anchor the tree
to the ground. This may uncover more decay or reaffirm that the roots are sound.
Record the lean angle: Have a qualified arborist record the lean angle annually and after
significant storm events such as high winds or heavy rains.
Need for Future Inspections: It shall be the responsibility of the tree owner to ensure that future
tree risk assessment inspections are conducted to monitor and evaluate any changes in the
condition or the risk associated with the tree.
Richard Gessner- Monarch Consult ing Arborists LLC- (831) 331-8982- rick@monarcharborist.c om
P.O. Box 1010 Felton , CA 95018

City Council Meeting of January 6, 2015

Page 27

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 11

Tree Risk Assessment - Monterey Pine 2 NE of 9th on Torres

July 21, 2014

Bibliography
American national standard for tree care operations: tree, shrub and other woody plant
management: standard practices (Tree risk assessment a. Tree structure assessment).
Londonderry, NH: Secretariat, Tree Care Industry Association, Inc., 2011. Print.
Clark, James R., and Nelda P. Matheny. A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation ofHazard Trees
in Urban Areas. Bedminster, PA: International Society of Arboriculture, 1994. Print.
Dunster, Julian. Tree Risk Assessment in Urban Areas and the Urban/Rural interface: Course
Manual. Silverton, Oregon: Pacific Northwest Chapter, International Society of
Arboriculture.
Dunster, Julian A. , E. Thomas Smiley, Nelda Matheny, and Sharon Lilly. 2013. Tree Risk
Assessment Manual. Champaign, Illinois: International Society of Arboriculture.
ISA. Glossary ofArboricultura/ Terms. Champaign: International Society of Arboriculture, 2011.
Print.
Smiley, E, Matheny, N, Lilly, S, ISA. Best Management Practices: Tree Risk Assessment:
International Society of Arboriculture, 2011. Print
Smiley, E. Thomas, Fraedrich, Bruce R., and Hendrickson, Neil. Tree Risk Management. 2nd ed.
Charlotte, NC: Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories, 2007

Richard Gessner- Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (83 1) 331 -8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com
P.O. Box 10 10 Felton, CA 95018

City Council Meeting of January 6, 2015

Page 28

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 12

Tree Risk Assessment - Monterey Pine - 2 NE of 9th on Torres

July 21, 2014

Glossary of Terms

Bow: Leans characterized by the top of the tree bending over more than the lower trunk.
Conditions: a particular state of being or existence; situation with respect to circumstances.
Constantly: The target is present at nearly all times of day 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Crown: Upper part of a tree, measured from the lowest branch, including all the branches and
foliage.
Defect: An imperfection, weakness, or lack of something necessary. In trees defects are injuries,
growth patterns, decay, or other conditions that reduce the tree 's structural strength.
Excurrent: Tree growth habit characterized by a central leader and pyramidal crown. Contrast
with decurrent.
Frequent: The target zone is occupied for a large portion of a day or week.
High: Pertaining to the likelihood of impacting a target: The failed tree or branch will most
likely impact the target. Pertaining to the overall risk rating: High risk situations are those for
which consequences are "significant" and likelihood is "very likely" or "likely" or consequences
are "severe" and likelihood is "likely". Mitigation measures should be recommended by the
assessor and the decision for mitigation and timing of treatment depends upon the risk tolerance
of the risk manager or tree owner.
Likelihood: The chance of an event occurring. In the context of tree failures, the term may be
used to specify: 1) the chance of a tree failure occurring: 2) the chance of impacting a specified
target; and 3) the combination of the likelihood of a tree failing and the likelihood of impacting a
specified target.
Live crown ratio: Ratio of the height ofthe crown containing live foliage to the overall height
ofthe tree.
Moderate: Pertaining to the overall risk rating: Situations for which consequences are "minor"
and likelihood is "very likely" or "likely"; or likelihood is "somewhat likely" and consequences
are "significant" or "severe". Mitigation or retain and monitor is usually recommended by the
assessor and the decision for mitigation and timing of treatment depends upon the risk tolerance
of the risk manager or tree owner.
Occupancy: An estimated amount of time the target is within the target zone.

Richard Gessner- Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331 -8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018

City Council Meeting of January 6, 2015

Page 29

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 13

Tree Risk Assessment - Monterey Pine - 2 NE of 9th on Torres

July 21 , 2014

Possible: Pertaining to the likelihood offailure: Failure could occur, but it is unlikely during
normal weather conditions within a specified period of time.
Probable: Pertaining to the likelihood offailure: Failure may be expected under normal weather
conditions within a specified period of time.
Response growth: New wood produced in response to loads to compensate for higher strain in
marginal fibers; includes reaction wood (compression or tension) and woundwood. A stress
response where a tree puts on just enough wood to compensate for stress conditions.
Root Collar: Flared area at the tree trunk base where roots and trunk come together.
Severe: Pertaining to the consequences offailure: Consequences that could involve serious
personal injury or death, damage to high value property, or disruption of important activities.
Significant: Pertaining to the consequences offailure: Consequences are those that involve
property damage or moderate-to-high value, considerable disruption, or personal injury.
Taper: Change in diameter over the length of trunks, branches, and roots. topping
Trunk: The stem of a tree, bole or stem. Woody structure bearing foliage and buds that give rise
to other branches or stems.
This Glossary of terms was adapted from the Glossary ofArboricultural Terms (ISA, 2011) and
the Best Management Practices: Tree Risk Assessment (ISA, 2011 ).

Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC- (831) 331-8982- rick@monarcharborist.com

P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 9501 8

City Council Meeting of January 6, 2015

Page 30

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 14

Tree Risk Assessment- Monterey Pine - 2 NE of 9th on Torres

July 21, 2014

Appendix A: Photographs

Tree from street

Richard Gessner- Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC- (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com

P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018

City Council Meeting of January 6, 2015

Page 31

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 15

Tree Risk Assessment - Monterey Pine - 2 NE of 9th on Torres

July21, 2014

Limited soil area

~.

~ -(

. . : . .. ~.

~..... ~

"

-~

'!' .-

Richard Gessner- Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC- (831) 331-8982- rick@monarcharborist.com

P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018

City Council Meeting of January 6, 2015

Page 32

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 16

Tree Risk Assessment- Monterey Pine - 2 NE of 9th on Torres

July 21, 2014

Obstruction from utility pole

Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC- (831} 331-8982- rick@monarcharborist.com

P.O. Box 1010 Felton. CA 95018

City Council Meeting of January 6, 2015

Page 33

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 17

Tree Risk Assessment- Monterey Pine- 2 NE of 9th on Torres

July 21,2014

Abrupt bend in stem

Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC- (831) 331-8982- rick@monarcharborist. com
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018

City Council Meeting of January 6, 2015

Page 34

10

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 18

Tree Risk Assessment- Monterey Pine - 2 NE of 9th on Torres

July 21, 2014

Bowed stem

Richard Gessner- Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC- (831) 331-8982- rick@monarc harborist.com
P.O. Box 1010 Felton , CA 95018

City Council Meeting of January 6, 2015

Page 35

11

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 19

Tree Risk Assessment - Monterey Pine - 2 NE of 9th on Torres

July 21 , 2014

Qualifications, Assumptions, and Limiting Conditions

Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. Any titles or
ownership of properties are assumed to be good and marketable. All property is appraised or
evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management.
Al1 property is presumed to be in conformance with applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or
other regulations.
Care has been taken to obtain information from reliable sources. However, the consultant cannot
be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others.
The consultant shall not be required to give testimony or attend meetings, hearings, conferences,
mediations, arbitration, or trials by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual
arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services.
This report and any appraisal value expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant, and
the consultant's fee is not contingent upon the reporting of a specified appraisal value, a
stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event.
Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report are intended for use as visual aids, are not
necessarily to scale, and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or
surveys. The reproduction of information generated by architects, engineers, or other consultants
on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is only for coordination and ease of reference.
Inclusion of said information with any drawings or other documents does not constitute a
representation as to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information.
Unless otherwise expressed: a) this report covers only examined items and their condition at the
time of inspection; and b) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items
without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed
or implied, that structural problems or deficiencies of plants or property may not arise in the
future .

