Debate rooted in town’s love of trees
At issue was the destruction or damage to five trees
aARMiL >> Folks in Carmel love their trees — so much so that if some are damaged or destroyed during a construction project they will rain grief on the builder.
In August, general contractor Jaroslav “Jerry” Stepanek was fined $50,000 when one of his subcontractors destroyed or damaged five trees, including a 75-foot tall Monterey cypress in Stepanek’s neighbor’s yard. Stepanek appealed the fine that was heard by the City Council last week.
Stepanek is the owner-builder of a property at Guadalupe 4 Northeast of Third Avenue,
as Carmel’s addresses go, who hired a subcontractor to excavate the lot in preparation for laying a foundation for a onestory, 1,800-square-foot house.
But when the city’s forester, Sara Davis, inspected the work, she discovered some root systems that were severely damaged or severed by a small front-loader, which led to the destruction of two of the trees, including the imminent loss of the Monterey cypress. Stepanek, in a phone call to the council, said blaming him was unfounded.
“These charges are draconian and baseless,” Stepanek said.
He was fined the $50,000 by the city’s Forest and Beach Commission on Aug. 20, something Stepanek’s lawyer, Alex Lorca with the law firm of Fenton & Keller, said was exorbitant.
“It’s like trying to kill a fly with a sledgehammer,” he said.
During the appeal to the City Council, which often resembled a court hearing complete with lawyers, competing experts and a jury, Stepanek, Lorca and Jason Clayton, the subcontractor, tried to shift the blame onto Davis, alleging she knew how close the excavation was to the trees because of orange lines painted on the dirt.
Davis denied that, saying the first time she saw the orange lines was when she went to the property the day before she issued a stop-work order because of the root damage she obser ved. Clay ton argued that it wasn’t that bad.
“T here were maybe three (roots) that were the size of a quarter,” he said. “The rest were the size of a pimple.”
At one point she was on site, she said, but Clayton was in a discussion with the project architect about a drain pipe. So she said she told them she would be back the next day to discuss how the grading needed to be done regarding the drain line.
“That was the first time I saw the painted marks,” Davis told the council. “There were roots that were torn.”
Clayton blamed Davis for cutting a large root, but Davis explained to the council that the root was severely torn when she discovered it so she cut the tip to allow better healing.
Stepanek said he needed to remove one oak tree because it was “leaning.” Davis said it was doing no such thing.
“That tree was growing in that direction,” she said, empha sizing the word “growing.” “It started to
lean after the roots were severed and the tree became detached from the soil.”
Council members didn’t buy into the attempt to blame Davis. Councilman Jeff Baron said he thought the fine should be higher “because of the callous disregard they showed.” Public Works director Robert Harary said the fine was set at $50,000 in part because of the public outcry.
“We were getting a lot of pressure from the community,” he said. “Failure to protect and maintain trees on construction and demolition sites is a violation of the municipal code and grounds for suspension of the building permit.”
Callers into the meeting were equally unforgiving of the tree damage. J.C. Myers, a Carmel resident and member of the
Forest and Beach Commission, said when he’s out walking with his wife, kids and their dog he feels that trees are “the lifeblood of this town.”
“It’s disheartening to know there are builders out there who are neglecting the necessity to protect special trees in our town,” he said. “I find it very difficult to understand how someone with experience and knowledge of our area would be so negligent in this particular instance.”
And all of that was before the topic switched to the Monterey cypress. The debate went back and forth about whether the cypress could be or should be saved. Lorca, Stepanek’s lawyer, accused the nextdoor neighbor, Mo Massoudi, of not wanting the cypress and in fact wanted it removed.
“He sees this as an opportunity to have it removed at someone else’s expense,” Lorca said.
Massoudi, who is also running for a City Council seat, said the only reason he wants the tree removed is because of danger to life and limb.
“We are gravely concerned that this tall cypress tree may fall on us,” he said. “It has placed our lives and our property in harm’s way.”
Stepanek hired an arborist that said the tree could be saved, but Davis countered that, yes, there is an outside chance it could be saved, but she wasn’t willing to find out by having the tree fall on a person or property.
“We are here to protect the public and that tree, in my opinion, poses a greater risk to the public and that’s why I’m recommending the tree be removed.”
T here is a retaining wall on Massoudi’s property that restricted root growth, and then with the damage on the other side of the tree from the excavation it made the tree unstable, Davis said.
She also explained why Clay ton’s position that only small roots were cut is faulty. She agreed that there were no large roots cut on the cypress, but the small, fibrous roots were important to the tree’s health.
“That’s where the water, nutrients and gas exchange happens,” Davis said. “When those roots are severed it calls into question the future viability of the tree.”
In the end, the council voted 5- 0 to have the tree removed at Stepanek’s expense and also voted 5- 0 to lower the fine to $33,900 but also ordered that the trees must be replaced.