Tuesday, July 31, 2007

The Carmel Authors & Ideas Festival as Damage Control for Mayor McCloud Over Discontinued Carmel Film Festival

TIMELINE:
• March 27, 2007
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
March 27, 2007

IV. ORDERS OF COUNCIL
Budget Workshop to review the Council’s Annual Work Plan and provide policy direction.

City Administrator Guillen and Mayor McCloud presented the report on the Carmel Film Festival proposal.

Council requested that $42,035 be placed in the draft budget for sound equipment and an exhaust system at the Sunset Center for a film festival.

• June 5, 2007
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
June 5, 2007

C. Announcements from City Administrator.
Receive report from Scott Brown on the Carmel Film Festival.

This item was continued at the request of the City Administrator.

• June, 2007
Carmel residents Jim and Cindy McGillen began planning “The Carmel Author & Ideas Festival;" conference to feature more than “25 award winning authors, including authors of New York Times best-sellers, and Pulitzer and Nobel prize winners,” at the Sunset Center, September 28 - 30, 2007.

Background: Jim McGillen, former president of Lorimar Television Distribution and former station manager at KSBW-TV and Cindy McGillen, former president and general manager of KSBW, have made “the Monterey Bay area their primary residence for about 30 years.” And they have a second residence in Sun Valley, ID., where they have attended the Sun Valley Writers’ Conference for “about a dozen years.”
(Source: A-list authors Carmel-bound Couple hope inaugural writers' festival will become annual event, BRENDA MOORE, Herald Staff Writer, Monterey County Herald, 07/26/2007)

• July 6, 2007
Film festival could bring $12M to $15M to Carmel, Mary Duan, Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal.

• July 26, 2007
A-list authors Carmel-bound Couple hope inaugural writers' festival will become annual event, BRENDA MOORE, Herald Staff Writer, Monterey County Herald, 07/26/2007.

• July 28, 2007
Plug pulled on Film Festival at Carmel Bogus claims of stars on board forces closure, Virginia Hennessey, Herald Salinas Bureau, The Monterey County Herald, 07/28/2007.

COMMENTS:
Given the record of the local print media in reporting the “Who, What, When, Where and How,” but not the “WHY,” The Monterey County Herald and The Carmel Pine Cone have again neglected to answer the most important question of all: WHY? Why, after living here for 30 years and attending the Sun Valley Writers’ Conference for 12 years, are Jim and Cindy McGillen hurriedly planning the 1st annual Carmel Authors & Ideas Festival now?

The timeline suggests that the “City” was aware of problems with Scott Brown, president of the Carmel Film Festival, as early as June 2007 when City Administrator Rich Guillen continued the item at the City Council’s June 5, 2007 meeting. And also at that time, Jim and Cindy McGillen began planning the Carmel Authors & Ideas Festival.

Moreover, evidence for The Monterey County Herald managing the news to mitigate the negative impact to Mayor Sue McCloud is evident from the statement in the “Plug pulled on Film Festival at Carmel” article, as follows:

Brown said the festival plans were “formalized” with the Carmel City Council, but Mayor Sue McCloud said there is nothing in writing.

Additionally, information gleaned from the article suggests most of the information appearing in the “Plug pulled on Film Festival at Carmel” article was known to The Herald at least a week or possibly weeks prior to the publication of the article, “A-list authors Carmel-bound.”

In sum, it appears that the City Administrator and Mayor were aware of problems with Scott Brown and the Carmel Film Festival as early as June 2007, but failed to inform the public themselves. And with the obliging assistance of Executive Editor Carolina Garcia, The Monterey County Herald appears to have managed the news to mitigate the negative publicity to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, particularly Mayor Sue McCloud, by deciding to publish an article about a Carmel writers conference prior to an article about the discontinued Carmel Film Festival.


REFERENCES:

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CALIFORNIA

ADOPTED BUDGET
FISCAL YEARS
2007/08 THROUGH 2009/10

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA WORK PLAN

Sunset Cultural Center

Sound system & exhaust for film events 7/1/07 6/30/08 $ 42,035 Budgeted for FY 2007-08. (CAPITAL OUTLAY)


The city is working to attract more "boutique" conferences, with attendees who would help fill hotels and restaurants and boost business for local shops. McCloud said she wasn't certain whether the event would be attended mainly by locals, but hoped it would draw out-of-towners.
(Source: A-list authors Carmel-bound Couple hope inaugural writers' festival will become annual event, BRENDA MOORE, Herald Staff Writer, Monterey County Herald,
07/26/2007)

Note: One the reasons for the departure of Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC) Executive Director Jack Globenfelt may well be Jack Globenfelt’s and SCC Board Chairman Perry Walker’s stance that the Sunset Center was not optimized for “boutique” conferences, not a competitive venue for “boutique” conferences, and therefore were not considered by Globenfelt or the SCC Board for Sunset Center. Moreover, to the extent that Mayor Sue McCloud wanted and wants “boutique” conferences for the Sunset Center, as evidenced by her statement to The Herald, she may very well have paved the way for Jack Globenfelt’s departure based on this, and/or other, disagreements about the mission of the SCC and the Sunset Center. Question: Why is taxpayer money in the form of city subsidies going to the SCC to manage the Sunset Center when it appears Mayor Sue McCloud is managing the Sunset Center?

