Appeals Hearing Board Meeting

APPEALS HEARING BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF MONTEREY Thursday, January 29, 2026 10:00 AM MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Board members Present: Glenzer, Hoffmeister, and Fritz Absent: none Board Staff City Attorney Christine Davi and Clerk of the Board Alicia Salas Present: Other Staff Assistant City Attorney Karin Krattli, Assistant Urban Forester Mike Tope, Present: and Park Operations Manager Thys Norton CALL TO ORDER Recording Secretary Alicia Salas called the meeting to order at 10:00 am PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Minutes of February 21, 2024 Board member Glenzer made a motion to approve the minutes. Board member Fritz seconded the motion. The motion was carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Glenzer, Fritz, Hoffmeister NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 2. Minutes of September 18, 2025 Board member Fritz made a motion to approve minutes. Board member Glenzer seconded the motion. The motion was carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Glenzer, Fritz, Hoffmeister NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None  Appeals Hearing Board January 29, 2026 Minutes 3. Appeal by Charley Chell of the Forestry Division’s Decision to Deny the Application for Removal of a Monterey Pine in the Backyard of 814 Martin Street (Not a Project under CEQA Implementation Guidelines, Article 20, Section 15378 and Article 5, Section 15061) Charley Chell gave his presentation and took questions from the Board. Board member Fritz asked when the last time Mr. Chell had the tree inspected. Mr. Chell said it was about 2 years ago. Board member Hoffmeister asked how long Mr. Chell lived in his home. Mr. Chell responded that he has lived there since about 2019. Board member Hoffmeister asked if Mr. Chell’s neighbors had put anything in writing regarding the tree. Mr. Chell said they would be happy to do that, but he did not ask them to. Chair Glenzer asked Mr. Chell to describe what he has done to the tree over the last few years. Mr. Chell said 2020 Urban Lumberjacks came to look at the tree; in 2022 another arborist came to look at the tree. He added that Urban Lumberjacks came in 2023 and again in December 2025 to prune a different tree. Assistant City Attorney Karin Krattli gave the Department’s presentation and took questions from Board. Ms. Krattli introduced Assistant City Forester Mike Tope and asked him questions regarding the tree in question. Ms. Krattli asked Mr. Tope if his certification was similar to Arborist Amanda Gates’ certification, to which Mr. Tope said that is correct. Ms. Krattli asked if Mr. Tope had gone to the property to personally inspect the tree, he said he did. She then asked him to describe what he had observed. Mr. Tope said the tree appeared to be healthy based on his visual inspection. He said for the species, the canopy exhibited vigorous growth and did not see any examples of obvious defects on the tree. Mr. Tope said there were no obvious signs that the tree was compromised and no signs of broken branches. He said that the tree would benefit from preventative pruning of the canopy to help reduce the weight over the structure. He added that based on his Level 1 Visual Inspection, the tree appeared healthy overall. Ms. Krattli asked Mr. Tope to explain what a Level 2 assessment of the tree entails. Mr. Tope said a Level 2 assessment involves probing the soil with a soil probe, using binoculars as well as other tools to assess the tree. Ms. Krattli asked Mr. Tope based on his observations of the tree, his training and experience, if he felt as if this tree was hazardous, he responded that he did not see any obvious defect on the tree that would indicate it was going to fail. Ms. Krattli asked Mr. Tope if his assessment was what he based the denial on; he said yes. Ms. Krattli asked Mr. Tope if there was any further information that he wanted the Board to know. Mr. Tope reiterated that in this situation, he felt as if the tree was healthy overall and did not see any defects on the tree. He said it does have bark beetles but has determined that it is at a very early stage and with preventative spraying it could treat the bark beetle on the tree. Ms. Krattli asked if bark beetles are common in Monterey Pines; Mr. Tope said it is very common and added that a tree can be healthy and have bark beetles. 2  Appeals Hearing Board January 29, 2026 Minutes Ms. Krattli then asked Park Operations Manager and former Assistant Urban Forester, Thys Norton, if in 2024 he had received an email from Mr. Chell to which Mr. Norton said he had. Ms. Krattli read the email from Charley Chell. It said, “Concerning this Monterey Pine in our backyard at 814 Martin Street, I think that the Universe is telling me to leave the tree alone. You, Andrew, Urban Lumberjacks, and Amanda Gates have all indicated that the tree is substantially healthy and there is no evidence of movement.” Ms. Krattli asked Mr. Norton if at that time, in 2024, did the homeowner go forward with the permit? Mr. Norton said he and the homeowner had a back and forth regarding the tree, but the homeowner decided not to pursue an arborist report and told Mr. Norton to shred the check for the permit fees, as well as the application. Ms. Krattli said at this time staff is recommending denying the appeal by Mr. Chell as there has been no indication that the tree is unhealthy. It is a mature Monterey Pine that the City Council has encouraged the retention and preservation of these trees; therefore, staff is requesting that the appeal be denied and that the Board upholds the denial of the tree removal permit. Board member Fritz asked Mr. Norton if there was any further discussion before the new application was received. Mr. Norton said he did not believe there were any conversations about the tree until the most recent application came in. He said he was in a different position and so Mike Tope as the only forester, handled the application. Mr. Norton said he did not inspect the tree this time, so he cannot comment on the condition of it. Mr. Tope said the Hazard Rating System is an outdated system, now arborists are using the Tree Risk Assessment Matrix. He stated that the Hazard Rating could be potentially high. The tree canopy carries a lot of weight and if you look at the failure potential rating, for a tree that tall, the assessment will most often be on the higher scale because of the size of the canopy, the diameter size – a 33” Pine, and the fact that there is a house within striking distance, that would make the overall rating very high. Chair Glenzer asked if the Forestry Department has any data about the fallen trees in the forest. Mr. Norton said the City does not keep that kind of data, but we do have a tree inventory. He added that it is mostly for maintaining the forest and responding to trees that are down. Chair Glenzer asked if there are any neighborhoods around the City, where the trees are more susceptible to failure due to the soil in that area. Mr. Norton said in the Monterey Vista and Skyline neighborhoods the soil is clay and the topsoil is very shallow. He added that Monterey Pines have a very shallow root system which makes it hard for the roots to penetrate the clay, they grow very tall and can be top heavy, which makes them a little more susceptible. Mr. Tope added that as a Department, they consider the soil on site and look at the roots to determine if there is enough root anchorage for the tree to anchor itself properly. Chair Glenzer asked how old the tree is estimated to be and what the lifespan of a Monterey Pine is. Mr. Tope said the tree is about 60-70 years old and added that Monterey Pines are a short-lived species, living about 80-90 years. Chair Glenzer asked if the tree was removed and the replanting of the two new trees is required; do they have to replanted on the same property? Mr. Norton said that is the requirement but there are a few exceptions to where people have been able to plant in the City Greenbelts. He added there is also a payment in lieu fee, where the cash gets put into an account and the City would use that to plant more City trees, but that’s not being proposed in this situation. Mr. Chell was given an opportunity for rebuttal. 3  Appeals Hearing Board January 29, 2026 Minutes Mr. Chell said a statement was made that permit determinations are made solely on the health of the tree but if you read the City Code it says health and hazard. He also said he wanted to give a shout out to the City for doing a great job in replanting trees in Via Paraiso Park. Mr. Chell asked Mr. Tope if the tree has the potential to fall, and Mr. Tope said trees always have the potential to fall over. Public Comment Vicky Williams, neighbor, said three years ago, she was going through with the Chell’s are going through now. She said she had two arborists tell her that she had a dangerous tree on her property that needed to be removed. She said they told her that when the tree falls, due to its lean, it would land on her home. Ms. Willams said she lived with daily fear and anxiety until the tree was removed. Ms. Williams added in Monterey we live in an aging forest, with most of the trees already on the property before the city granted the permit to build the home. She said that every year she has the forester out to walk the property to assess the trees on her property but two years ago a healthy pine tree fell and landed on her garage. Board Member Discussion Chair Glenzer said there has been a lot of conversation about the City Code, lawsuits, and liability, but it is very important to remember that that is not the job of this Board. Chair Glenzer stated that it is important that both sides are in agreement, that after a Level 1 assessment, this tree is essentially health, which is a very important point to make. He said the City Forester has done his job and that is not in question. Mr. Glenzer stated the four elements that are within the purview of this Board are visual prominence, beauty, evidence of anxiety concerning the tree, and mitigation. Board member Fritz said there was testimony that pruning the canopy could help reduce the chance of it falling. Board member Hoffmeister said with the mitigations you’re getting two trees. He added with the second element, aesthetic beauty, he could not say if the aesthetic beauty would be diminished one way or another. He said anytime you lose a tree, it’s a big loss, but how much of a loss would it be, if it is replaced with two other trees and would the aesthetic value be diminished? Mr. Hoffmeister said those are the questions he is considering. Chair Glenzer said all we can go by is the photos in the packet. Board member Hoffmeister said we have not heard from neighbors saying that removing the tree would bring down their property value, but we have heard repeatedly about the anxiety from the people who testified, which makes it hard for people to enjoy their home to the fullest. He did acknowledge that when the appellant purchased the home, the tree was already there. Chair Glenzer said the most important thing to him is the preservation of the canopy. He said it is so important to the City they put in the City Code. He added that the visual prominence of the tree is low in comparison to other cases he has heard. Mr. Glenzer said the lifespan is also an issue for him. He said if the tree were a younger tree with an additional 45-50 years left, that would matter to him. Mr. Glenzer added that all parties have done their job and he thanked them for doing the best they could to take care of the tree. Chair Glenzer made a motion to overturn the denial by the City with proper mitigation of two trees to replanted on the property. 4  Appeals Hearing Board January 29, 2026 Minutes Board member Hoffmeister seconded the motion. City Attorney Davi clarified that the motion included the size of the replacement trees, which in the proposed Decision says two 15-gallon Monterey Pine trees. The Board members agreed. Chair Glenzer again restated his motion to overturn the denial by the City with proper replacement of (2) 15-gallon Monterey Pine trees to be replanted on the property. Board member Hoffmeister seconds the motion. The motion was carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Glenzer, Cheng, Hoffmeister NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT Chair Glenzer adjourned the hearing at 11:08 am Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Alicia Salas Kent Glenzer Recording Secretary Chair of the Board 5