Appeals Hearing Board Meeting

APPEALS HEARING BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF MONTEREY Wednesday, February 03, 2021 11:00 PM MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Board members Present: Hawkins, Millich, Glenzer Absent: Yaqub (Alternate) Board Staff Assistant City Attorney Karin Salameh, Deputy City Attorney Ryan Donlon Present: and Clerk of the Board Alicia Salas Other Staff City Forester, Justin Prouty Present: CALL TO ORDER Chair Hawkins called the meeting order at 11:07 pm PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Appeal by Robert C. and Pamela K. Liems of the Forester's Decision to Deny Application for Removal of Two Monterey Pines (Not a CEQA Project) Appellant Pamela Liems, gave her reasons for why the trees should be removed. She said she and her husband are elderly and have issues negotiating the staircase to the back door that most people use to enter the house. Ms. Liems said the landscape designer will widen the drive way and make the front entry more accessible which will minimize the use of the second driveway as the main entrance. She added they are open to replacing any trees that gets removed. Board member Millich asked if the appellant would be inclined to withdraw their appeal or continue the hearing so that they could work with a landscape architect and the City Forester to create a plan that worked for all parties. Ms. Liems said she would be agreeable to continuing the hearing to a later date. Deputy City Attorney Ryan Donlon who represents the City Forester said a continuance would not be proper as the information Ms. Liems provided was not provided to the City Forester at the time he made his determination of the application. Mr. Donlon asked the board to make a determination on this appeal or Ms. Liems could withdraw her request. Board member Millich asked the appellants if they were agreeable to withdrawing the appeal. Mr. Liems said he was agreeable to that.  Appeals Hearing Board February 03, 2021 Minutes Board member Glenzer asked Mr. Prouty to explain again the different route the appellant could take to get the tree removed. Mr. Prouty said this appeal was based on the evidence that was presented to him and that was that the trees were a fire hazard concern. He said that he didn’t think the City has been presented with the plans for landscaping. Assistant City Attorney Karin Salameh said the hearing today is for the two trees that you presented as a fire hazard and the evidence that was before the Forestry Department. She said if the appellants wanted to go forward considering that appeal then they can do that or they can withdraw their appeal and submit a new application to the Planning Department regarding the new landscaping. Mr. Liems said he would like to submit an application to the Planning Department. Ms. Salameh confirmed for the record that the appellants wanted to withdraw the appeal so that they could submit a different application to the Planning Department. Mr. Liems agreed with Ms. Salameh’s statement. Public Comments None. Board Member Discussion None. 2. Appeal by the Tanglewood HOA of Forester's Decision to Deny Application for Removal of One Monterey Pine (Not a CEQA Project) Curt Chaffee, manager of Tanglewood Property, said they are worried about the tree in question as it has been a concern for several years. He said at least 70% of the growth is on the lean side. He said the path, if it should fall, would hit unit 75 which is currently occupied. Mr. Chaffee said due to this particular tree’s lean it was decided to get a report from Arborist Amanda Gates. He said Ms. Gates assessment was that the tree should be removed. Justin Prouty said the arborist report that he submitted give his position on the tree. He said the tree does have a lean but not a big one and it otherwise a healthy tree. Mr. Prouty said he disputes a lot of the claims that Ms. Gates makes in her report. Board member Glenzer asked Mr. Prouty what amount of parasitic growth would be relevant to the future of the tree and what amount of parasitic growth is not. Mr. Prouty said the mistletoe is common and is not a fungus. It will make the tree grow slower and is more of a concern in the timber industry because the it slows the growth of the tree and affects the bottom-line. He said he wasn’t concerned by the presence of mistletoe. Board member Glenzer asked Mr. Prouty, from his perspective, what is the difference in an acceptable lean on a tree versus an unacceptable one. 2 Appeals Hearing Board February 03, 2021 Minutes Mr. Prouty said lean in itself, in a tree not considered a defect. He said you have to look at the overall structure, for example, the buttress roots that provide stability, whether the lean caused by soil failure, and the crown balance. He said in his opinion, the crown was balanced and had branching on both sides. Board member Glenzer said that, according to a November 20, 2020 email, the HOA had the name of another arborist that had interior testing equipment. Board member Glenzer asked Mr. Chaffee whether any other testing had been performed since the November 20, 2020 email. Mr. Chaffee said according to Amanda Gates, there are only a few people who can do that type of work in our area. He said they made a few calls to those individuals but never received any calls back so no other tests have been performed. Board member Millich asked Mr. Prouty if he takes into account the possible damage to the property when determining if a tree should be removed? Mr. Prouty said that is part of the general tree risk assessment standards that are established by International Society of Arboriculture. He said that is considered and there is a matrix for that kind of assessment. Board member Millich asked Mr. Prouty what the angle is of the tree and how he determines when it’s considered dangerous. He said it would matter on the compounding factors. Mr. Prouty said in this instance the tree has about a 15-degree lean and he would not consider that a problem. Chair Hawkins said since the roots are surrounded by concrete pavement, are they getting enough water to thrive through the asphalt. He continued and asked Mr. Prouty if Monterey Pines benefit from the moisture of the fog. Mr. Prouty said yes, they do, and this tree is an established tree so it probably has feeder or buttress roots that are down far enough to reach that constant moisture that percolates down. Chair Hawkins said the tree looks healthy and the lean appears to be angling toward the sun. Public Comments None. Board Member Discussion Board member Millich said it was a close decision for him but the two things that influenced his vote is the fact of danger and possible failure. Chair Hawkins said he agrees with Board member Millich regarding the potential danger. Chair Hawkins said he does not see many new young trees in the area. He said if one tree gets replaced