Monterey Appeals Hearing Board – August 20, 2026: Eucalyptus Tree Removal Appeal Granted
Monterey Appeals Hearing Board – August 20, 2026
The Appeals Hearing Board of Monterey, California, convened on August 20, 2026, at approximately 8:53 AM and adjourned at 10:40 AM. With two members present (a third was absent), the board heard one appeal and approved prior meeting minutes. All decisions were unanimous (2-0).
Consent Calendar
- The board unanimously approved the minutes from the April 28, 2026, meeting (vote 2-0).
Public Comments & Testimony
- No members of the public provided oral or written comments; the public comment period was closed without testimony.
Discussion Items
- Appeal of Forestry Division’s Denial of Tree Removal (205 Montecito Avenue)
Applicant Michael Hall appealed the City Forester's denial of a permit to remove two eucalyptus trees on his property. Hall inherited the property in 2019 and argued the trees are a safety hazard due to frequent limb failures, costly maintenance, and incompatibility with the neighborhood (Live Oak Park). He expressed willingness to replace the trees with multiple live oak trees as mitigation.
City Forester Mike Taupe testified that the trees are healthy, vigorous, and have no major defects; he recommended denial based on the trees’ ecological and aesthetic value, and the lack of sufficient arborist evidence supporting removal. The reporting arborist, Jesus Martinez, also recommended retention.
Board members discussed the difficulty of applying existing code (Chapter 37) to non‑native species, noted the absence of a city forestry plan, and weighed Hall’s safety concerns against the trees’ health. The board acknowledged the applicant’s offer to plant four oak trees as mitigation.
Key Outcomes
- The board voted 2-0 to grant the appeal, overturning the Forestry Division’s denial of the tree removal permit.
- Conditions: The permit is subject to Mr. Hall planting four live oak trees (15‑gallon size) at his discretion on the property. He must also obtain a CEQA determination from the Planning Department before the permit is issued.
- The decision requires unanimous action because only two board members were present; both voted in favor. The city attorney noted the meeting could have been continued to a date with a third member if the vote had been split.
Meeting Transcript
MCAET, we're starting in five, four, three, two. Good morning, and welcome to the appeals hearing board for Thursday, August 20th, 2026. Um the meeting is called to order, and I'm gonna give some language on how you can participate in this meeting. Public comments and participation information is provided on this meeting's agenda, which is online at Monterey.org/slash agendas. In-person attendees, please keep your electronic devices muted to prevent audio interference. Consistent with the first amendment and the Brown Act, individuals have the right to speak at public meetings, which includes the right to criticize or support city policies or actions. The city encourages your uninhibit uninhibited and robust feedback on public issues affecting the city. Thank you for your participation. Okay, so the first thing on the agenda today is going to be the approval of minutes from April 28th, 2026. Do I have a first? Oh I'll make a motion. We approve the minutes. Okay, and a second. Okay, all those in favor. Aye. All those opposed. Okay. None opposed, the motion passes uh two to zero. Okay. And the next thing on the agenda is going to be the first public hearing. Yes, that's public comments. Let me see. Um see if we have anyone online. Doesn't appear to be anyone online. Let's check in the chambers. And then we will go to the first public hearing and we will have the city attorney um give her statement now. Sure. This is um a public hearing. It's an appeal by Michael Hall of the Forestry Division's decision to deny the application for removal of two eucalyptus trees at two o'clock, Montecito Avenue. And I am representing the appeals hearing board and have maintained an ethical screen from the city attorney's other staff, um, other than Lingual Secretary Alicia Salis for preparation of these um proceedings. Um what that means is we have not um consulted with each other on the preparation of the agenda report or talked about the merits of the case, anything like that. And the reason is to ensure due process to make sure that there's a fair hearing. So Kessley Lund Turner is a deputy city attorney in my office, and she has been advising staff, in this case the forestry department, and that is separate from my role here, which is to advise the board. Um so that's about it. And I I guess I'll just outline too the way this um proceeding takes place. Um we'll ask the board to disclose if they've had any ex parte contacts or received information about this matter that's not in the agenda packet that should be disclosed. Um then we'll have um opening statements, and if if you all would like to make an opening statement, you can do that. And then um we'll have the applicant's presentation, which is Mr. Ho and then Hall, sorry. And then um the department's presentation, public comment, applicant rebuttal, and then deliberation and a vote. And because there's only two of you today, the decision um needs a unanimous um vote for there to be action on the matter. So with that, we can start with um opening statements. Shh um should I ask the board if they have any disclosures? Oh, yes, yes, sorry. I just skipped right over that. Board member Shell, do you have any dis um ex-party disclosures? No, I only have the information you sent out in the packet and the thing you sent out yesterday for Mr. Hall. And Ms. I have nothing either.
openpublica.com