Monday, July 30, 2007

Comments on Barrie D. Coate and Associates’ “Arboricultural Analysis and Advisory Services” for the City of Carmel’s Forest

• Barrie D. Coate’s “RESULTS OF A REVIEW OF TREES IN A TWO BLOCK TRANSECT OF CARMEL,” May 31, 2007, “Specific Trees” section covers Trees #1-#19 and Tree #21, but fails to similarly cover Trees #20, #22-#45 in the Business District Block; in the Residential District Block, the section covers Trees #1 and #2, Trees #5–#25, #28-#31, #34, #37-#42, but fails to similarly cover Trees #3, #4, #26, #27, #32, #33, #35, #36 and #43-#83.

• Of the trees surveyed in the Business District Block, overall health/structure scores and the number of trees/score, as follows:

Overall Score 8: 1 tree
Overall Score 7: 2 trees
Overall Score 6: 2 trees
Overall Score 5: 4 trees
Overall Score 4: 8 trees
Overall Score 3: 13 trees
Overall Score 2: 15 trees
Total 45 trees

Note: Overall Score 2 Excellent to 10 Poor

• Of the trees surveyed in the Residential District Block, overall scores and the number of trees/score, as follows:

Overall Score 6: 6 trees
Overall Score 5: 23 trees
Overall Score 4: 14 trees
Overall Score 3: 33 trees
Overall Score 2: 7 trees
Total 83 trees

Note: Overall Score 2 Excellent to 10 Poor

• For perspective, it would be advantageous to have the approximate age of the trees on the “Tree Data Accumulation Charts” to make better sense of the overall health/structure scores.

• Barrie D. Coate’s “A VIEW OF THE FUTURE CITY OF CARMEL FOREST”, May 7, 2007, ends with his prescription for an “inventory of the current forest,” including "identification of all publicly owned and privately owned trees, measurement of the trunk diameter, height and branch spread, and evaluation of insect or disease pests and a professional estimate of remaining useful lifespan," an evaluation of the forest and an “on-going, long-term commitment by the city to fund each part of the program.” Obviously, then, as of today, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea lacks a complete and comprehensive inventory, evaluation and city council commitment to a tree program. If Barrie D. Coate’s “Arboricultural Analysis and Advisory Services” for the City of Carmel’s Forest can serve as a stimulus to the city council to make a commitment to the forest and budget for a comprehensive tree program with annual funding for an inventory and updates of an inventory, evaluation and updates of evaluations, et cetera, then it would have been a worthwhile service.

Sunday, July 29, 2007

PART III: Barrie D. Coate and Associates’ “Arboricultural Analysis and Advisory Services” for the City of Carmel’s Forest

Highlights of “Tree Data Accumulation Charts
Health score (1-5) + Structure score (1-5) = Total Score (2-10)
(Interpretation: Total Score of 1 Excellent, Total Score of 10 Poor)

“The data accumulation charts which accompany this report describe each of the subject trees. A tree’s overall condition may be determined by combing the chart rating for health and structure. A perfect structure of 1 combined with a poor health rating of 4 would yield a condition rating of 5 out of a possible 10.”

“This poor a health rating, however, should serve as a warning of tree health decline, even if the tree has a perfect structure.”

(Source: RESULTS OF A REVIEW OF TREES IN A TWO BLOCK TRANSECT OF CARMEL, Barrie D. Coate and Associates, May 31, 2007)


Business District” Block: Ocean Av. – Dolores St. – 7th Av. – Lincoln St.

Tree # Species Health Structure Total Score(2-10)
1 Monterey pine 4 4 8
2 Brazilian pepper 1 1 2
3 Coast live oak 1 2 3
4 Brazilian pepper 1 2 3
5 Coast live oak 2 4 6
6 Coast redwood 1 1 2
7 Catalina ironwood 1 1 2
8 Coast redwood 1 1 2
9 Coast live oak 1 2 3
10 Coast live oak 1 2 3
11 Catalina ironwood 1 1 2
12 Coast redwood 1 1 2
13 Coast redwood 1 2 3
14 Catalina ironwood 1 2 3
15 Monterey pine 1 2 3
16 American sweetgum 2 1 3
17 Blackwood acacia 1 2 3
18 Deodar cedar 1 1 2
19 Sweetgum 2 3 5
20 Pittosporum 2 3 5
21 Ginkgo biloba 1 1 2
22 Coast redwood 2 1 3
23 Hollywood juniper 1 2 3
24 Monterey cypress 1 1 2
25 Monterey cypress 1 1 2
26 Monterey cypress 1 1 2
27 Monterey cypress 1 1 2
28 Sweetgum 1 1 2
29 Blackwood acacia 2 3 5
30 Coast live oak 1 2 3
31 Blackwood acacia 2 3 5
32 Holly oak 2 2 4
33 Coast live oak 1 1 2
34 Podocarpus gracilior 2 2 4
35 Blackwood acacia 1 3 4
36 Blackwood acacia 3 3 6
37 Victorian box 2 2 4
38 Victorian box 4 3 7
39 Victorian box 4 3 7
40 Victorian box 2 2 4
41 Monterey cypress 1 1 2
42 Sweetgum 1 2 3
43 Chinese elm 1 3 4
44 Brazilian pepper 1 3 4
45 Monterey pine 2 2 4