with three new trees, then that would be a good thing. Chair Hawkins said the tree is ok for now but could become a problem later and the tree is a danger, it is a perceived danger to the Home Owners Association. Board member Glenzer said he did not learn anything new from the hearing that would make him question the science of Mr. Prouty’s report. Board member Millich moved to sustain the appeal and replace the tree with three new trees. Chair Hawkins seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call: 3  Appeals Hearing Board February 03, 2021 Minutes AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Hawkins, Millich NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Glenzer ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 3. Appeal by Chinyere Ogbonna of Forester's Decision to Deny Application for Removal of One California Pepper Tree (Not a CEQA Project) Appellant Chinyere Ogbonna said she wanted to ensure that her request to remove a tree was reasonable so she consulted four different arborists. Ms. Ogbonna said the consensus was that it was a reasonable request to try to have the tree removed based on where it was located on her property. She said it has been her intention to replace the tree; she does not want a property without trees. Ms. Ogbonna said the location of the tree gives her anxiety because it is located above the sewer line. She said she is happy to follow any recommendations made by the Board. Ms. Ogbonna said she thinks the aesthetics of the neighborhood could be improved by planting a tree in a location that is more sustainable. And she said she hoped to improve the property value as well by removing the tree and planting trees in the new location. Ms. Ogbonna said her neighbor has expressed some concern about the tree and has her buy-in as well. Ms. Ogbonna said she loves to garden and since the front yard is South facing it is optimal for gardening. Chair Hawkins said that if Ms. Ogbonna had the sewer line wrapped in plastic then he believes she should not have any further issues with the roots attacking the sewer line. City Forester Justin Prouty said damage to sewer pipes are usually related to existing damage like a crack which the tree will definitely capitalize on and let you know you have an issue. He said when the pipe is repaired there is usually no reason for the tree to break through a pipe if there is adequate growing space. Board member Millich said he thought this was a case of “I wish the tree was somewhere else” as opposed to a defective tree. Board member Glenzer said he feels the same way as Board member Millich. Chair Hawkins said he believes that this tree is a significant one in the neighborhood because there are not as many trees in that part of Monterey. He said he agreed with Mr. Prouty in that the tree was worth saving for the City of Monterey. Chair Hawkins said if Ms. Ogbonna choose to replace the tree with fruit trees they would not be as significant throughout many months of the year as they are deciduous. Ms. Ogbonna said that in her initial application she indicated that she would replace the tree with fruit trees but didn’t realize the trees would not be sufficient and would be happy to replant with any tree on the website. She reiterated that she has no opposition to replanting trees on her property. 4 Appeals Hearing Board February 03, 2021 Minutes Board member Glenzer asked Ms. Ogbonna if in 40 years someone else have will tree issues if you replace the tree in question with three more trees. Ms. Ogbonna said she believes by removing the pepper tree and replanting the new trees in a different location that is a more sustainable location, it would not cause any further issues down the road. She said she did speak with a landscaper and they said it would be an acceptable space for trees. Chair Hawkins asked Ms. Ogbonna if she had a backyard to which she said she does not have a backyard but said she feels that the front yard will be plenty of space to replant the new trees and have a garden as well. Deputy City Attorney Ryan Donlon said the recommendation of the City Forester is not to accept a fee in lieu of planting new trees but that is allowed by the City Code. Public Comments Carolyn Mitchell, neighbor of Ms. Ogbonna. Ms. Mitchell said she supports the removal of the tree. She said if you only prune or trim the tree to be able to see the oncoming traffic up the hill, it is short lived because it has very long, draping branches which obstruct the view at times. Ms. Mitchell said she removed a tree from her backyard, which is visible from the street, and she will be replanting with an olive tree. She said the sparse look now is not reflective of the final look as she still needs to plant the olive tree. Ms. Mitchell said she is at the hearing in support of her neighbor. Board Member Discussion Board member Glenzer asked Mr. Prouty if when he does a tree assessment he takes into consideration the safety factor of viewing the road and traffic. Mr. Prouty said it is broadly written into the Code and his criteria to remove a tree is when pruning or maintenance is not an option or reasonable anymore. Mr. Prouty said the safety concerns were not initially listed on the application. When he does an observation of a tree he is still using his common sense, so if he finds something that was not on the application but he can see the issue he would consider that as well when making the assessment. Board member Millich said it’s a healthy tree and probably shouldn’t have been planted there but it’s the shape of the lot that is causing the concern and not the tree. He said he believe in this instance there isn’t enough evidence to justify removing the tree. Board member Glenzer said the tree is a healthy tree and there isn’t any data to suggest it’s not. He said the decision lies between health of the tree in consideration with certain aesthetics and Ms. Ogbonna’s desire for gardening space. He said the third part, the safety factor, is new information. Board member Glenzer said he is uncomfortable with removing trees based on aesthetics. He said he doesn’t feel like he can make a call regarding the safety factor and agrees with Board member Millich. He thinks the appeal should be denied based on the information that they have before them. Chair Hawkins said the tree is able to be trimmed up so that the line of sight is there when you drive out of the driveway. Board member Millich made a motion to deny the appeal. Board member Glenzer seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call: 5  Appeals Hearing Board February 03, 2021 Minutes AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Mllich, Glenzer, Hawkins NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT Chair Hawkins adjourned the hearing at 12:36 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Alicia Salas Daryl Hawkins Recording Secretary Chair of the Board 6