Appeals Hearing Board Meeting

APPEALS HEARING BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF MONTEREY (Zoom teleconference) Tuesday, May 4, 2021 2:00 PM MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Board members Present: Hawkins, Millich, Glenzer Absent: Yaqub (Alternate) Board Staff Assistant City Attorney Karin Salameh and Clerk Alicia Salas Present: Other Staff City Forrester Justin Prouty Present: CALL TO ORDER Chair Hawkins call the meeting order at 2:02 pm CONSENT ITEMS 1. Minutes of October 21, 2020 Board Member Glenzer made a motion to approve the minutes of October 21, 2020. Vice Chair Millich seconds the motion. The motion carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Hawkins, Millich, Glenzer NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 2. Minutes of November 18, 2020 Vice Chair Millich made a motion to approve the minutes of November 18, 2020, with the changes he indicated. Board Member Glenzer seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Hawkins, Millich, Glenzer NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 3. Minutes of December 7, 2020 Board Member Glenzer made a motion to approve the minutes of December 7, 2020.  Appeals Hearing Board May 4, 2021 Minutes Vice Chair seconds the motion. The motion carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Hawkins, Millich, Glenzer NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC HEARING 4. Appeal by Cheryl Kent of 778 Via Mirada of the Forestry's Department Decision to deny the application for removal of one Monterey Pine (Not a CEQA Project) City Forester Justin Prouty gave his presentation to the Board. Co-appellant Tina Nieto said she disagrees with the Forester as she believes the tree is a hazardous condition. Ms. Nieto said she finally acted because her neighbor let her know that the limbs keep falling from the tree. Ms. Nieto said she had a “tree person” come to her house to mitigate the tree prior to asking the city for help. She is willing to plant as many trees as the Board would like but she feels like the tree is a risk for the City of Monterey. Ms. Nieto stated the tree is in a high traffic area for her neighbor as the tree is close to where they entertain outside. She said she believes the neighborhood would agree that the tree is a danger. Ms. Nieto said the property value of her home will go down because of the dangerous condition of the tree. She said as far as the aesthetic value of the tree, if she keeps trimming the tree every time a limb falls, the only thing that would be left is a stick and she doesn’t feel like that adds to the aesthetic value of Monterey. Co-appellant Cheryl Kent said just by the weight of the limb that she dragged to the street, she believes if that limb had hit a person, it would seriously hurt them or kill them. She went on to say that she does not think it is fair to put her neighbors’ lives in peril every day and that it is more about safety for her than anything else. Ms. Nieto said both her and Ms. Kent work in the safety profession and so to them, they are trying to mitigate risks for the everyone. Ms. Kent said if the tree should fail and it hits someone or kills someone, they could be partially liable, and she does not feel like that is fair if there is a way to fix the issue. Board member Glenzer asked the appellant if they were bringing any evidence, other than their opinions, about the health of the tree. Ms. Nieto said that she also asked her neighbor to address the issue and she is waiting to speak. She continued and said that as a public safety professional, she believes the tree is dangerous. She said she did not think the tree would suffer total collapse, but it is the limbs within the tree that are her concern because they are huge. 2 Appeals Hearing Board May 4, 2021 Minutes Vice Chair Millich asked appellants if they had urban professional’s written opinion that would contradict what the City Forester had said in his report. Ms. Kent said she believed that it was part of the original application that was submitted to the Forester. Vice Chair Millich said he did not remember a report on the health of the tree. Mr. Prouty verified that there was not a report with the application or in the hearing packet. Chair Hawkins said he knows that Monterey Pines all have some sort of lean. He asked Mr. Prouty to give his opinion on the lean. Mr. Prouty said he inspected the tree in March 2021 and did not think the lean was very significant. He said his best guess was about 10-15% at the most. Board member Glenzer asked Mr. Prouty to give his opinion on the likelihood of the canopy limbs failing. Mr. Prouty said that one limb should be removed and the other two should have the weight taken off them at the ends. He said he did not ascend he tree but he believes there would still be enough canopy to make the tree viable for the rest of its life. Board member Glenzer asked Mr. Prouty if anything can be done to determine the health of the tree and figure out if total failure is eminent. Mr. Prouty said he uses the same methodology as when he is evaluating City trees that he would when evaluating private trees. He said he looks at the overall tree and he decides on the health versus the problems with the tree. Mr. Prouty said if there are more problems with the tree than it is healthy, then he is inclined to remove it. He continued and said if the tree is healthy but has some problems then he will investigate further and conduct testing. Mr. Prouty said for total tree failure, he would look at the base of the tree and the roots. When he went to inspect the tree, he met with Ms. Kent and Jose, their tree guy. He said at the time, their main concern was not total tree failure, but the falling limbs. He thought that it was a legitimate concern. Mr. Prouty said that the risk of the remaining limbs falling could be mitigated by pruning rather than removal of the whole tree. Public Comments Sylvie Mendes, neighbor, said the tree has a big lean towards her house as well as her other neighbor’s house. She said many of the limbs are like sticks with the heaviness at the ends and does not see how trimming the ends would solve the problem. She said she believes the whole limb should be removed but she said there are many limbs like that, and does not think that would look appealing with only the crown at the top of the tree. Ms. Mendes said they do not go near the tree or use their gazebo when it is windy as it causes them concern. She said the tree needs to go because it causes her and her husband stress. Joe Mendes, neighbor, said the previous owners were from Los Angeles and did not live in the home. He said they were unable to deal with them regarding the tree because no one was around. He said only recently, since the new owners purchased the home, have they been able to share their concerns, which date back at least 12 years. Ms. Neito said the Mendes’ have been dealing with this tree a lot longer than she has and it is stressing them. She said it is taking a toll on the neighborhood. 3 Appeals Hearing Board May 4, 2021 Minutes Board Member Discussion Vice Chair Millich said he was reviewing the standards for appeal of the Forester’s decision, and it lists four criteria, other than tree health and safety, that the Board may take into consideration that forester does not. He said the burden of proof for the appeal is on the applicant. He believes the appellants’ and neighbors’ concerns are real. Vice Chair Millich said the City’s Urban Forester has said the tree is healthy and that it needs to be trimmed by a certified forester. He said the appellant did not provide anyone, in the way of an expert, who says the tree must go. Vice Chair Millich said he would like to provide some relief for the appellants, but said he could not because he felt as if the appellants had not met the burden of proof to show that the Forester was wrong or that the Board should use their discretion and overturn his decision. Chair Hawkins said he grew up with the Monterey Pine Forest in his backyard. He said if you look around the forest most pine trees lean; he said it is almost normal. Chair Hawkins said the Forester said the tree is safe, sound, and secure and he is inclined to support the Forester’s decision. He said the tree limbs probably need to be trimmed in the future, but the tree itself appears to be sturdy. Board member Glenzer said he had nothing to add. Assistant City Attorney Salameh said the Department has provided a proposed decision so if the Board has had a chance to review it they could instruct whether they want to adopt that decision and its findings or make their own. Board member Glenzer made a motion to deny the appeal and adopt the proposed decision. Vice Chair Millich seconds the motion. The motion carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Hawkins, Millich, Glenzer 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 2:56 pm 4  Appeals Hearing Board May 4, 2021 Minutes Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Alicia Salas Daryl Hawkins Recording Secretary Chair of the Board 5