Residential Block:” 7th Av – Lincoln St. – 8th Av. – Monte Verde St.
Tree # Species Health Structure Total Score(10)
1 Coast live oak 3 2 5
2 Red flowering gum 2 3 5
3 Deodar cedar 1 3 4
4 Monterey cypress 1 3 4
5 Coast live oak 3 2 5
6 Monterey pine 3 2 5
7 Monterey pine 1 2 3
8 Monterey pine 2 2 4
9 Coast live oak 2 2 4
10 Coast live oak 2 1 3
11 Monterey pine 2 1 3
12 Coast live oak 3 2 5
13 Monterey pine 3 2 5
14 Coast live oak 1 2 3
15 Victorian box 1 2 3
16 Blackwood acacia 1 2 3
17 Monterey pine 3 3 6
18 Monterey pine 2 3 5
19 Monterey pine 2 2 4
20 Monterey pine 3 3 6
21 Monterey pine 2 3 5
22 Monterey pine 3 3 6
23 Monterey cypress 1 2 3
24 Monterey cypress 1 2 3
25 Coast live oak 2 4 6
26 Monterey pine 2 3 5
27 Monterey pine 3 3 6
28 Coast live oak 2 3 5
29 Coast live oak 2 1 3
30 Coast live oak 2 2 4
31 Coast live oak 1 2 3
32 Coast live oak 2 3 5
33 Coast live oak 2 3 5
34 Monterey pine 2 1 3
35 Monterey pine 2 1 3
36 Monterey pine 2 2 4
37 Coast live oak 2 1 3
38 Coast live oak 1 1 2
39 Incense cedar 1 1 2
40 Pittosporum 3 2 5
41 Pittosporum 2 2 4
42 Pittosporum 2 2 4
43 Southern magnolia 1 2 3
44 Pittosporum 2 1 3
45 Little leaf linden 1 2 3
46 Little leaf linden 1 2 3
47 Sweetgum 1 2 3
48 Sweetgum 1 2 3
49 Strawberry tree 2 2 4
50 Victorian box 1 1 2
51 Victorian box 1 2 3
52 Victorian box 1 2 3
53 Pittosporum 1 2 3
54 Monterey cypress 1 1 2
55 Monterey pine 2 1 3
56 Coast live oak 1 2 3
57 Coast live oak 2 3 5
58 Coast live oak 2 1 3
59 Coast live oak 1 1 2
60 Coast live oak 1 1 2
61 Monterey pine 3 2 5
62 Monterey pine 3 3 6
63 Monterey pine 2 3 5
64 Monterey pine 2 1 3
65 Blackwood acacia 1 2 3
66 Monterey pine 2 3 5
67 Monterey pine 2 1 3
68 Monterey pine 2 2 4
69 Monterey pine 2 3 5
70 Monterey pine 2 3 5
71 Coast live oak 1 2 3
72 Monterey pine 2 1 3
73 Monterey pine 2 2 4
74 Holly oak 2 2 4
75 California pepper 1 1 2
76 Coast live oak 2 1 3
77 Monterey pine 2 3 5
78 Coast live oak 1 2 3
79 Coast live oak 1 2 3
80 Monterey cypress 2 3 5
81 Coast live oak 1 2 3
82 Monterey pine 2 3 5
83 Strawberry tree 3 2 5

Saturday, July 28, 2007

PART II: Barrie D. Coate and Associates’ “Arboricultural Analysis and Advisory Services” for the City of Carmel’s Forest

RESULTS OF A REVIEW OF TREES IN A TWO BLOCK TRANSECT OF CARMEL

Prepared at the Request of:
Robert Tierney
Carmel Forest & Beach Commission
P.O. Box 414
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA. 93921

Site Visit by:
Barrie D. Coate
Consulting Arborist
May 31, 2007

Job #01-07-020B

As suggested by Glen Flanik of CDF (California Department of Forestry) during a meeting of interested parties in May 07, Peter Quintanilla and I prepared an inventory of the trees in two blocks of Carmel. They are the blocks bounded by Lincoln St., 8th Ave., Monte Verde St., and 7th Ave., and bounded by Ocean Ave., 7th Ave., Dolores St., and Lincoln Street.

These two blocks are roughly equivalent to many parts of Carmel and so this arboricultural analysis may be considered a small representative of the condition of trees in the main portion of Carmel’s business district and nearby residential district.

We believe that all of the privately owned and publicly owned trees in those two blocks are included in this brief survey.

Forty-five trees were evaluated in the block bordered by Ocean Ave., on its north side, while 83 trees were found on the block bordered by 7th St., on its north side.

Note that the difference is primarily due to the first block being almost covered with business buildings, while the second is primarily residential with large landscape trees.

Indeed in the business block bordering Ocean Ave., 41 of the 45 trees are on public property (91%). While the block bordered by 7th Ave., which is primarily residential had 43 of the 83 trees on public property (51%).

In the block bordering Ocean Ave., 15% of the trees are coast live oak, 13% are blackwood acacia, 11% are American sweetgum, 11% are Monterey cypress and only 6% are Monterey pine.

In contrast, in the block bordering 7th Ave., 72% of the 83 trees are native species, 36% of them being Monterey pine, 20 of those exceeding 18-inch diameter.

The data indicates that in the block bordering 7th Ave., the following trees need immediate attention.

Of the trees in the block bordering 7th Street, live oak #56 must have drop-crotch pruning of endweights to prevent limb breakage.

Blackwood acacia #29 badly needs endweight reduction to prevent limb breakage.

Acacia #31 should be removed, since artists conk infections eventually result in tree failure.

Acacias #35 and 36 should have Resistograph or drill inspection to identify the extent of interior decay.

Sweetgum #12 must have endweight reduction to prevent limb drop.

Monterey pines #62 and 63 need endweight reduction to prevent limb breakage and have deadwood removed.

After analyzing all of the trees on private and public property on two blocks in downtown Carmel, it is apparent that one factor is controlling the health and size of these trees.

The exposed soil surface available to trees on private property far exceeds the exposed soil area available to street trees, and in many cases the small available soil space street trees have had is being covered with compressed decomposed granite which further inhibits oxygen availability for roots.

The reason that an open texture of the soil within the root zone is important is that most of the hair like absorbing roots which supply the foliage with water and minerals are in the upper 18 inches of soil.

