CCMIN090611 - Laserfiche WebLink

the property, and those would be able to be preserved in the backyards of some of the proposed lots. Therefore, instead of removing 20 trees, they would remove 18 with 2 saved. The applicant will have to pay approximately $40,000 to the City's Urban Forestry Fund. Vice Mayor Cook-Kallio questioned if the materials presented to the Council reflected the corrected tree report. Mr. Dolan stated the report reflects the trees on the lot, and he clarified that trees removed by the railroad were not on this property. Those were made mention in the original tree report and tree expert, Mike Fulford, was to do more investigation on that issue. Councilmember McGovern confirmed with Mr. Dolan that 12 of the 18 trees were determined to be heritage trees. Mr. Dolan deferred to Mr. Fulford. Mike Fulford explained that the original report was prepared in 2009. The consulting arborist inspected all trees in late 2008. At that time, he found there were 25 trees on site. 2 were dead, with 13 different species and a couple trees were identified off-site on the railroad corridor. In mid- 2009, UPRR examined their corridor to look for site distance problems, fire hazards and other obstacles, and they removed 3 trees north of this property which are not a part of the appraisal values given. • A neighbor to the east has installed some photovoltaic (PV) panels on an accessory structure in the rear of their property. This property is a pre-existing, non-conforming structure. There has been some remodeling of that facility over the years. The roof is newer and some work has been done to the siding. They were able to look as far back as 1990 to determine whether that work was permitted and was not able to get to the records. There were permits for the PV and staff is assuming it is legal. The concern over the PV is that the project would cast a shadow on the structure that sits on the property line. A good portion of the problem has been solved with the removal of the 14th lot, and he presented graphics showing the shadow in two different analyses, and both are consistent. He presented the graphic of the landscape plan for the open space, the lot removed, the existing garage, and an outline around the property line. He presented the applicant's shadow analysis which is consistent with what was provided to the neighbors and explained the neighbor's version which is easier to read and actually covers more timeframes. Vice Mayor Cook-Kallio clarified shade locations and asked if the problem would be solved if the door was flipped and the chimney was made to be a corner chimney. Mr. Dolan said he believes not much is gained by moving the chimney; however, having a chimney is not necessarily mandatory. Councilmember Sullivan asked if an analysis was done in the middle of June which he said would have been the highest production for the PV panels. Mr. Dolan said he did not believe so, and stated there would be a lot less shadow. Councilmember Sullivan referred to 4 panels being shaded and pointed out that half of the panels on a roof may be unproductive with one area of shading, so the problem extends beyond what the shading analysis shows. • Lastly, there are noise sources on the site exist along Old Stanley and much more so along the railroad. Staff conducted a noise analysis and significant mitigation was required to meet all of the requirements in the General Plan. Ultimately it was proposed, and staff and the Planning Commission agreed, that it would not be reasonable to apply General Plan standards to the whistle of the train when it went by. To mitigate noise from the train when the whistle is blowing, a noise wall of 29 feet would need to be installed, as well as special windows. This had not been the direction by Council in the past and the attempt was to mitigate all the noise impacts but for the train whistle. With the STC-rated openings for City Council Minutes Page 6 of 16 September 6,2011