Richard Gessner- Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331 -8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018

City Council Meeting of January 6, 2015

Page 36

12

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 20

Tree Risk Assessment - Monterey Pine - 2 NE of 9th on Torres

July 21, 2014

Certification of Performance
I Richard Gessner, Certify:
That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report, and
have stated my findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation and/or appraisal is stated in the
attached report and Terms of Assignment;
That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject
of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved;
That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own;
That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared
according to commonly accepted Arboricultural practices;
That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicated
within the report.
That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that
favors the cause of the client or any other party, nor upon the results of the assessment, the
attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any other subsequent events;
I further certify that I am a Registered Consulting Arborist with the American Society of
Consulting Arborists, and that I acknowledge, accept and adhere to the ASCA Standards of
Professional Practice. I am an International Society of Arboriculture Board Certified Master
Arborist and Tree Risk Assessor Qualified. I have been involved with the practice of
Arboriculture and the care and study of trees since 1998.
Richard J. Gessner

ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #496

ISA Board Certified Master Arborist WE-4341B
ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified

Copyright
Copyright 2014, Monarch ConsultingArborists LLC. Other than specific exception granted for copies made by
the client for the express uses stated in this report, no parts of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otheJWise without
the express, written permission of the author.

Richard Gessner- Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC- (831 ) 33 1-8982- rick@monarcharborist.com

P.O. Box 1010 Felton , CA 95018

City Council Meeting of January 6, 2015

Page 37

13

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 21

Profeta Robert G & Judith A

Torres St, Carmel, CA 93923

APN : 010-053-012
Monterey County

Owner Information
Primary Owner: PROFETA ROBERT G &
JUDITH A
Mail Address: PO BOX 7249
CARMEL CA 93921
Assessor Parcel Number: 010-053-012

Secondary Owner.

Site Address: TORRES ST

CARMEL CA 93923
Phone:

Census Tract:

Housing Tract Number:

Lot Number:

Page Grid:

Legal description: Abbreviated Description: CARMEL BY THE SEA ADD 5 LOTS 14 X 16 BLK 100

Property Characteristics
Bedrooms:4
Bathrooms: 4
Partial Baths:
Total Rooms: 14
Square Feet: 2,319 SF

Number of Units: 1
No of Stories: 2
Building Style:
Pool:

Year Built: 1935

Garage: Garage 1
Fire Place: 3
Lot Size: 7,840 SF
Property Type: Single Family Res idential
Properties
Use Code: Single Family Residential
Latitude: 36.551704
Longitude: -121.918839
Zoning:

Sale & Loan Information

Transfer Date: 09/01/1999

Transfer Value: NIA

Cost/SF: N/A
Sale Type:

Seller: LEWIS , ROSE EVE K; ROSE

EVE K LEWIS FAMILY
TRUST,
Document#: 9966015
First Loan Amount: $600,000
Title Company: OLD REPUBLIC TITLE
COMPANY

Lender: DBA ONLINE CAPITAL

City Council Meeting of January 6, 2015

Page 38

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 22

.Assessment & Tax Information

Assessed Value: $945,369
Land Value: $414 ,029
Improvement Value : $531,340
Homeowner Exemption:
Tax Status: Current
Market Improvement Value:

Percent Improvement: 56.2%

Tax Amount $10,397.50
Tax Account ID:
Tax Rate Area : 1-000
Tax Year: 2013
Markel Land Value:

Market Value:

Aerial Map

City Council Meeting of January 6, 2015

Page 39

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 23

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
POLICY C91-0S
TREE DENSITY PER LOT

RESPONSIBLE PARTY:
This policy w:i11 be utilized by the Forest and Beach Commission to detennine replacement plantings when a
tree is proposed for removal. Planning staff and Forest, Parks and Beach staff shall utilize the policy to
determine new plantings in conjunction with new houses and substantial alterations. Staff shall forward a
recommendation to the Planning Commission based on this policy.
PURPOSE:
To protect, conserve and enhance the unique natural beauty and irreplaceable natural resources of Cannel-bythe-Sea. To ensure the future ofour urban forest by the preservation and planting ofnative/indigenous trees on
private property while considering the diverse vegetation existing within the community. The City recognizes
these differences and will consider them when applying this policy. The City also recognizes that this policy is
a recommended tree-density per lot intended to achieve a mixed, healthy forest, taking into consideration
individual site constraints and opportunities.
POLICY /PROCEDURE;
To implement General Plan G-5-3 fonnally (G-6-1), "To protect, conserve, and enhance the unique natural
beauty and irreplaceable natural resources ofCazmel and its sphere of influence; to conserve Carmel's available
water sources; and to protect scenic routes and corridors". The recommended replacement trees and plantings
are:
LOT SIZE
{SQUARE FEET}
Up to 4,000
4,001 to 6,000
6,001 to 8,000
Over8,000

UPPER
CANOPY TREES

LOWER
CANOPY TREES

3
4
As determined by the Forest &
Beach Commission

5
As determined by the Forest &
Beach Commission

UPPER CANOPY TREES: Monterey pine, Monterey Cypress, Coast Redwood, Douglas Fir, Bishop Pine

LOWER CANOPY TREES: Coast live oak, liquid-amber, London plane, sycamore, fern-leaf, Catalina
ironwood.

AJso See "Approved Tree List for Carmel's Urban Forest".

-191 a-

City Council Meeting of January 6, 2015

Page 40

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 24

Two NE of Ninth on Torres - Tree Inventory, Map, and Site Sketch

City Council Meeting of January 6, 2015

Page 41

Trunk

Number
0

30

ts
~ 4'

21

20

10

20

t3 .

45

.t .

Coast live
oak

Coast live
oak

.um.fltd
Height

btemewr

Specie

Coast live
oak

___ _

cpmoveli
~teptailtf69la<the ~me 0
location- "'
,.

____I

Monterey
pine

... .

, ..

r~'rf(q~<Jo b8

t
TrH

. .J
c

2
3 B566Tag

16, 18

20 1

t2

'

Monterey
pine

22

45

Japanese
maple

20

Japanese
maple

Douglasfir

17

55

Coast live
oak

8 20, 12, 14

Coast live
oak

""

3
11

45

19

1;0

40
40

Coast live
oak

10 15, 15, 15,

13

Coast live
oak

11

17

Black acacia

12

32

55

40

Black acacia

13

25

Black acacia

14

16

45

Podocarpus

15

12

25

'

.,

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 25

Tree Inventory and Map Provided by Richard Gessner- ISA Board Certified Master ArbOrist WE-4341 B-ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist RCA#496

,g
8

September 8, 2014

t-orest ana tseacn Lorn m iSSion Novemoer

l~,

LUl4

Attachment 3

commented that he was not sure where the laundry room could be located to fit in with the
existing floor plan.
Vicky Kho, a neighbor to the east, thought the tree was gorgeous, and a solution should be
found to remodel the house and keep the tree.
Mike Kamm, co-owner, said he asked their engineer how to fix the situation but the engineer
thought the house could not be repaired without removing the tree,
Public comment closed at 3:47p.m.
Commissioner Carter commented that this is a beautiful tree and he was interested in possible
alternative opinions on repairing the house and retaining the tree.
Commissioner Ferlito mentioned that some of the material subm itted mentioned work not
done with permits and thought that the Planning Department should look into what is
permitted and what is not permitted. She also thought a more thorough evaluation of the
home is needed.
Commissioner Bang also thought other solutions may be found to retain the tree.
Commissioner Baron agreed with the comments so far and thought the tree should stay and
more information on other options should be found.
Chair Refuerzo also agreed with the Commissioner comments and thought other options should
be explored.
Commissioner BARON made a motion to deny the application. Commissioner CARTE R seconded
the motion.
Commissioner Ferlito would like the Planning Department to look into the history of the home
and noted that perhaps saving the cost of removing the tree could be applied to repairs to the
home.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:

Ferlito, Refuerzo, Carter, Bang, Baron

None
None
None

4. Consideration of an application to remove a Monterey pine (30" diameter) on public

property due to the tree being considered an unreasonable risk to the adjacent property.
Commissioners Refuerzo and Bang recused themselves from discussion ofthis item.
Vice-chair Ferlito assumed the chair for this item.
Page 5 of 11

City Council Meeting of January 6, 2015

Page 42

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 26

r-oresr ana tseacn Lorn miSSion Novemoer

1~,

LUll!