Since they require a high proportion of soil oxygen (25% by volume is ideal) to function, restriction of the exposed soil surface directly affects the ability of the root system to absorb and transport water through the vascular tissue to the foliage canopy.

In essence, a soil surface which is restricted in surface area or by compaction restricts the trees ability to supply its needs.

The results of this soil oxygen restriction are readily visible in the poor health of many street trees in Carmel.

The data accumulation charts which accompany this report describe each of the subject trees. A tree’s overall condition may be determined by combing the chart rating for health and structure. A perfect structure of 1 combined with a poor health rating of 4 would yield a condition rating of 5 out of a possible 10.

This poor a health rating, however, should serve as a warning of tree health decline, even if the tree has a perfect structure.

Specific Trees
Northeast corner of Ocean and Dolores Street.
Tree #1 a Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) on Dolores Street at the northeast corner of Ocean and Dolores Street.

Sequoia pitch moth and pine pitch canker are present in this tree. Sequoia pitch moth insect is not a bark moth and is not life threatening even though it produces 2-3 inch mounds of tan and white pitch at branch attachment sites and on the trunk but of course pitch canker will gradually kill increasing proportions of the canopy.

Tree #2 is a small Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius) which has been striped of its lower branches resulting in a poorly tapered trunk and very heavy canopy which is susceptible to limb breakage.

In addition, it has a girdling root which will someday result in failure.

Tree #3 is an example of a coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) that has topped. This tree will not produce vertical growth without significant correctional pruning.

The temporary branches on the trunk have been removed and as a result the trunk has no taper.

Tree #4 a Brazilian pepper.
The maintenance procedures have not left side branches on this tree and as a result it has no taper but it does have a dense, canopy which is susceptible to limb breakage.

Tree #5 is a coast live oak in which the top has died. The structure and health is so poor that I would recommend its removal.

The trunk has been badly damaged at 4 feet above ground as well.

Note that the soil surface around trees #2-5 is a very dense impervious yellow sandy clay which appears to be compacted.

This creates an impervious soil surface which cannot absorb water or oxygen.

Tree #6 is a coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) in excellent health and growing vigorously. Note that this tree has approximately 35-sq. ft. of open soil surface which is exposed and coarse enough to absorb water.

This is in contrast with the approximate 12-sq. ft. of open soil surface surrounding trees #2-5.

Trees #7 and 8 are a Catalina ironwood (Lyonothamnus floribundus asplenifolius) and a coast redwood in better health than most of the specimens on the street. Notice that these also have much larger exposed open soil surfaces allowing much better root growth.

Notice as well tree #8 has a bubbler adjacent to the stem so it would be receiving adequate moisture.

Now at Piccadilly Park.
Tree #9 is a coast live oak of 22-inch trunk diameter.

This tree is healthy and vigorous although it has been severely overthinned.

The good health of this tree is no doubt related to the large open soil space that has been provided for it.

Unfortunately trunk injections have been used in the trunk of this tree at approximately 4.5 feet above grade.

Note that thirteen of these injections were used.

These injections cause significant tissue damage surrounding the injection site and should not be used since there are other noninvasive ways available to provide nutrition, fungicides, and insecticides without using invasive procedures.

Tree #10 is another healthy coast live oak which also has been overthinned but its health is better than many seen in town due to the large open soil exposure provided for it.

Trees #11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are in the same park and also have more expansive than average open soil space available to them.

In each case the Catalina ironwood #11 and #14 are in excellent health and I can only suggest that the relationship between the exposed soil available for root growth and the excellent health are cause and effect.

Monterey pine #15 has minor infestations of pine pitch canker but is in much better health than the majority of trees in town.

There is an area of 110 feet in length with no street trees on either side of the street. When trees are removed entirely from an area like this it drastically changes the ambience of the street.

Tree #16 is a small American sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) in average health. Note the girdling roots which will cause reduced vigor or failure as the tree matures.

Tree #17 is a blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon) that has been overthinned and as a result will become more susceptible to limb breakage as endweight growth expands. This tree needs drop crotch pruning of endweights to prevent that breakage.

Tree #18 is deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) in a 24-sq. ft. open soil area.

This tree is vigorous and is producing a foot of growth per year as this species should.

This is no doubt related to the area of open soil available.

Tree #19 is an American sweetgum which has been thinned but endweight reduction accompanied the thinning, resulting in a canopy which should be safe from limb breakage.

Note that the planter space available for it is only 12 sq. ft., and even that is filled with decomposed granite which has been compressed.

Tree #21 is a ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba) which is in excellent health and vigorous.

Note that it is planted in a watered planter bed with a large area of open soil available to it.

A tree which is not in one of the two blocks which are the subject of this report attracted my notice and deserves comment.

At the northeast corner of Monte Verde and 8th Avenue is a Monterey cypress of approximately 60-inch diameter at 3 feet above grade which has a severe crack in it extending from the ground to approximately 20 feet above grade.

This tree is hollow through the center of it and has the potential for splitting apart.

At the very least somebody should investigate the degree of integrity in the trunk of this tree.

It certainly will need some sort of structural assistance to prevent it from splitting.

You might investigate through-bolts at 6’, 10’, and 20 feet above grade as a method preventing a massive trunk failure.

We are now beginning at the southwest corner of Monte Verde St., and 8th Avenue and moving north on Monte Verde Street.

Tree #1 is a coast live oak in very poor health which has been severely overthinned and in a soil space which retains water poorly.

Tree #2 is on private property and is a scarlet gum (Eucalyptus ficifolia) which was badly damaged in at least one of the seasonal freezes in 1972, or 1990 or 1998.

