11 ATTACHMENT 03 - Laserfiche WebLink

suggest that both trees could be preserved if judicious pruning took place, which would reduce the end weight of some of the big long overhanging branches and minimize any future branch failures, which would make them good trees that could last in the landscape for a very long time. Commissioner Blank inquired what Trees #61 and #64 would be appraised for in today's valuation. Mr. Fulford replied that they would probably have the same value as appraised in the first Tree Report of $11 ,250 for Tree #61 and $13,700 for Tree #64. He added that it is likely that another consulting arborist would value them the same. Commissioner Blank inquired if the noise level numbers presented were the amount of the reduction of noise or the anticipated noise level inside of the bedroom. Mr. Dolan replied that this was the noise inside the house. He indicated that this information was provided primarily based on some comments from Councilmember Sullivan, following the determination at some discussion that it was just not practical to reduce noise levels when the train goes by and blows its whistle because it would require a 40-foot wall. He pointed out that the mitigations proposed meet the noise levels in the General Plan, except when the train goes by and the whistle blows. He noted that Councilmember Sullivan understood that during those times, the noise level would be above the General Plan noise levels, and his question was merely and essentially how bad that noise level will be. Commissioner Blank stated that the intent of the noise disclosure was not just that it be disclosed but that it be disclosed separately and in plain language because of noise sensitivity. He noted that most disclosures are highly technical, and deed disclosures, in particular, tend to be full of legalese which is something that is difficult to understand. Mr. Dolan stated that this could be done. Commissioner Blank noted that following the Commission's project review and its recommendations at the workshop, there were no changes made in the density, the FARs, or the setbacks; there was no significant change in terms of the open space area other than the addition of the play structure; there was no change in parking, a modest change in tree removal, some change in the shading to the photovoltaic panels, and no change in the noise or vibration. He asked staff if this was correct and in what areas were real changes made. Mr. Pavan replied that Commissioner Blank was correct. Commissioner O'Connor agreed with Commissioner Blank and noted that staff had proposed the play structure, to which the applicant has not agreed. Commissioner Pentin noted that the current plan is significantly different than what was originally sent to the City Council and that the workshop was to identify this new plan EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 13, 2011 Page 2 of 10