HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08082006 - D.2 i D.2
08/08/06
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on August 08,2006 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Uilkema, Piepho, and Gioia
NOES: None
ABSENT: DeSaulnier, Glover
ABSTAIN: None
ACCEPTED the WITHDRAWAL of the/administrative appeal of NamPhuong Tran and Trung Dung of the
Community Development Department decision to allow solar panels at 1951 Green Valley Road, Alamo.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN.
,07
ATTESTED
John(-Ouffmyqferk of the Board of Supervisors
and County dminWrator
B �_��9Z.O." 'Deputy
I
05/08/2006 10:24 SCHUF S ELD & RSSUC ->� 3351222 NU.866 LA91
SCHOFIELD &ASSOCATES '
ATTORNEYS AT LAW ,
A PROPESSBONAL LAW CORPORATION
THE PLAZA AT SAN RWON TF.1: 925327-M Ssn jnav=VWkT odTaoc
MM CIUM CANYON FLA F S1nTB 270 PAX: 925-37/-0009 1.500)Stec,P.O.Box 1.637
SAN PAMON,CA 94583 Ebwl-. flwk 3sehftwm om PAod=o,Ca6Eomoa 95353
WEN www.scb4l2w.com 2(19.576.8888 Fax 209.574673
RCOY to San lli
August 8,2006
VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MALI. (925)335-1222
Community Development Department
Administration Building
651 Pine Street
2ie°Floor-North Wing
Martinez,CA 94553-0095
Attention: Aruna Bha4 Principal Planner
Re: Appeal Related to Comms+ unity Development Department Condition of
Approval dated February 22,2006,Complianee Review
1951 Green Valle=y Road,Alamo, CA 94507
County File 9ZI06-11230
Dear Ms. Bhat:
I am pleased to report that the pl ties have entered into a Landscape License agrexment.
Thus,we are withdrawing our appeal. Thank you for your assistance.
Very truly yours,
SCH LD&ASSOCIATES,PLC
I
LOUIS F. SCHOFM
015MMSAL 10W SU.%4d
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP =w- s Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR4'�' County
c6uN
DATE: July 18, 2006
SUBJECT: SCHOFIELD & ASSOCIATES FOR NAMPHUONG TRAN & TRUNG DUNG
(APPELLANTS) MICHAEL WEINER (OWNER) APPEAL OF AN
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE INSTALLATION OF SIX
GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR PANELS. THE PROPERY IS LOCATED AT 1951
GREEN VALLEY ROAD IN THE ALAMO AREA (APN 193-770-001 ), COUNTY
FILE #Z106-11230, DISTRICT III.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
UPHOLD the Community Development Department's decision that approved the
installation of six ground mol nted solar panels and deny the appellant's appeal.
BACKGROUND
On May 23, 2006, the Board of Supervisors heard testimony from the property
owner, Dr. Michael Weiner. The Board continued the item to the June 13, 2006
meeting.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
Contact: Lorna Villa.(925-335-1236) ATTESTED
cc: Community Development Department(CDD) JOHN CULLEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Catherine Kutsuris;Deputy Director SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Schofield & Associates, Appellant
Dr. Tran & Mr. Dung, Appellant
Dr. Weiner, Property Owner BY DEPUTY
County Counsel
Bryan Ranch Homeowner's Association
tlJtlly 18, 2006 M_ s
Board of Supervisors
Fife#Z10611230
Page,2
i
On June 13, 2006, the Board heard testimony from the appellant and continued the
item to July 18, 2006, to allow the property owner and appellants to meet and
discuss mitigation and/or relocation of the proposed solar panels.
On July,6, 2006, a meeting was held with the property owner, appellant, appellant's
representatives, Supervisor Piepho and County staff. The appellants proposed a t
landscape. plan that included low growing trees and bushes to shield the, panels
from their property.. The proposal provided for the appellants to bear all the
expenses of installation, watering and maintenance, and for Dr. Weiner to provide a
landscape license on to his property.
Dr. Weiner indicated a.willingness to grant an easement and/ora landscape license
subject to review of the landscape plans and written agreement. To date a final
agreement between both parties has not been reached (see attached Exhibit 1 ).
G: Current Planning/Board/board orders/Z106-11230 Board Order 7-18-06.2 final
SCIIOFII LD &ASSOCIATES
ATTORNEYS AT LAVI
A PR()PE�SIONA.L LAW CORPORATION
l'I IIC P]_tZA AT inn RAMON '1:Li1-: 925-127-0008 Sin]oagain Valicy office:
20110 CRnT i:ANYON PI_1C:H,St1I'Pi''.270 f. 025.327 0009 uuo 1-hrl, P.0 Boy 16.37
P' R JMON,CA 94587 f•;6i�Tl.: m3iiC5G}131nm.[om Ni"desw, 05?51
WL13: wWW.schnlaW.cmn 2.19-576-8K:vY Fa�21i9-576-6725
Rvrdv uj Y u I2amiin
July 11, 2006
VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL (925) 335-1222
Community Development Department
Administration Building
651 Pine Street
2"d Floor - North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Attention: Aruna Bhat, Principal Planner
Re: Appeal Related to Community Development Department Condition of
Approval dated February 22, 2006, Compliance Review
1951 Green Valley Road, Alamo, CA 94507
County He #6106-11230
Dear Ms. Bhar
i
My clients and I would like to thank Superyisor Piepho as well as you and your staff'in
attempting to mediate this dispute. Unfortunately, Dr. Weiner has refused to accept a mitigation
that would involve landscaping as a means of shielding my client's home from the effects of the
continued glare. For your and thie other members of the Board of Supervisors benefit, l am
providing a brief discussion of what has transpired.
You will recall that at the Board hearing on June 23, 2006, the parties were asked to meet
and confer to see if mitigation ori:relocation of the proposed panels would satisfy the parties
concerns with the goal that this appeal would he resolved. Following the hearing, Supervisor
Piepho offered her services and office to attempt to mediate. The parties agreed and u,e met on
July 6, 2006.
Certainly not coincidental; Dr. Weiner"adjusted" the three existing solar panel arrays to a
near horizontal position and had his son write a letter discussing increased efficiency of the
existing panels at their new position_ When the mediation took place, Dr. Weiner did not present
any alternative to a location for the six (6) new panels other than as proposed and simply
announced that the 'glare' was gone and that the photographic evidence presented at the heanno
. . ...........
` _ � I ilLVCJV 1J JY Jl. IUI 1LLL � -IJJUV 4♦
Ver
Aruna Bha.t, Principal Planner
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Tuly 11, 2006
Page 2
Y
must have been taken from the second story or roof of appellants' residence. He was assured that
this was not the case a.n.d that the photographs were taken Pram the rear patio of the residence.
The effect of repositioning the panels has reduced the amount of glare, however, it neither
4has eliminated the glare frog the existing panels nor addressed the incl eased glare from the
installation of six (6) nem,panels which continues to pose a health and safety danger to my
'i clients, their family and guests.
Appellants brought their landscape architect who presented a landscape plan that would `
include planting of low growing trees and bushes that would shield the ex,stine as well as,
Proposed panels. This proposal provided for appellants to bear all of the expenses or installation,
watering and inaintenance. The landscaping would straddle the property line adjacent to
appellants' residence and Dr. Weiner would simply provide a lwidscaae license into his propertyr
for approximately 15 to 20 feet. The landscaping license would comply with the statutory F'
restrictions that the planting not interfere with the solar array's operation. Appellants would also i
:t
agree that the license would letTninate upon the sale of either residence so that there would be no
encumbrance on the property should Dr. Weiner choose to sell his estate. '
Yl You will recall thnt the statutory restriction that grants the .Board discretion concerning
the installation of solar panels for conditions that pose a threat to health and safety would limit ;l
mitigation expense to 52.000 to Dr. Weiner. Appellants' proposal satisfies this requirement
since the proposal would be at no cost to Dr. Weiner. The only burden on Dr. Weiner would be
b,
s his allowing appellants the right to have access to a defined landscape license for installation, .t
watering and maintenancc of the planting. .
Dr, Weiner has failed to provide any proposal for a mitigation that %could protect
appellants froni the health and safety concerns of the constant glare from the existing panels that
10 would necessarily result from the new installation. He has failed to provide an alternative site for
the proposed panels and has failed to provide any cost estimate for mitigation. He continues to
propose the installation of six (6) additional solar arrays that will virtually double the square
w footage `footprint' of the solar arrays and bring the panels some forty(40) feet closer to 4
appellants home than what presently exists, Dr. Weiner does not address that the proposed
panels will literally double the glare condition. Appellants have provided clear evidence that the
f health and safety issues far outweigh Dr. Weiner's need to install the panels as proposed
It is respectfully requested that the .Board grant this appeal and make a finding that the
health and safety`issues presented by the existence of glare onto appellants' property exists and
that Dr. Weiner be required to prestnt plans that would relocate the proposed solar panel may to
a new location downhill on his property that is not contiguous to appellants residence.
IK
i k•
' 4!G
y
3?
x
f,
a_M
�e
� m
i
Amna Bhat, Principal Planner
Contra Costa County Board oPSupmisors
July 11, 2006
Pale 3
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
SCHOFIELD & SO TES, PLC
LOUIS F. SCHOr--�
LFS/irb
M Board of Supervisors
Client
i
IWARD lv 0711N ww
i
i
i
1
n
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ?
Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP -s-:'"'" ' Costa
County
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: June 13, 2006
SUBJECT: SCHOFIELD & ASSOCIATES FOR ,NAMPHUONG TRAN & T'RUNG DUNG
(APPELLANTS) MICHAEL WEINER (OWNER) APPEAL OF AN
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE INSTALLATION OF SIX
GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR PANELS. THE PROPERY IS LOCATED AT 1951
GREEN VALLEY ROAD IN THE ALAMO AREA (APN 193-770-001), COUNTY
FILE #ZI06-11230, DISTRICT III.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
UPHOLD the Community Development Department's decision that approved the
installation of six ground mounted solar panels and deny the appellant's appeal.
Y
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
Contact: Lorna Villa(925-335-1236) ATTESTED
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) JOHN CULLEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Catherine Kutsuris, Deputy Director SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Schofield &Associates, Appellant
Dr. Tran & Mr. Dung, Appellant
Dr. Weiner, Property Owner BY DEPUTY
County Counsel
Bryan Ranch Homeowner's Association
Y�y
June 13, 2006
Board o` Supervisors.,.
File #Z10611230
Page 2
F,
a.
BACKGROUND
On May 23, 2006, the Board of Supervisors heard testimony from the property
owner, Dr. Michael Weiner. Since the appellants were unable to attend the
meeting, they had earlier requested a continuance. The Board continued the item
to the June 13, 2006 meeting.
Staff has included photos to illustrate the location of.the panels in relation to both
residences. bx
G: Current Planning/Staff Reports/ZI06-11230 Board Order2
711
1 .71
e
r5
C
y M�
A"
Yy.
T
1
r.a r v f �p� c 5'� �^�`+e�re'1�$i La ,ca �� ryk`�'r.4 < �ta�„y� 5r✓s,'r�K,� �i�� "a$��'C �,Y�.xa� a �ti"us..11��r����,5.,�.�,..,,
-,—
+y�'
�':fi fY`�ff`E�"`1r_D�63H ����1=r..�.t��r�5�r� ,w•f�tM��r+"41J{_:7 v � -If ka �u4r Mr 9f rt7Y���r+,.5 "ltt '. J Yly,.}C'}f'.. �
--rt'�F`f�gj2'� �a�Ir*r T' (�µ�Y�.�!� Cr'� S^`>•-^I i 1 � S y. f I i1�J
r
Iv
�4 liZh
r f
IJ
1 �� x'L� uJ - 7• - SII ° °y dr.�Yk R S,r �'� v! '..