This tree has a crack between the two main parts and at some point will probably split apart.

City owned trees #5 and 6 are a coast live oak and a Monterey pine within 6 feet of each other.

The coast live oak is in poor health and leaning out beneath the canopy of the Monterey pine.

The oak is heavily infested with lichen further reducing the light available to the foliage.

The Monterey pine is growing beneath the high power lines with low power lines growing through it and has an infection by western rust gall at 2 feet above grade causing a hip canker. This defect could eventually cause tree failure.

Now on private property trees #6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are four Monterey pines and two coast live oaks.

Note once again the two coast live oaks are in much better health than adjacent trees on city property due primarily to the availability of open soil to their root systems.

Note that Street tree Monterey pine #12 a mere 25 feet from the healthy pines on adjacent private property is a pitiful small specimen of very poor health with very little foliage but it is growing in a space of only 18 inches wide.

Coast live oak #14 is in the backyard of the same residence and has a dense crown of dark green healthy foliage.

It has not been as severely thinned as city owned trees have and is an excellent specimen.

Note that it is in an exposed soil area and not restricted as those on the street.

The two adjacent back garden trees are Victorian box (Pittosporum undulatum) and blackwood acacia (Acicia melanoxylon) both of which are in excellent health, again due to lack of overthinning and availability of open soil surface.

The next six trees are Monterey pines street trees.
These trees are in a 3 foot wide open planter strip which has not suffered compressed soil added on the surface.

The soil surface is open and has weed growth in much of it suggesting easy assess by roots to oxygen.

This implies that moisture and oxygen are reaching into the soil and the root zone.

This whole line of trees is growing beneath high power lines with low power lines growing through them.

None of them are in excellent health but most of them are in acceptable levels of health.

In the backyard of these two lots are two Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) which are magnificent tall dense dark green specimens.

Note that they are not restricted by small planter spaces.

Tree #25 is a small coast live oak on private property that has been severely overthinned

The tree is healthy but its canopy is composed entirely of long poorly tapered limbs.

This style of pruning is called lion’s-tailing and should be avoided.

Tree #28 is a coast live oak on private property that is in a large open planter area and as a result is healthy but has been severely overthinned.

This lion’s-tailed pruning should be prohibited.

Trees #29 and 30 are coast live oaks on public property but note that the two of them are in a single planter that is 6 feet wide, allowing sufficient availability of water and oxygen.

In the adjacent apartment complex is a coast live oak #31 in the interior courtyard.

This tree is growing in a 2 ½ foot wide 6 foot long space which is very deep and open to large soil area beneath the planter and as a result the tree is very healthy.

Note that on the southeast corner of 7th and Monte Verde is a Monterey pine in much better condition than most we have seen.

Note as well however, that it is growing in a much larger planter space than most of the city trees.

In spite of that this tree is infected with pine pitch canker and will eventually succumb to that disease.

Tree #34 is a Monterey pine which is in better condition than most even though it is in a space 2 ½ feet wide by 10 feet long.

Unfortunately this tree has recently had the exposed soil covered with compacted decomposed granite.

Note that the base of the tree is infested with turpentine bettle (Dendroctonus valens) which will eventually cause its decline.

Adjacent of private property two coast live oaks #37, 38 in much better health than most.

Note that they are in a large exposed planter areas with irrigation.

Tree #39 is a newly planted incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens). This might be a decent candidate for street tree use here since it would not have the same disease problems that Monterey pine and Monterey cypress have although it is certainly not indigenous to this part of California.

The next three city street trees Pittosporum eugenioides which are old specimens growing in 2 foot squares.

Unfortunately someone has recently installed impervious compacted decomposed granite in the small open spaces available to the roots.

Respectfully submitted,


Barrie D. Coate
BDC/sl

Enclosures:
Tree Data Accumulation Charts
Map – 2 block survey location
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
Pictures
Kinked and Girdling Roots
WCISA Pruning Standards
Trees and Development, Matheny and Clark, p. 17
Drop-Crotch Pruning Specs
Pruning: a case against routing thinning, Bruce Hagen, Western Arborist Mag. Fall 2005
Arboriculture 2nd Edition, Richard Harris, p. 157-162


Definitions to Aid in Understanding the Preceding Analysis:

Drop-crotch pruning of endweights:
Endweight Reduction to prevent limb drop:


Pruning to Reduce (Drop Crotch)
"Reduction is the selective removal of branches and stems to decrease the height
and/or spread of a tree. This type of pruning is done to minimize the risk of failure, to reduce height or spread, for utility clearance, to clear vegetation from buildings or other structures, or to improve tree appearance."

(Source: http://www.laparks.org/dos/forest/pdf/TreeMaintGuideline.pdf)

Crown reduction” pruning to reduce the height and/or spread of a tree by cutting to a lateral branch or limb at least one-half the diameter of the cut being made.
Drop-crotch pruning” see crown reduction
(Source: http://www.ci.vancouver.wa.us/parks-recreation/parks_trails/urban_forestry/docs/stm.pdf)

Resistograph or drill inspection: Procedure to identify extent of interior decay:
“The RESISTOGRAPH® reveals it by electronically controlled drill resistance measurements.”
(Source: http://www.rinntech.com/Products/Resistograph.htm )

Sequoia pitch moth:
The sequoia pitch moth, Synanthedon sequoiae, infests most conifer trees; it is considered an “aesthetic pest.”
(Source: http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7479.html)

Pine pitch canker:
“Pitch Canker is a disease, which causes die-back of individual branches leading to a general decline in tree health, and, in some cases, premature death. This disease mainly affects pine trees in central coastal areas of California, but it has been found north of San Francisco in Mendocino County and as far south as San Diego County.”
Source: http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/forestry/curr_proj/pitch/faqpitch.html#1

“Pitch canker is a disease of pine trees that is caused by the fungus Fusarium circinatum.”

“The fungus causes infections (lesions) that can encircle or girdle branches, exposed roots, and the main stems (trunks) of pine trees.”

Source: http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/forestry/comp_proj/pnpitchcanker.pdf¬

Girdling root:
“Trees can slowly weaken and die over a period of years or decades because of root girdling. Roots begin to grow around the main stem of the tree and cut off or restrict the movement of water, plant nutrients and stored food reserves.”
(Source: http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/1000/1139.html)

Bubbler:
Bubbler irrigation
"Bubblers typically apply water on a "per plant" basis. Bubblers are very similar to the point source external emitters in shape but differ in performance. Water from the bubbler head either runs down from the emission device or spreads a few inches in an umbrella pattern. The bubbler emitters dissipate water pressure through a variety of diaphragm materials and deflect water through small orifices. Most bubbler emitters are marketed as pressure compensating. The bubbler emission devices are equipped with single or multiple port outlets. Most bubbler heads are used in planter boxes, tree wells, or specialized landscape applications where deep localized watering is preferable. The typical flow rate from bubbler emitters is between 2 and 20 gph."
(Source: http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/ageng/irrigate/ae1243w.htm)

Trunk injections:
"Trunk injection is a way of protecting trees by increasing their inner defense mechanisms and defending them from plant disorders with
Maximum efficiency
Minimum dispersion of chemicals into the atmosphere"

(Source: http://www.arbocap.com/pdf/Arbocap_EN.pdf)

Western rust gall infection causing hip canker:
Western gall rust is caused by the fungus Endocronartium (Peridermium) harknessii.

Symptoms: "Rough, globular galls on trunk or branches. Galls are proportionate in size to the branches bearing them. When the fungus is fruiting (aecia), galls are orange or yellow. Galls may kill small trees but increase in size for many years on larger trees. Trees may break easily at the gall."
(Source: http://plant-disease.ippc.orst.edu/disease.cfm?RecordID=858)

Lion’s-tailing pruning: overthinning
Pruning to Thin
"Thinning is the selective removal of small live branches to reduce crown density. Branches are ¼ to 1-inch in diameter. 10-15 percent of live foliage can be removed at one time. If more pruning is desired, it should not exceed 25 percent in a single year. Excessive removal of small branches on the lower two-thirds of a branch or stem is called lion tailing and may have an adverse effect on the tree – it is not an accepted practice."
(Source: http://www.laparks.org/dos/forest/pdf/TreeMaintGuideline.pdf)

“Lion tailing” the poor pruning practice in which the limbs are thinned from the inside of the crown to a clump of terminal foliage.
(Source: http://www.ci.vancouver.wa.us/parks-recreation/parks_trails/urban_forestry/docs/stm.pdf)

Friday, July 27, 2007

PART I: Barrie D. Coate and Associates’ “Arboricultural Analysis and Advisory Services” for the City of Carmel’s Forest

A VIEW OF THE FUTURE FOREST OF THE CITY OF CARMEL

Prepared at the Request of:
Robert Tierney
Carmel Forest & Beach Commission
P.O. Box 414
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA. 93921

Site Visit by:
Barrie D. Coate
Consulting Arborist
May 7, 2007

Job #01-07-020A

Residents and visitors alike for many years have taken home the memory of Carmel as a tall forest of lush pines as umbrellas protecting the elegantly rustic downtown and residential areas. This mental image has been replicated in travel brochures, distributed worldwide.

The very heart of Carmel is defined by its lush, green forest of pines, oaks and cypress.

If we open our eyes to today’s City of Carmel forest, we see a different image than the one our parents brought home and, unfortunately a different image that is gradually changing from the one which is so attractive to visitors.

The forest of a city is composed of trees on publicly owned and private property.

In Carmel, they combine to form an interrelated canopy which “reads” as a common canopy with all of the parts serving a part of the function of providing shade, ambience and a home for myriad birds and insects.

If the City of Carmel forest is to continue to contribute to the ambience that is Carmel to its residents and to visitors it is absolutely essential that a long-term program be designed, implemented and funded to begin the process of replacing the over-mature trees which are gradually dying out.

Cause of Decline
It must be understood that the longevity of the existing forest is affected by not only natural factors such as pine pitch canker disease in Monterey pines and California oak moth in coast live oaks but, just as importantly by conditions created by we humans. Most of these natural tree enemies are only partially manageable but the man made conditions are within our control.

The root zone allowed for each street tree is restricted by many factors including the available open soil around the trunk and since a tree’s ability to absorb minerals and water is directly related to the root systems access to oxygen and water, the current practice of filling increasing proportions of the open soil around street trees with pavement, simply accelerates the decline which these trees are experiencing. Note that the most vigorous coast live oak trees in town are those in private landscape sites with pavement over only small proportions of their root systems.

Pruning
Excessive pruning of the mature Monterey pines and live oaks often contributes to their decline as well.

When a live oak has all of the interior branches removed, the limbs can only produce new growth at the ends, and as a result long limbs which grow into adjacent trees and buildings and over streets are produced. This structure is a common cause of limb failure.

The most common cause of branch failure in Monterey pine is overthinning of the interior branches, resulting in excessive branch endweight.

These pruning errors could be prevented by demanding that arborists working in the City comply with ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) pruning procedures.

