My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 071311
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
PC 071311
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
10/3/2011 3:41:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/13/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS <br /> <br />a. PUD-82, David DiDonato, Donato Builders, Inc. <br />Application for Rezoning of an approximately 1.17-acre site located at <br />4171 and 4189 Stanley Boulevard from R-1-6,500 (One-Family Residential) <br />District to the PUD-HDR (Planned Unit Development High Density <br />Residential) District and for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Development <br />Plan approval to construct 13 detached single-family homes. <br /> <br />Marion Pavan presented the staff report and described the scope, layout, and key <br />elements of the proposal. <br /> <br />Chair Narum requested Mike Fulford, City Landscape Engineer, speak about the <br />general health of the trees within the project site. <br /> <br />Mr. Fulford stated that he understood there has been some confusion with regard to the <br />tree reports for the project and apologized that it may have been due to the fact that he <br />had commissioned a second tree report about a year-and-a-half after a first tree report <br />was prepared in January 2009 by Ed Brennan, a very capable consulting arborist, who <br />is on the Cs, at the request of the developer and the <br />Planning Division. Mr. Fulford indicated that Mr. Brennan inspected 22 trees on the <br />property and rated them with respect to their health and value. He identified three of the <br />trees as the prominent Deodar Cedar trees located at the front of the property, <br />numbered Trees # 61, 62, and 64, which, at that time were found to be in moderate to <br />good condition. Mr. Fulford continued that about a year later, Tree #62 suffered a <br />catastrophic branch failure. He noted that all three trees have suffered some <br />catastrophic branch failures in the past, but Tree #62 was particularly bad, and the <br />property owner, Robert Molinaro, submitted an application to have all three trees <br />removed. <br /> <br />Mr. Fulford stated that because these were prominent heritage trees, he looked closely <br />into them and commissioned an independent study by HortScience, Inc., which reported <br />in July 2010 that all three trees were healthy, although Tree #62 was in very bad <br />structural condition and recommended that it be removed. Mr. Fulford indicated that he <br />allowed the property owner to remove Tree #62 based on the fact that it was significant <br />threat to public safety, but this has not yet been done. He added that sometime in the <br />distant past, about 30-40 years ago, all three trees were topped, which is an <br />unacceptable pruning practice because it indiscriminately lowers the height of the tree <br />without regard to its structure. He noted that after the topping, the three trees grew out <br />and now possess a pretty bad structure. <br /> <br />Mr. Fulford stated that in the first tree report, Tree #62 had an appraised value of <br />$16,000. He noted that if appraised today, its value would be a lot less, maybe nothing, <br />because of it structural problem. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank inquired if Trees #61 and #64 also had structural problems. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 13, 2011 Page 3 of 21 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.