pages: CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf, 12
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2005-05-17 | 12 | The Supervising Planner noted the Council is considering the Historical Advisory Board (HAB) approval that the two replacement oaks are in the proper place; a requirement of allowing the tree to be removed was that the HAB would review the landscaping plan. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the existing two oaks would remain in place, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; noted one is partially on City property. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether staff reviewed damage to the remaining trees. The Supervising Planner stated the HAB required that the oak trees be protected during development and required a registered arborist advise the Applicant. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the two existing oak trees are being maintained in their present condition and two more oak trees are being planted in positions determined by a landscape architect; inquired whether the complaint is that the two new oak trees are not in the correct position. The Supervising Planner responded the complaints are that the HAB determined that the project was categorically exempt from California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) and the two trees on the site are not properly protected. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the landscape plan has been modified since approved by the HAB. The Supervising Planner responded the site plan has been modified, not the landscape plan; the building was moved five feet from the existing tree. In response to Vice Mayor Gilmore's inquiry about whether building a single family home is categorically exempt from CEQA, the Supervising Planner stated CEQA permits construction of single family homes to be categorically exempt. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired why building of the house, which is exempt from CEQA, could not proceed even if a CEQA review were required for adding new trees. The Supervising Planner responded Mr. Lynch is referring to segmentation; CEQA and the courts do not look kindly upon segmenting a project into pieces, which would be exempt individually, but which taken together would not be exempt. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 12 May 17, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf |