pages: CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf, 13
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2005-05-17 | 13 | Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether segmenting is clearly not the case for the project, to which the Supervising Planner responded staff does not believe segmenting has occurred. Councilmember Daysog inquired why CEQA would be required for the trees. The Supervising Planner stated the project is a single family home ; there is a landscape plan which is part of the project; the HAB had purview over the two new oak trees in the landscape plan as a condition of a previous approval [to allow removal of an oak tree] ; the HAB was concerned with ensuring the two new replacement trees, which are required when an oak tree is allowed to be removed, would be located in a spot where the trees would thrive. In response to Vice Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding the basis for the appeal, Mayor Johnson stated the concern is the construction process and the impact on and protection of the two existing trees. Mayor Johnson inquired whether an arborist was hired, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether staff believes there are adequate measures in place to protect the two existing trees, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the Appellants believe the measures are adequate. Ms. Nader responded the problem is she understood there would be no construction activity after the Appeal was filed; the Applicant used a front end loader on top of the root system of the trees on April 25, which the arborist instructed him not to do without protection; the Applicant exposed and cut into several tree roots; the certified arborist, which she hired to look at the trees, determined the damage could be mortally wounding; that she was informed by City staff that the City does not have money for a certified arborist to ensure the trees are protected; the damage occurred after the appeal; the owner has blatantly disregarded the recommendation from his own arborist; the Applicant drove over the root system to move fill across the property; Code Compliance indicated tread marks were not apparent; her arborist indicated any contamination in the fill would kill the trees. Mayor Johnson inquired what the City could do about the issue. The Supervising Planner responded staff attempts to do everything possible to ensure that property owners comply with regulations Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 13 May 17, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf |