Appeals Hearing Board Meeting

APPEALS HEARING BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF MONTEREY (ZOOM teleconference) Wednesday, July 7, 2021 11:00 AM 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 Forester Justin Prouty Present: CALL TO ORDER Chair Hawkins call the meeting order at 11:01 am. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Appeal of Sharon Armbrust of 32 Greenwood Way of the Forestry Department's decision to deny the application for removal of two Monterey Pine trees continued from June 28, 2021. City Forester Justin Prouty gave his presentation to the Board. Chair Hawkins asked if it is correct that tree #139 is the only tree that is before the Board for removal. Mr. Prouty agreed with Chair Hawkins. Sharon Armbrust, the appellant, said she has had issues with the tree since she moved in over 40 years ago. She went on to say that the tree is becoming more of an issue now as it ages. Ms. Armbrust said it was very clear to her that the tree’s roots were uprooting the driveway and she didn’t want to start the repairs on the driveway because she believes it will happen again due to the roots from the tree. Ms. Armbrust said when you consider a single-family dwelling, the tree is in a high traffic area for her situation. She said she believes the tree is encroaching on her driveway which is short and very steep. Ms. Armbrust said it has caused several trip and falls due to the unevenness of the pavement. Ms. Armbrust said last year they had a home inspection performed on her home because they were thinking of downsizing and wanted to get all the repairs done prior to listing the house. She said when the home inspection person came to inspect the house on a day it had been raining, the inspector went underneath the house and water was intruding underneath the garage and into the foundation. Ms. Armbrust said it can be argued that that is a driveway repair problem but it showed that there are cracks coming down from the tree trunk, to the front of the garage and all the way into the garage. She believes the tree is causing issues underneath the house. Appeals Hearing Board July 07, 2021 Minutes Ms. Armbrust said her overriding concern about the tree is her health. She said she has a host of “osteo” issues and cannot turn her neck properly despite begin very active. Ms. Armbrust said due to the tree’s location, she has to back into her driveway and garage. She went on to say that because of this, it’s getting more and more difficult to do with her neck issues. Ms. Armbrust showed a series of photos of the tree and her garage. She explained how she has to maneuver around the tree to enter her garage. She reiterated her request to have the tree removed and to get the driveway aligned so that she is able to access her garage in a normal manner. Ms. Armbrust said they have spent a lot of money taking care of and pruning the trees in her yard. She said there are 4 trees in the front yard and a dozen in the back yard so she does not feel like by removing a single tree that will dilute the property. Mr. Prouty said if the driveway is going to be widened the tree will be removed at that time. He said he was not sure what permits were needed to do that. Mr. Prouty said the Forestry department will not issue a permit to remove the tree unless the work has actually been started. Public Comments None. Board Member Discussion Board member Millich said it’s our duty to decide on the additional factors the City Forester could not take into account. He said one of those factors is the anxiety that the tree causes the appellant. He continued and said he was not aware of how this affected Ms. Armbrust until she told us. Board member Millich said he is also aware of the fact that if they decide to remove the tree, staff is required to conduct a CEQA review. He said if they did decide to remove the tree, he would hope the City Forester would, in light of the new information, agree to have the tree removed so as to eliminate the need for an environmental report. Board member Millich asked Assistant City Attorney Salameh if another permit is required to redo the driveway and if so, will an environmental report be required to do that. Assistant City Attorney Salameh said if someone wanted to repair their driveway, it would depend on the nature of the repair, a City permit is required and at that time an environmental review would be looked at for that type of permit as well. She continued and said the City Council previously determined, based on how they set up the City Code, that those are ministerial actions and therefore are not subject to a CEQA review. Ms. Salameh said in terms of the City Forester’s review, when it’s purely based on health and safety considerations, in those instances the City Council has determined that is a ministerial action, based on a resolution passed in 2009. She said when you look at factors outside of that, which the Board has the ability to do and the Forester does not, then you get into the area of discretionary decisions and that is when a more fulsome review is required under CEQA. Ms. Salameh said Ms. Armbrust can decide that she wants to apply to have her driveway widened or repaired, and she can include that she wants to remove the tree at the same time. She said the review can be taken on all together. Or she said, Ms. Armbrust can ask to have the tree removed now, separate from any driveway repair, and look at that piece by itself. However, only the one tree is before the Board at this time. Board member Glenzer asked Ms. Salameh if the Board does find that the tree should be removed for the reasons Ms. Armbrust has stated, how long is the CEQA process. 2 Appeals Hearing Board July 07, 2021 Minutes Ms. Salameh said for a single tree, this could be done by the Planning staff as opposed to hiring an outside consultant for a larger CEQA review. She went on to say that staff would need to check with the Planning Department to find out their schedules, but she doesn’t anticipate it being a lengthy process. Ms. Salameh said the Board does not have the authority to approve CEQA documents such as a Mitigated Negative Declaration. If it was found that there would an environmental impact from removing a mature, scenic tree, then there would likely be some sort of Mitigated Negative Declaration involving mitigation measures whether it’s planting another tree and an in-lieu fee. Finally, she said the Mitigated Negative Declaration would need to be approved by the Planning Commission or the City Council. Board member Millich said he thinks the Board should make a decision instead of “kicking the can down the road”. Chair Hawkins said he re-read Mr. Prouty’s report and he does not feel like he should vote to remove the tree. He said the tree has always been there and he is a little reluctant to vote to remove the tree. Chair Hawkins said he can relate to Ms. Armbrust as he is close to her in age and can understand the difficulty she has with the driveway. Board member Glenzer said he is inclined to approve having the tree removed and it is uniquely due to Ms. Armbrust’s current health situation and the difficulty she has getting in and out of the driveway. He said he is ready to make a motion but wanted to know if they need to talk about mitigation measures. Ms. Salameh said the Board does not need to but the CEQA review will likely come back and suggest appropriate mitigation measures. Board member Glenzer made a motion to allow removal of the tree. Vice Chair Millich seconds the motion. Ms. Salameh said the motion should also include the caveat that the Board must be satisfied with the ultimate CEQA analysis that staff will prepare. Board member Glenzer said yes that is correct. Assistant City Attorney Salameh clarified that the tree removal was conditionally granted subject to completion of the CEQA analysis. 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 Board member Glenzer and Vice Chair Millich said they appreciate Mr. Prouty’s report, presentation and clarity around the issue. Chair Hawkins said he agrees with Mr. Prouty’s protection of the trees. 3  Appeals Hearing Board July 07, 2021 Minutes ADJOURNMENT Chair Hawkins adjourned the hearing at 11:54 am. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Alicia Salas Daryl Hawkins Recording Secretary Chair of the Board 4