AgdaPkt 2006-09-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A finding that the trees couid be remo�ed. Staff has not been able to make the removal PBge 2 finding based on the different subsequsnt submittals. Staff based #he decision on the following findings: a} The City encourages al#ernative energy systems and routinely approves building permit applicafions for solar panel installa#ions. The approvat of previous bcsilding permits far solar panels have not required #he removai of publicly-awned trees. b} The trees are not the cause of the ap�licant's medical condition which was cited as one of the reasons for tree removal. c} State law nor City Code do not obligate the City to create the reguested solar access by pruning or removing street trees. The City will be obligated to maintain solar access for the life of the solar energy system at the levet in existence upon instaNation of the solar system. d) Removing the trees wili have a negative sotar impact on the house caoling and increase the heat island effect on the portian of Nevada Street where the trees currently provide shade. This conclusion is based on fieid vbservations and credible tecMnical studies that have documen#ed the cooling benefit of trees (e.g. Sacramento's Greenprint studies). e) t# appears a so(ar energy system could be instatled on other available roof faces witt►ou# removing#he trees. Other solar panel insta!lations have �ieen approved in Redwood Cit�r with panels on more than one roof face. fl The applicant raised the issue of increased costs to install the system on a different roof face. The applicant didn't include the cost savings of avoiding the removal and replacement af the two existing trees with trees of equal value. S#aff found these costs would be similar to the proposed cost increases submitted by the applicant's sotar con#ractor for an aiternative raof face design. g) Smatl reptacemen#streei trees in the public righ#-o#-way are contrary to Ciiy Council shade canopy policy. Be(ow is a brief sequence of events for the review of this appiica#ion and corresponding documents are attached for reference: i. �'he app(ication was received on November 1, 2a05. ii. The City's inspector visited the site ar� November 7, 2005, and could not find that the trees met the cri#eria for tree removal. iii. A preliminary denial letter was sent on November 16, 2005,advising the�pplicant of the kind of additional information staff could consider to make a �nding that would meet the criteria for re�oval. iv. The applicant submitted a medical condi#ion as one of the supporting reasons for the tree removal permit. Additionat medical information was requested and provided by#he app�icant. The trees were not related to the cause ofi the medical condi#ion and tree removal would not relieve any medicai issues. v. On May 92, 2006, Ms. Bender contacted staff requesting the permit be approved based on the needs of the solar instaliation. Staff requested additional information be submitted to se�pport her statements. City Planning StafF met with Ms. Bender on May '15th. Ms. Bender was requested to submit information supporting her statements. vi. 4n May 18, 2006, Staff responded to Ms. Bender's submittal that she had not provided the comptete information requested. vii. On May 22, 2006, Ms. Bender resportded to the May '!8`h letter and a meeting was se# up the same day with Jill Ekas, Senior Planner, ,lohn LaTorra, Building Official, Page 2 of 3 Gm/word/cauncii reports/'t 11 Nevada appeal