ABSTRACT: Relevant sections of the Forest and Beach Commission Agenda for April 3, 2008 are reproduced with respect to Susan Page’s application for the removal of a 30” dbh acacia tree in her side yard. BACKGROUD is presented, including a brief chronology and description of events from 2000 to the present. COMMENTS are made, including comments about the Forest and Beach Commission deliberations and Sue McCloud, the neighbor next door, who subsequently appealed the unanimous decision of the Forest and Beach Commission to approve removal of Susan Page’s acacia tree to the City Council.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Tour of Inspection – 1:30 p.m.
Regular Meeting – 2:00 p.m.
City Hall, Council Chambers
E/side Monte Verde between Ocean & 7th Avenues
Carmel, California
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
KATHLEEN COSS
JOE FORD
NANCY JOHN, CHAIRPERSON
TAD PRITCHETT
II. TOUR OF INSPECTION
Shortly after 1:30 p.m. the Commission will leave Council Chambers for an on-site Tour of Inspection of all properties listed on this agenda (including those on the Consent Calendar or Orders of Business). Prior to the beginning of the Tour of Inspection, the Forest and Beach Commission may eliminate one or more on-site visits. The public is welcome to follow the Commission on its tour of the determined sites. The Commission will return to Council Chambers as soon thereafter as possible to deliberate on the below listed items – SEE APPLICATION SECTION.
VI. APPLICATIONS/PUBLIC HEARINGS
IF YOU CHALLENGE THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION, OR PRIOR TO DELIBERATION OF THE ITEMS ON THE TOUR OF INSPECTION/PUBLIC HEARING.
1. Consideration of an application to remove one 30” dbh acacia tree due to its declining condition. The site is located on south side of Santa Lucia 3 east of Dolores. The applicant/owner is Susan Page.
BACKGROUND:
In the autumn of 2000, Susan Page applied to the City for the removal or, if removal not approved, pruning of a 16” acacia tree in her east side yard. The Staff Report recommended approving the acacia removal citing “past pruning practices” which “have created a tree with many potential limb failure points” and surface roots extending 30 feet from the trunk which have caused damage to the concrete walkway. The replacement tree recommendation was a 15-gallon oak. The applicant cited damage to the walkway, root growth into the house and limitation of light to the house as reasons for removal of the acacia tree.
Susan Page’s neighbor to the east, Sue McCloud, wrote “I am opposed to this removal and believe I may be the defacto owner or at least partial owner.” “For me, it is not a question of privacy, rather that there is a softness of greenery between the two houses. It is preferable to look out at greenery than solid walls.”
In October 2000, the applicant withdrew her application for removal of the acacia tree in favor of pruning the tree.
In the spring of 2006, Susan Page again applied to the City for the removal of the 16” dbh acacia tree. The Staff Report again recommended approving the application for removal of the acacia tree, citing the earlier reasons. The replacement tree recommendation was a 24” box fruitless olive tree in the “same vicinity to replace the acacia.” The applicant cited invasiveness and limitation of light to the house.
The applicant continued her application for removal of the acacia tree.
In 2008, Susan Page again applied to the City for removal of the now 30” dbh acacia tree. Susan Page cited its “declining condition” and her application was placed on the Forest and Beach Commission’s agendas of January 2, 2008 and March 6, 2008, only to be removed from those agendas. Finally, after Susan Page spoke during Appearances at the City Council meeting on March 4, 2008 asking for “due process” and “fair treatment,” her application was placed on the April 3, 2008 Forest and Beach Commission agenda. City Forester Mike Branson’s Memorandum included a Staff Recommendation to “approve the application” citing past pruning practices creating a tree with many potential limb failure points. The replacement tree recommendation was a 24” box fruitless live tree in “the same vicinity to replace the acacia.” While Mayor Sue McCloud sent a letter dated March 27, 2008, her sister Sarah Berling represented Sue McCloud citing her sister did not want to appear to exert “undue influence” on the Forest and Beach Commissioners. After deliberations, the Forest and Beach Commission voted unanimously to approve the removal of the 30” dbh acacia tree and the planting of 2 24” box fruitless olive trees to provide screening of Susan Page’s second floor and lower deck for Sue McCloud. Subsequently, Mayor Sue McCloud filed an appeal of the Forest and Beach Commission’s decision to the City Council.
COMMENTS:
• In discussing Susan Page’s application, the Forest and Beach Commissioners focused on replacement trees and screening for Sue McCloud to the extent the Commissioners voted for two replacement trees in order to provide screening of a second story and a lower deck all for the benefit of Sue McCloud. While the focus was on determining an equitable result, there was no discussion of the appropriateness of planting a replacement tree or trees in a side yard of approximately 3 ft. between the exterior wall of the residence and fence. Moreover, it could be argued that a more appropriate decision may have been to approve removal of Susan Page’s acacia tree and recommend to Sue McCloud the planting of shrubs in her side yard for screening purposes, given the fact that Susan Page has more trees on her lot than the Municipal Code’s “Recommended Tree Densities” already.
• While Mayor Sue McCloud stated in her March 27, 2008 letter to the Chair of the Forest and Beach Commission and City Forester Mike Branson that she was amenable to discussing a replacement tree for the acacia tree with Susan Page, her filing an appeal shows that this is not the case, especially given the fact that two 24” box fruitless olive trees were approved as replacement trees for screening purposes instead of the staff recommendation’s of one 24” box fruitless olive tree.
• If Mayor Sue McCloud was concerned about the appearance of exerting undo influence on the Forest and Beach Commissioners to the extent she could not represent herself before the Commissioners regarding Susan Page’s application, then she is certainly creating the appearance of exerting undo influence on the City Council by appealing the Forest and Beach Commission decision to the City Council due to the fact that three of the four Council Members were originally appointed by her. Her appeal then raises serious questions about whether the City Council Members have the ability to render an objective, fair and impartial decision.
• A public service oriented mayor would have honored the decision of her appointees on the Forest and Beach Commission and not appealed the Commission’s decision to the City Council. In appealing the Commission’s unanimous decision to the City Council, Mayor McCloud has once again acted on personal, selfish desires. To wit, Mayor McCloud consistently strives to impose her own personal, egoistical preferences on Carmel, thereby distorting and corrupting the decision-making process.
3 comments:
Sue McCloud has shown consistently that she does not have the welfare of Carmel at heart and that she is anything but public spirited. Her only interest is what will be best for Sue McCloud and what will futher her extreme philisophical/ political views. If there was ever anyone who the old saw about "don't confuse me with the facts" applys to it's McCloud. She's happy to pull the wool over others eyes (and is very successful at it) but she's also quite happy to believe anything that supports her own preconcieved world view no matter how far from the facts it might be.
Obviously, there is no depth to which she will not stoop in this dispute with Page in order to get her way no matter how minor a matter it may be and no matter how accomodating Page has tried to be. Page unfortunately hasn't a chance short of taking McCloud and the city to court.
I was there at the swearing in ceremony. Did you catch the " I always do what my little sister tells me to do." Sarah, the little sister, is right behind Susan's house, a two story house, no less. And here Sarah represents her sister because Sue doesn't want the appearance of undue influence. Sue is all about undue influence. Sue says she will consider a replacement tree, then has her sister tell the F & B Commission she opposes removal of Susan's tree, then Sue appeals the decision to the council. I agree, if she was concerned about undue influence she would not have appealed. Now the question is, will the council people do the right thing and uphold the F & B Commission or kowtow to Sue?
When will we be finally rid of this 2 sister horror show?
Post a Comment