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
<br />Mr. Fulford replied that they do have structural problems but not to the degree that <br />Tree #62 has. He added that the pruning recommendations in the HortScience report <br />suggest that both trees could be preserved if judicious pruning took place, which would <br />reduce the end weight of some of the big long overhanging branches and minimize any <br />future branch failures, which would make them good trees that could last in the <br />landscape for a very long time. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank inquired what Trees #61 and #64 would be appraised for <br />valuation. <br /> <br />Mr. Fulford replied that they would probably have the same value as appraised in the <br />first Tree Report of $11,250 for Tree #61 and $13,700 for Tree #64. He added that it is <br />likely that another consulting arborist would value them the same. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank inquired if the noise level numbers presented were the amount of <br />the reduction of noise or the anticipated noise level inside of the bedroom. <br /> <br />Mr. Dolan replied that this was the noise inside the house. He indicated that this <br />information was provided primarily based on some comments from Councilmember <br />Sullivan, following the determination at some discussion that it was just not practical to <br />reduce noise levels when the train goes by and blows its whistle because it would <br />require a 40-foot wall. He pointed out that the mitigations proposed meet the noise <br />levels in the General Plan, except when the train goes by and the whistle blows. He <br />noted that Councilmember Sullivan understood that during those times, the noise level <br />would be above the General Plan noise levels, and his question was merely and <br />essentially how bad that noise level will be. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank stated that the intent of the noise disclosure was not just that it be <br />disclosed but that it be disclosed separately and in plain language because of noise <br />sensitivity. He noted that most disclosures are highly technical, and deed disclosures, <br />in particular, tend to be full of legalese which is something that is difficult to understand. <br /> <br />Mr. Dolan stated that this could be done. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank project review and its <br />recommendations at the workshop, there were no changes made in the density, the <br />FARs, or the setbacks; there was no significant change in terms of the open space area <br />other than the addition of the play structure; there was no change in parking, a modest <br />change in tree removal, some change in the shading to the photovoltaic panels, and no <br />change in the noise or vibration. He asked staff if this was correct and in what areas <br />were real changes made. <br /> <br />Mr. Pavan replied that Commissioner Blank was correct. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 13, 2011 Page 4 of 21 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.