Home » Antioch City Council Set to Declare Winner in 5th Street Tree War

Antioch City Council Set to Declare Winner in 5th Street Tree War

by CC News
Joy Motts and Diane Gibson-Gray

For a year, Antioch residents Diane Gibson-Gray and Joy Motts have been battling over tree removal on 5th Street in the City of Antioch.

Now, the Antioch City Council will ultimately decide whether two trees will stay or go after Gibson-Gray applied and was granted a Tree Removal Permit all the way back on February 23, 2022 to remove two London Plane Trees from her property at 411 W 5th Street.  An appeal was then filed by Joy Motts on April 8, 2022.

This comes after both Gibson-Gray and Motts both lost their election bid for the Antioch City Council District 1 seat where they split the vote and allowed Tamisha Torres-Walker to retain her seat.

  • 1,467 (34.37%) – Tamisha Torres-Walker
  • 1,463 (34.28%) – Joy Motts
  • 1,338 (31.35%) – Diane Gibson-Gray

During the campaign, there were whispers that Motts meddling in the tree removal application and filing the appeal against the tree removal was motivation for Gibson-Gray jumping into the council race. Gibson-Gray, however, maintains she was fed up with the direction of the city of Antioch.

On April 1, 2022, the Public Works Director approved the removal of the trees following a consultation with the Tree Committee—Parks and Recreation Director and Community Development Director and done after notifying nearby property owners.

The Tree Committee uses the criteria established in AMC 9-5.1203(B)(2)(b), which are as follows:

  1. The condition of the tree(s) with respect to its health, proximity to existing structure(s), and the likelihood of future damage to said structure(s) and nearby utilities should the tree(s) not be removed.
  2. The necessity to remove the tree(s) for reasonable use and/or enjoyment of the property.
  3. The aesthetic impacts of tree removal in relation to the size and species of the subject and nearby tree(s). Typically, the city will encourage the preservation of uniform street tree patterns where such patterns have long been established.

The Tree Committee applied criterion 1 and found that the subject trees were likely to continue to cause damage to the nearby sewer and/or water lines due to their size and aggressive root habits. Based on this criterion, the Tree Committee elected to approve the Tree Removal Permit. The Planning Commission applied similar findings in their resolution to approve the Tree Removal Permit.

The conclusion was based on an arborist report that was initiated by the Public Works Department. The report found that Tree A could be pruned and retained. It also found that Tree B was heavily damaged by the pruning and recommended removal.

On April 8, 2022, an appeal was issued by Joy Motts.

By September 7, the Planning Commission considered the appeal and director staff to work on a resolution authorizing removal of one of the two trees.

On October 5, 2022, the Planning Commission received the new resolution and, after considering additional testimony from Ms. Gibson-Gray, directed staff to return with a modified resolution to allow both trees to be removed.

According to the minutes from the October 5 planning commission meeting:

Diane Gibson Gray explained that her request for the removal of the trees was related to safety only. She noted as the property owner, she was responsible for property and civil damages that would likely occur. She gave a history of the property and discussed the sidewalk hazards created by the trees. She reported there were empty concrete planters and new trees planted throughout the neighborhood. She stated if the decision of the Planning Commission was to have the second tree remain, she wanted to go on record that per the arborist report, there were current and foreseeable safety concerns, and she was prevented from taking corrective action to mitigate the issues; therefore, liability should shift to the City or appellant.

Following discussion, consensus of the Planning Commission supported removing both trees and replacing them with plantings from the street tree list.

On February 15, 2023, the Planning Commission approved the resolution to allow both trees to be removed. (Note – Commissioners Motts and Martin recused themselves from the item)

Per the minutes:

Commissioners Motts and Martin recused themselves from this item and turned off their video/audio.

Director of Community Development Ebbs presented the staff report dated February 15, 2023, recommending the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution approving removal of both street trees based on Planning Commission direction from October 5, 2022.

Joy Motts read a written statement pertaining to this agenda item and requested the Planning Commission reverse their decision approving the removal of the London Plane Landmark Trees on publicly owned land in front of 411 W. 5th Street.

Diane Gibson Gray expressed concern regarding the risk of someone getting hurt from branches breaking off the existing street trees due to heartrot decay. She commented that the City did not have a street tree policy that was consistent and equitable. She requested addressing this issue by removing and replacing the existing trees. With regards to a suggestion that she pay for the pruning of the trees next door, she requested the Planning Commission not require her to pay for that work

On February 23, 2023, an appeal of the decision was filed by Kerry Motts.

