11 ATTACHMENT 04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Building points. This information will be provided in conjunction with the Planning Commission's formal review o the development plan. Noise Study Councilmember Sullivan requested that train whistle (horn) noise levels be provided for the inside of each home. This info:•mation will be provided in conjunction with the Planning Commission's formal review o the development plan.. Tree Report Some Councilmembers requested clarification of the analysis and conclusions provided in the July 16, 2010, tree report prepared by HortScience and had requested that the City's Landscape Architect provide input. The City's Landscape Architect has prepared a memo (Exhibit D) explaining the analysis in the tree report and his justification for approving the removal of one of the deodar cedar trees. Density The Council indicated that it would like the Commission to review the proposed density (i.e., the number of dwelling units). Open Space Some Councilmembers desired an open space area f'or children to play. Demolition of Existing House Some Councilmembers supported retaining the existing house while other Councilmembers supported its demolition as proposed. Shadow Study Darell Walterson, adjacent resident at 4151 Stanley Boulevard, contacted staff after the Planning Commission hearing for this prDject and voiced concern that the proposed homes would block sunlight from reaching the photovoltaic (PV) panels that are located on the roof of his detached garage. Mr. Walterson also questioned if there were any State laws protecting his PV panels from the proposed developmen:. There is no State law which provides an existing property owner solar rights to prevent an adjacent property owner from building a structure which affects a solar array. The State Solar Shade Control Act (CA Public Resources Code sections 25980 et. al., Exhibit G, Attachment 2) does provide certain protections to solar collectors (e.g., PV panels or solar water heating panels) from the shading effects of trees or shrubs provided certain conditions are met. For instance, the solar collector must be set back at least 5 feet from a property line and located at least 10-feet above grade, except that a solar collector may be less than 10 feet in height if the solar collector is set back 5 feet from the property line plus an additional three times the amount lowered below 10 feet. It appears that Mr. Walterson's eastern PV panel array complies with the setback requirements, but the western array may not comply. Assuming they both comply, PUD-82 Work Session Page - 3 - February 9, 2011