Since the trees on private property comprise such an important proportion of the Carmel Forest and since excessive pruning is practiced on private trees, the impetus to control the quality of pruning on privately owned trees should be high as well.

Replacement Species
Selection of replacement tree species should be a subject of serious concern, since well chosen species could be gracing the City throughout the 21st Century and conversely poorly chosen, disease prone or structurally unsound trees will continue to plague the City for many years as well.

If Monterey pine is to continue to be the “signature tree” or just one increment in the new forest, it will be inclement that a program of production and availability of specimens of relatively disease resistant Monterey pines exclusively for the use of the City of Carmel begin.

Expansion of the tree list should be considered but only within the parameters of acceptability by the Coastal Commission.

Installation
The quality of the plants which are purchased and the installation procedures used are incremental factors in the later performance and the longevity of trees.

If severely root bound trees are accepted from wholesale growers the major roots begin to girdle the trunk at about the same time the trees begin to contribute to the canopy and they begin to fall over just as they begin to mature resulting in loss of trees just when they begin to provide the greatest benefits.

If the installation procedure is careless, leaving the rootball below surrounding grade, and the rootball surface covered with site soil, irrigation water runs off that surface and around the rootball, creating drought stress in the newly installed tree which, at best, results in stunted, weak trees or at worst results in death.

If backfill installed around the rootball is composed of sawdust, as seen in a recently planted tree, the new tree roots may never grow out of the rootball into native soil.

Only native sandy soil should be used as fill soil around rootballs in Carmel.

Obviously there are many subjects from philosophical to practical which should be addressed if the “new” Carmel forest is to have a maximum longevity at smallest long term cost combined with the greatest contribution to the ambience of one of the most beautiful parts of the California Coast.

The rejuvenation of the forest must begin with an inventory of the current forest. This should include identification of all publicly owned and privately owned trees, measurement of the trunk diameter, height and branch spread, and evaluation of insect or disease pests as well as a professional estimate of remaining useful lifespan. Measurements of privately owned trees could be estimated from beyond fence lines. Volunteers familiar with computer data collection could reduce the cost of this portion of the project.

Next must come an evaluation of the forest based on the inventory information. This should include conclusions about, a) the areas which are most quickly losing existing forest, b) what species best fulfill the tree needs in each area, c) define the standards required for purchased tree quality and installation standards, d) estimate cost for ongoing tree purchase and installation, e) define post installation maintenance procedures, for irrigation, pruning and pest control.

Lastly, but perhaps most important must be an ongoing, long-term commitment by the city to fund each part of the program. A temporary lapse in funding for a tree program often results in an inability to reestablish city council enthusiasm for the program and the work done by previous city councils and planning commission to arrange for design, inventory, implementation and funding is forgotten.

Respectfully submitted,


Barrie D. Coate

BDC/sl


Reference:
Barrie D. Coate and Associates
23535 Summit Rd.
Los Gatos, CA 95035
408/353-1052

Thursday, July 26, 2007

INTRODUCTION: Barrie D. Coate and Associates’ “Arboricultural Analysis and Advisory Services” for the City of Carmel’s Forest

As an introduction, today’s post will present the format of Barrie D. Coate and Associates’ “Arboricultural Analysis and Advisory Services” for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

Tomorrow, Friday, July 27, PART I will feature “A VIEW OF THE FUTURE FOREST OF THE CITY OF CARMEL,” dated May 7, 2007.

On Saturday, July 28, PART II will feature “RESULTS OF A REVIEW OF TREES IN A TWO BLOCK TRANSECT OF CARMEL,” dated May 31, 2007. One block is a “business district” block and one block is a “residential district” block.

And on Sunday, July 29, PART III will feature highlights from the “Tree Data Accumulation Charts,” including the Tree #, Species, Health score, Structure score and Total score for the trees in the two blocks.

References:
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
July 3, 2007

VII. Consent Calendar
I. Consideration of a Resolution to enter a professional services contract with Barrie D. Coate and Associates to prepare a study and analysis of a portion of Carmel’s urban forest at a fee not-to-exceed $6,650.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
Thursday, July 12, 2007

V. ORDERS OF BUSINESS

1. Consideration of the Arboricultural Analysis and Advisory Services for the City of Carmel’s Forest and provide policy direction.

NOTE: Barrie D. Coate’s site visits and for his “study and analysis of a portion of Carmel’s urban forest” were May 7 and May 31, 2007. His “A VIEW OF THE FUTURE FOREST OF THE CITY OF CARMEL” was dated May 7, 2007 and his “RESULTS OF A REVIEW OF TREES IN A TWO BLOCK TRANSECT OF CARMEL” was dated May 31, 2007. Whereas, the City Council only considered a “Resolution to enter a professional services contract with Barrie D. Coate and Associates to prepare a study and analysis of a portion of Carmel’s urban forest at a fee not-to-exceed $6,650” at their July 3, 2007 City Council meeting.

