Friday, April 20, 2007

PART II (of IV): Forest & Beach Commission's Violation of Municipal Code, Land Use Plan, Recommended Tree Species List & USDA Forest Service Policy


Monterey Pine Trees
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.

THE CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA MUNICIPAL CODE:

Carmel-by-the-Sea
Municipal Code

Chapter 17.48
TREES AND SHRUBS
17.48.010 Purpose.
The City Council finds that in order to preserve windbreaks, reduce soil erosion, and preserve the natural beauty of the City’s urbanized forest, it is necessary to maintain the extent and health of the dominant Monterey Pine forest, along with other native tree species and adopts this chapter in the interest of public health and safety. (Ord. 2004-02 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2004-01 § 1, 2004).

Chapter 17.34
LANDSCAPING
17.34.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to protect and enhance Carmel-by-the-Sea’s dominant Monterey Pine urbanized forest and landscaped amenities. It is also the purpose of this chapter to provide for water conservation, and to protect environmentally sensitive habitat areas from degradation by providing for the restoration of native vegetation in and around these areas. (Ord. 2004-02 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2004-01 § 1, 2004).

Chapter 8.44
PERMITS FOR WEARING
CERTAIN SHOES
8.44.010 Purpose.
It is recognized that much of the charm and appeal of the City to residents and visitors alike is due to its urban forest character, featuring the maintenance of Monterey pine, oak and other native trees or shrubs throughout the City. The City has determined to maintain this character which benefits both the residents, by giving them quiet, semiforested neighborhoods in which to live, and the business community, whose prosperity is so closely linked to the attractiveness of the City to visitors. The maintenance of an urban forest throughout the City necessarily involves some informality in the lighting, location and surfacing of street and sidewalk areas, which in turn involves greater risk to those wearing high heeled shoes more adaptable to formal city life. (Ord. 87 C.S. § 1, 1963; Code 1975 § 639.1).

THE CITY’S LAND USE PLAN OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM:

It is essential that these and other policy directives be carried out to ensure that the Monterey pine forest landscape is protected so that the forested character of this unique coastal village is preserved. (LUP)

G5-4 Preserve and enhance the City's legacy of an urbanized forest of predominantly Monterey pine, coast live oak and Monterey Cypress. (LUP)

P5-58 Maintain, restore and enhance a predominantly indigenous forest of native Monterey pines and coast live oaks. (LUP)

P5-63 Manage the tree-planting program to achieve an uneven-aged, healthy forest with particular emphasis on native Monterey pines and coast live oaks. (LUP)

P5-80 Plant native Monterey pine seedlings of different genotypes to maximize resistance to diseases and make these seedlings available to the public. (LUP)

THE CITY’S RECOMMENDED TREE SPECIES LIST:

"Monterey pines (Pinus radiata) and cypresses (Cypressus macrocarpa) are the primary upper canopy trees of the forest and the planting of these species shall receive the greatest priority in appropriate situations."

THE USDA FOREST SERVICE:
Given the problems with pitch canker, why plant Monterey pines at all?

In most urban environments, one may opt to avoid any risk of damage from pitch canker by utilizing non-susceptible species as landscape trees. But in a native Monterey pine forest and at the urbanized border of such a forest, planting exotic species will degrade the integrity of a limited natural resource. If Monterey pines that are lost to pitch canker are replaced with non-native tree species, the loss to the native forest will be made permanent. As an alternative, killed trees can be replaced with Monterey Pines that are genetically resistant to pitch canker, thereby helping to sustain this species in its native habitat.

(Source: http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/pitch_canker/research/index.html)

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

It is obvious the commissioners were not qualified for their positions as Forest and Beach commissioners. More disturbing is the commissioners appear not to have, once appointed and in place as commissioners, made the effort to become informed and knowledgeable about our city’s trees and forest. No one expects them to be experts, but to appear as people basing their decisions on biased opinions instead of sound knowledge and information is very disheartening.