Monterey appeals board allows removal of hazardous Monterey pine at 814 Martin Street with 2-to-1 replacement

The Monterey Appeals Hearing Board voted 3-0 on Jan. 29 to overturn a city forester's denial and allow removal of a Monterey pine at 814 Martin Street, with a required 2-to-1 replacement of 15-gallon trees to be planted on the same property.

The action followed testimony from the homeowner, identified in the record as Charlie Schell, who said multiple private arborists rated the tree's hazard “10 out of 12” and “11 out of 12,” described a 33-inch trunk and estimated the tree's mass at about 15 tons, and warned that if the tree fell it would likely "break the roof" and could strike the bedroom. "If it falls... it's gonna break the roof," Schell said, arguing pruning was not a viable mitigation and that neighbors shared his concern.

City staff and the forestry division had recommended denial. Assistant City Attorney Karen Cratley told the board the city code (Chapter 37) prioritizes canopy preservation and that the city forester's denial was appropriate given a level-1 visual inspection that found the tree to be healthy. "The forester's denial of this permit was entirely proper," Cratley said, summarizing staff's position. Assistant Urban Forester Michael Tope, an ISA-certified arborist, testified he found vigorous canopy growth and no obvious defects during his inspection and explained that higher-level tests (level 2 or 3) involving probes or sonic tomography are typically performed by private arborists at the homeowner's expense.

Neighbors testified in support of the homeowner. Vicky Williams, who said she had pursued a similar exception three years earlier, described the emotional toll and expense of living with a hazardous tree and cited a prior removal cost of about $12,479 in her case.

Board members said they accepted the city forester's health determination but gave weight to the applicant's testimony about chronic anxiety and risk to life and property. In deliberations they listed the four elements the appeals board must consider: visual prominence, aesthetic value, applicant anxiety, and mitigation. Chair Glenser moved to overturn the denial and permit removal subject to the city's standard mitigation; the motion specified a 2-to-1 replacement ratio using 15-gallon trees and was seconded. The roll-call vote was recorded as: Board member Fritz, aye; Board member Hoffmeister, yes; Chair Glenser, yes. The motion passed 3-0.

The board's decision requires the homeowner to plant two replacement trees (one or both may be Monterey pines per the motion and staff alternatives) in the same property planting area or otherwise meet the city's payment-in-lieu or planting exceptions if those avenues are proposed. City staff had noted limited exceptions for planting in public green belts and an in-lieu fee option but did not recommend using the fee in this case.

The appeals hearing record includes a brief exchange over a potential conflict-of-interest concern raised by the applicant about ties between a forester and a private tree-services business; the assistant city attorney cited Fair Political Practices Commission guidance that an adult child's separate business typically does not create a disqualifying conflict under the circumstances described.

The board concluded the hearing, confirmed the replacement condition, and adjourned at 11:08 a.m.