CC MIN 1973 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

18 __ ___________ -- He commented that after a complete examination of the site by members of the Architectural Committee and the Park and Recreation Director , rather than agreeing to the relocation of the some 17 trees , it was agreed to replace them with 30 " to 4o " sized trees of another species than walnuts , which was noted to be a relative dirty tree from standpoint of maintenance . He mentioned that the one walnut tree in question was thought to be a heritage tree ( a tree by City ' s tree ordinance was a tree 24 " in diameter ) . He noted the Architectural Committee ' s alternate locations and that the trees to be removed to new locations from the Kentfield side would go within the green open space area . Mr . Olivia noted that the Architectural Committee , how - ever , felt that this one walnut tree should be retained , and that during the deliberations with the Committee they stated the project should be reduced by three units , which would not be economically feasible to the Company ; that they felt they had conformed to all Ordinances of the City regarding density , setbacks , good architecture , conventional to the neighborhood ; that they were willing to replace the trees which would be required to be taken out with very large trees , and in response to this one walnut tree in question , to replace same with three 48 " box sized trees . He concluded by stating that they felt they had more than responded to requirements of the City ' s Ordinances , and more than responded to any justified re - quests in terms of the architecture of planning on this project and would request Council ' s consideration for approval of their Planned Development Permit . Council thereafter questioned Mr . Olivia more specifically concerning removal of the trees , size of those proposed for replacement , and those that were to reamin on the site . Mr . Olivia advised that the boxed size mentioned of 30 " to 4o " would be of some 20 ' in height , in addition to the 48 " boxed size which would be even larger , in addi - tion to the 15 trees which would remain as now existing on the site . He reiterated he felt they had responded not only to all City Ordinances with reference to land - scaping specifically , but setbacks , side yards , project site design , construction , and large open areas . Robert J . Costello , Attorney for applicant , Challenge Development Company , referred to City ' s records of the project as developed through hearings , believed the action of the Planning Commission was complete when Planned Development Permit was recommended for approval to Council on May 22nd , subject to five specific condi - tions , one of which included an Architectural Permit be obtained which would probably have been required in any event . Thereafter , an Architectural Permit was re - quested and then denied on such grounds as applicant had not taken into consideration the natural features of the site , mainly as related to the trees on the site . Applicant appealed to Planning Commission the denial of the Architectural Permit , and according to records of Minutes , their action was a tie vote , resulting in no action on appeal , with equivalent being a negative one . Staff was then asked for a reconsideration of this matter , and action taken by Planning Commission was to decline to discuss the matter further . Mr . Costello felt it was inconceivable that an extremely experienced developer of long standing reputation and operations in Redwood City should be before the Council on this pro- posal in the manner of the records submitted . He felt the record of the two environmental impact reports sub - mitted , the hearings held , adjustments to the plan which were made in response to either Staff or Com- mission recommendations spoke for themselves , and all of which at this point seemed to have stemmed from one walnut tree , which if were required to be retained , as now recommended , would result in the deletion of three units , in spite of offer made to replace any and all trees on site , and result in whole of project not being economically feasible . 9/17/73 Reg . Mtg .