 

Antioch City Council Meeting
Date: Tuesday, March 14, 2023
Time: 6:30 P.M. – Closed Session
7:00 P.M. – Regular Meeting
Agenda – click here

You may also like

13 comments

Edgar March 11, 2023 - 7:51 am

One of the most ridiculous agenda items I have ever seen/heard at a planning commission meeting. A waste of resources and time. Just goes to show how even potential council candidates can be indifferent.

Rivertown Rat March 11, 2023 - 9:33 am

Is this a joke? This is on an actual city council agenda? Joy Motts should be ashamed of herself for dragging this on for a year after being told no on multiple occasions. Now her brother is involved? Its Gibson-Gray’s property, Motts doesn’t own 5th Street. I would hope the city council has enough brains to tell Ms. Motts she is wrong and make the decision in less than 3 minutes. What a waste of time for everyone. A year to remove some trees? No wonder why Antioch can’t get anything done. Maybe Tamisha was the right choice after all.

Edgar March 11, 2023 - 11:27 am

From what I recall when listening to the meeting, this is not Gray’s property at all.

Diane Gibson-Gray March 11, 2023 - 4:38 pm

Edgar,
What you heard was the neighbors comments that I am an “investor” and don’t live in the home. My husband and I bought the home for my brother for housing stability after his double lung transplant in March 2014. He passed March 2021. My ex-in-laws moved in August 2021. I am not an investor. If I was in that category I would make money each month. Due to rents being what the are, I’m missing out a minimum of $2,000 per month. The house is as well kept, if not better than other homes on the street. New HVAC, roof repair, plumbing repairs (due to the trees), sidewalk repair, repainted inside in out before ex-in-laws moved in and more. The Motts and neighbors don’t pay the mortgage, taxes and they are not responsible for damages and liability. Regardless of their opinion of “investors, we are responsible homeowners. I hope this clears up the misunderstanding.
Diane

Edgar March 11, 2023 - 5:28 pm

Diane-

I see the points you made and the reasons. Thank you for the background.

-Edgar

The Truth March 11, 2023 - 10:02 pm

And if you didn’t run for city council we wouldn’t have TWT. Thanks Diane

Rivertown Resident March 13, 2023 - 9:58 pm

What Diane also failed to mention was that she was told 3 years ago she needed a permit in order to cut this tree down as it is not on her property it is on city property that is in front of her house. She waited until president’s weekend to have these trees cut down illegally knowing full well she needed a permit. There was nothing wrong with the trees. Yes they were lifting the sidewalk but as most of us in this downtown area have replaced our sidewalks in the past 20 years. She has not therefore the trees have not been properly taken care of either. So if she is worried about falling limbs pruning the trees regularly would help eliminate this problem. This has not been done. These trees are landmark trees and do require a permit to cut them down. They are part of the downtown charm. Trees are is vital to our neighborhoods they help cool the streets as we do get really warm temperatures in this area. Our city is known As a tree city yet somebody can just cut a public tree down without a tree fine that’s ridiculous. There should be a fine for illegally cutting down these trees. And the arborist did state that there’s a good 10 year’s left in these trees. So there’s no reason that they have to be cut down now just because it’s lifting her sidewalk. These kind of repairs are part of being a homeowner. And these are the kind of items that our city councils should be aware of that the committee that they put together is not upholding their own tree policies. We need a stronger tree policy in our city it’s not OK to go cut down random trees just because you don’t like them.

Robert C. March 11, 2023 - 11:21 am

What nonsense.

MEV March 11, 2023 - 10:28 pm

Why are getting more police on the agenda?

MEV March 11, 2023 - 10:32 pm

Why is hiring more police NOT on the agenda?

PattyOfurniture March 14, 2023 - 11:26 am

I think that was sarcasm.

Diane be crying crocodile tears March 13, 2023 - 10:51 pm

The trees were not heavily damaged due to pruning they were heavily damaged because they were being cut down by tree cutters paid by Diane, without a permit. And when she got caught and the neighbors (not only Joy) she went and claimed a bunch of BS so she wouldn’t get in trouble and got a biased “permit”. The neighborhood isn’t fighting because it’s Diane. The neighborhood is fighting because no one should get away with cutting down 100 year old trees without a permit and get away with it. It sets a prescedent, if the city allows her to do that they better do the same with anyone else who wants yo remove a tree first and THEN get a permit. WTF kinda nonsense is that?

Frank March 14, 2023 - 3:07 pm

It’s a fricking tree cut it down and plant one that doesn’t raise the street. Problem solved now move on.

Comments are closed.