Forester Branson presented his staff report and addressed the points raised in the arborist
report submitted by the applicant.
Commissioner Baron asked if monitoring the lean of the tree can be done.
Branson responded that monitoring the lean can be done.
Commissioner Carter asked if removing asphalt and replacing with decomposed granite or
other porous material would help the tree.
Branson answered that it may help the tree but would be more beneficial to a new tree.
Commissioner Ferlito asked what a Level Ill inspection entailed and could the City do that type
of inspection.
Branson answered that a Level Ill inspection was a more detailed and invasive inspection ofthe
tree and it can be done by the City.
Public comment opened at 4:13 p.m.
Judy Profeta, applicant's wife, expressed her concerns about the safety of the tree and worries
about the tree hitting her home. She said she would replace the tree if it can be removed . She
also noted that she has several friends that have had trees fall onto their homes.
Margaret Eaton asked ifthe Commission requires the applicant to post a bond or requires them
to maintain any replacement trees.
Robert Profeta, applicant, pointed out he significant angle of lean of the trunk as compared to
the adjacent utility pole. He offered to plant a replacement tree in the same location.
Public comment closed at 4:18 p.m.
Commissioner Ferlito asked about the difference in growth rates between planting larger trees
and smaller trees.
Branson responded that smaller trees, particularly Monterey pines, can out grow a larger
specim en w ithin a few years under good growing conditions. But there are situations where a
larger tree is desirable to make an impact. He also noted that the tree tagging program for
replacement trees in place.
Commissioner Carter thought that pruning may be suitable for this tree.
Commissioner Baron said that he heard the applicants fear of the tree, but thought there are
tools to monitor the tree and they should be utilized.

Page 6 of 11

City Council Meeting of January 6, 2015

Page 43

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 27

t-o rest ana tseacn Lomm1ss1on Novemoer l.:S, LU 1 4

Commissioner FER LITO moved to deny the application and have the City Forester perform a
Levell II inspection of the tree and continue to monitor the tree and to authorize him to remove
the tree he determines it is unsafe; seconded by Commissioner CARTER.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES :
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN :

Ferlito, Carter, Baron

None
None
Refuerzo, Bang

5. Consideration of an application to remove five eucalyptus trees (12", 16" , 22", 21", and 22"
diameter) on private property and one blue gum eucalyptus (SO" diameter) on public property
due to safety concerns.
Forester Branson presented his staff report regarding the application .
Commissioner Ferlito asked who is responsible for planting a new tree, who pays for the
removal costs, and if removing the stumps is a good idea.
Branson answered that the applicant pays for removal and replacement costs, and stump
removal is a good practice for eucalyptus trees due to their ability tore-sprout from stumps.
Commissioner Baron asked about the history of blue gum trees in Carmel.
Branson provided some historical notes regarding management of blue gum trees in the past.
Chair Refuerzo asked how much pruning the large blue gum would cost and how often would
pruning be recommended.
Branson responded that pruning can cost as much as removing the tree and pruning every 5 - 7
years would be prudent.
Public comment opened at 4:37p.m.
Dylan Witt, co-owner of the property, mentioned that the trees had been pruned about two
years ago but other breakage has occurred since then . He is concerned about the need for
constant pruning and is willing to plant a new tree.
Natasha Witt, co-owner, po inted out that eucalyptus trees are not native trees.
Bill Lewis, neighbor to the north, said that limbs and debris is constantly falling into his yard and
into the street. He recommends planting a new tree for the future. He also noted that the
existing trees block access to the site for any future development.

Pa ge 7 of ll

City Council Meeting of January 6, 2015

Page 44

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 28