Appeals Hearing Board Meeting

APPEALS HEARING BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF MONTEREY (ZOOM teleconference) Monday, August 23, 2021 10:00 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 10:04 am. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Appeal by Keebom Kang of the Forestry Division’s denial for the removal of one Monterey Pine at 34 Deer Stalker Path. City Forester Justin Prouty gave his presentation to the Board. Board member Glenzer asked Mr. Prouty to give his reasons for granting permission to remove one tree and why he didn’t grant permission for the other. Mr. Prouty said as far as the removed tree is concerned, it did have a large structural limb fail that he said this left the rest of the tree compromised and the health outcome for that tree. Mr. Prouty said this is a mature tree and it is not going to live very long. Board member Glenzer asked Mr. Prouty if a lean on a tree that has increased the lean over the past 15 years a concern to him. Mr. Prouty said as per the pictures he included in his report, you can see that the tree has a slight lean away from the house. He said the lean is not a lean that would be predictive of which direction the tree could fail. Mr. Prouty said to him it could fall in any direction. He said it is encroaching on the deck but he thought it was due to growth and not a lean. Mr. Prouty said is the lean is related to growth towards the sun or it is structural. He said he did not find that the tree leaned due to root failure. He went on to say that with a tree of this size it would be pretty easy to tell if it was leaning due to the roots. Mr. Prouty said when he examined the tree, he did not notice any signs that it was in decline. Board member Millich asked Mr. Prouty how long he thought the tree in question would live. Mr. Prouty said it is hard to put a number on a tree of how long it will live. He said in the current state that it’s in now, as a mature tree that has reached it total height, it could be 10-15 years, possibly more, depending on site conditions and drought, etc. Appeals Hearing Board August 23, 2021 Minutes Appellant, Keebom Kang, gave his presentation. Mr. Kang presented photos to show the tree is leaning. He said the arborist mentioned in his report that the tree does lean towards the house. Mr. Kang said Mr. Prouty did not consider the impact or the consequences of failure of the tree. He went on to say all bedrooms are below the tree and if the tree fails it would be catastrophic. Mr. Kang said the best way to minimize potential damage is to remove the root cause. He said in May of 2021 a large limb failed and hit the house, damaging the gutters and causing minor damage to the roof and deck. Mr. Kang said if the limb had hit one or two feet to the right then the damage would have been catastrophic with possible injuries. He went on to say he is uncomfortable after that incident as to what might happen during a high wind storm. Mr. Kang said about 15 years ago he hired a contractor to reshape his deck because the tree was encroaching on it. He said the contractor cut the deck and railing in an L shaped divot to accommodate the tree. Mr. Kang said he is aware the City of Monterey is trying to protect the environment and he appreciates that as he is an avid hiker and biker. He also said as a longtime resident of Monterey, he appreciates that the City is doing a great job protecting its residents; however, the City needs to evaluate the environmental benefit of keeping this aging tree versus the safety of its residents. Mr. Kang closed by asking the Board to approve his removal permit for the safety of him and his family. Board member Glenzer asked Mr. Kang to describe his level of anxiety and how many people live in the home. Mr. Kang said it is only him and his wife right now but two of his daughters and his grandchildren live in the Bay Area; they come to visit often. He said during COVID they stayed with him for about six months in the rooms right under where the limb fell. Board member Glenzer asked Mr. Kang if he has the tree pruned regularly and Mr. Kang said he does have it maintained and the last time it was pruned was June 2020. Mr. Kang said the limb that failed was almost as large as a regular tree with an eight-inch diameter. Board member Glenzer asked Mr. Prouty what would be the impact of keeping one tree 10-15 years versus replanting two new trees that would help contribute to the ecosystem and environment over the next 30 years. Mr. Prouty said the benefit of having these large mature healthy tree is natural regeneration. He said that tree is continuously producing cones and pollen and it’s benefiting overall, but he also said losing one Monterey Pine tree is not a blow to this community. Chair Hawkins said the lean on this tree is a typical lean of a Monterey Pine. He said these trees tend to not grow vertical; they tend to move to get more sunlight at the top. He finished by saying leaning is not an issue for this tree. Public Comments None. Board Member Discussion Board member Millich said we can always replace a tree but we cannot replace a person. He said he is struggling with making a decision but he said he would vote to grant Mr. Kang the permit to remove the tree. 2 Appeals Hearing Board August 23, 2021 Minutes Board member Glenzer said his concerns are with the drought the state is in. He went on to say by all assessments the tree is health but with the combination of excessive weather patterns, high winds and the drought that could make for some issues in the future. Board member Glenzer said he is very empathic to the subjective anxiety of living in this house. He also said he appreciates all the care and attention the appellant has given to this tree over the past couple of decades. Board member Glenzer finished by saying he is inclined to side with the appellant. Chair Hawkins said he is responsible for the tree care at his church. He said they cut down five trees at the church but they were clearly dead from the drought which he said is not the case for this tree. He said it still has a lot more life in it. Chair Hawkins said he also understands the anxiety the appellant is feeling. He said he is a little bit torn on the decision. Board member Millich made a motion to grant the permit. Assistant City Attorney Salameh said your motion should also include that the appeal be conditionally granted based on the findings of a high level of anxiety experienced by the appellant but staff would still need to perform the CEQA analysis in order to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. She said once staff has had a chance to complete the analysis for removal, then staff will bring that back to the Board to review. She finished by saying, ultimately the CEQA analysis can only be approved by the Planning Commission or the City Council. Board member Millich asked Ms. Salameh if she knew what the timeline would be for something like that to happen. Ms. Salameh said the Planning Department is very understaffed right now and in this instance because the tree is a mature healthy tree it will not qualify for any exemptions and will need to go through an initial study and then a Mitigated Negative Declaration in all likelihood, which she said is not a quick process. Board member Millich amended his motion to include the language Ms. Salameh suggested. Board member Glenzer seconds the amended motion. The motion carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Millich, Hawkins, Glenzer NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board member Millich said he wanted to be clear, he was not attacking Mr. Prouty’s work but the Board is given criteria about the issue that Mr. Prouty does not have. He said when the Board finds to remove a tree, it’s not because Mr. Prouty was wrong but the Board has additional criteria to consider when making a decision. He finished by saying he respects Mr. Prouty’s opinion and the work he is doing. 3  Appeals Hearing Board August 23, 2021 Minutes Clerk Salas said the next upcoming meetings will either be in person at the City Council Chambers or a hybrid with some members appearing remotely. ADJOURNMENT Chair Hawkins adjourned the hearing at 10:37 am. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Alicia Salas Daryl Hawkins Recording Secretary Chair of the Board 4