Monday, July 23, 2007

CITY’S CORE COMMERCIAL TREES: 5th Av. – Mission St.. – 6th Av. – San Carlos St. Block

CITY BLOCK, TREE SPECIES, PLANTER SPACE OPENING MATERIAL INVENTORY

5th Av. – Junipero Av. – 6th Av. – Monte Verde St. Blocks

5th Av. – Mission St. – 6th Av. – San Carlos St. Block

5th Av. (south side):

1. Holly Oak (Quercus ilex): Compacted Decomposed Granite, 90 Minutes Parking Metal Pole



2. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Compacted Decomposed Granite
3. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Compacted Decomposed Granite



4. Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa): Compacted Decomposed Granite, Pavement to Trunk


5. Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens): Soil Bed, Water Meter
6. Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens): Soil Bed
7. Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens): Soil Bed
8. Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens): Soil Bed


Mission St. (west side):
9. Chinese Elm (Ulmus parvifolia): Compacted Decomposed Granite, Embedded Rocks, Brick to Trunk
10. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia): Soil, Embedded Rocks



11. Chinese Elm (Ulmus parvifolia): Soil, Embedded Rocks, Brick



12. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Compacted Decomposed Granite, Curb to Trunk



13. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia): Compacted Decomposed Granite



14. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua): Soil, Plants, Curb to Trunk



15. Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens): Soil, Plants, Bump-Out



16. Holly Oak (Quercus ilex): Soil, Plants, Weeds



17. Holly Oak (Quercus ilex): Soil, Embedded Rocks



18. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Compacted Decomposed Granite, Embedded Rocks



19. Maple (Acer): Compacted Decomposed Granite, Curb to Trunk



6th Av. (north side):
20. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua): Compacted Decomposed Granite



21. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia): Compacted Decomposed Granite



22. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Soil, Rosemary



23. Holly Oak (Quercus ilex): Soil, Rosemary



24. Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens): Soil, Rosemary



San Carlos St. (east side):
25. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Compacted Decomposed Granite, Curb to Trunk, Concrete Slab for Trash Receptacle



26. Holly Oak (Quercus ilex): Compacted Decomposed Granite



27. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua): Compacted Decomposed Granite, Soil



28. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia): Compacted Decomposed Granite, Soil


29. Holly Oak (Quercus ilex): Compacted Decomposed Granite, Brick, Pavement to Trunk
30. Holly Oak (Quercus ilex): Compacted Decomposed Granite, Brick, Pavement to Trunk
31. Holly Oak (Quercus ilex): Compacted Decomposed Granite, Brick
32. Holly Oak (Quercus ilex): Compacted Decomposed Granite, Brick, Pavement to Trunk



33. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Compacted Decomposed Granite, Curb to Trunk
34. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Compacted Decomposed Granite, Curb to Trunk



35. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Compacted Decomposed Granite, Curb to Trunk



36. Pittosporum (Pittosporum): Soil, Compacted Decomposed Granite
37. Pittosporum (Pittosporum): Soil, Compacted Decomposed Granite











Previous Posts on the City’s Core Commercial Trees:
(For all Posts, see Labels: City’s Core Commercial Trees)

Sunday, July 22, 2007

CITY’S CORE COMMERCIAL TREES: 5th Av. – Junipero Av. – 6th Av. – Mission St. Block

CITY BLOCK, TREE SPECIES, PLANTER SPACE OPENING MATERIAL INVENTORY

5th Av. – Junipero Av. – 6th Av. – Monte Verde St. Blocks

5th Av. – Junipero Av. – 6th Av. – Mission St.


5th Av. (south side):
1. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Soil Bed, Bark, No Parking Post


2. Monterey Pine Stump (Pinus Radiata): Soil Bed, Bark, No Parking Post



3. Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens): Soil Bed, Bark, No Parking Post



4. Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens): Soil, Bark Bed, Plants
5. Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens): Soil, Bark Bed, Plants



6. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia): Soil, Pavement to Trunk


7. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Soil, Bark Bed
8. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Soil, Bark Bed
9. Monterey Pine(Pinus Radiata): Soil, Bark Bed, Plants


10. Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens): Soil Bed, Plants
11. Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens): Soil Bed, Plants
12. Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens): Soil Bed, Plants
13. Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens): Soil Bed, Plants
14. Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens): Soil Bed, Plants


15. Monterey Pine (Twin Trunk) (Pinus Radiata): Soil Bed, Plants, Boulders
16. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Soil Bed, Plants, Boulders


Junipero Av. (west side):
17. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia): Compacted Decomposed Granite, Brick



18. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia): Compacted Decomposed Granite, Brick, Plant


19. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia): Compacted Decomposed Granite, Brick, Plant



20. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua): Compacted Decomposed Granite, Rock Perimeter Bump-Out



21. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Compacted Decomposed Granite



22. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia): Compacted Decomposed Granite



23. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Soil, Rock Perimeter Bump-Out


24. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia): Compacted Decomposed Granite, Soil, Pavement to Trunk


25. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia): Compacted Decomposed Granite



26. Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens): Compacted Decomposed Granite


27. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Soil
28. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Soil


29. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia): Soil Bed, Rock Perimeter Bump-Out
30. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia): Soil Bed, Rock Perimeter Bump-Out



6th Av. (north side):
31. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Soil Bed, Plants, Bump-Out



32. London Plane (Platanus acerifolia): Compacted Decomposed Granite, Pavement to Trunk


33. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Compacted Decomposed Granite, Water Meter
34. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Compacted Decomposed Granite


35. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua): Soil Bed
Mission St. (east side):
36. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua): Soil Bed



37. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Soil



38. Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa): Soil, Compacted Decomposed Granite



39. Catalina Ironwood: Soil, Compacted Decomposed Granite



40. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Compacted Decomposed Granite


41. Maple (Acer): Compacted Decomposed Granite



42. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata) (Ivy on Trunk): Soil Bed, Compacted Decomposed Granite



43. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Soil Bed, Compacted Decomposed Granite


44. Unknown: Soil, Compacted Decomposed Granite
45. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia): Soil, Embedded Rocks, Bump-Out



46. Unknown: Compacted Decomposed Granite

















Previous Posts on the City’s Core Commercial Trees:
(For all Posts, see Labels: City’s Core Commercial Trees)