v a
Tfl
M
W �Y
r�w°i �' <
H p4R h C I
,F?_�, r T �: ll I n reh�>�w �r�ai•'4 Y�nj MJr 1 � rA d� ��f w'2' wa ti. � I'
y��9 i. t1 •Wn dy,1 � � 1� l ULit'�C Y v�bt AIiSn
r �Y�F {d'Vl�i{��xY i ax Y��4. 9� � £pv re �`*W •
a 1 a
e r n< !
r T Tl kyr � �t {a 1 a„tt3, y� ✓ f 11 n lik 1�w itF`+nr',
w 21 f�f1 A' i tl Iri^'fh$'FP` J {Z f F°Y cV W
,q ''' �'�'�4•'^�yu�, i Z`` r�”' i r1 �r p � r` „.MSV
ll
,,y F i i R1 sew k z o rar }}
�ws�r
r�H � F. d x 2'� l w� i =+ a k' "whrf+'1�xr� u^.1"i � raf� s d '✓Jh r��§ -
u 'p�F r� t � E � k �4'� r �� b .y W s n YFA.:� � w� '"�R"1e� J i�•'W�y y. !4d�i
Solar Panels as seen looking north from the foot of the berm.
- �-J •I.iJ�I
w
�,Jtll1 " elflf pmt' npr. a qA�l lx+l�. b - 1"fi`
�
n �
wawf
"Ny✓ p"�.. ;r rili.,y e, inyi ,li''xwM:} eh^
p� ,t a
x q*�. 6f
aiwr' -�4� "?sr
L
IV
`e_A 't a 2 f Hui 1 1 r
Fl
ri r.
a
x'..91 i •t r Y '^4 t k tij• R NA -
;'—
/�' ,1 �I✓R �V �J(y f� 1
I
I
I I
aYc. VI u- �. T 'Y
i r }. Kr
14
-71
r
w�'Y
—i'
r Y
� a ),rr 'S � orf 7 v t tl�1x { w 7 a�� n0. �}i kG Id�«0.r >F� :h•"r r r j�E°r r n v,.r� f '
}� !! lit r' :� t 1 i s i 'y -r�l ti ItY75} 4rx 4 aS� r°y n .7 YI t �lilr 1 0.jt�'1s lY=µ�ra� y fyx.r�
! " '
,
1 r
5
� 1�pY�`; k12 •w0.1 R 6 �3N(yi�uF t b�r4j3^fi�iE It���* 4r �� �wt„a �-
1�. 4 0. �'wFlerVr� e r 5
rIVAN
w
f � y
R
ZT rr
AVS
)1
Solar Panels as seen looking north from the southwest corner of 'Dr. Weiner's
property.
0
ljl
w 4 -
-
F.y
rw
� -. ill I F'•t� Y � -I +£$h���� � a-+ i r .�+.,a"'ti +_ r y� d'. ,
5 1A`�IrL VT 1�It �'. r t •�- i 1 40
v
] � y 5 •x
• Intl i f I�4t � .1. _ ,_ -V� �. F ..
f
a w I
_p": .
a r 7 gni
}4
Fd` e
W
���c• W[ � Rt ��� r (1rF...
s'1`�. 1 n• ,�d 1eR 1 1 t �@ AMY^ �'4 5iy� ,'�t' '✓a �, `l,
uv
vfhm` v ���r'�. .. } 1 } �vu". i 4 e�" nGA N' 'iYS ukw�4j✓ ¢'l'�,
X� e}`�,r�fi�! •>,° d„i�. kIl x + ��t` t mn s`a^' '�'f�!. '«q'i5�ca:�..`a� .�
' a � a+"Y�A�ttd}� •a�'vy)�!" A.t r "� � tii 70'6 � v �w'!a4`hM1
rl, �
n+N
Ir
t.
a there{ore
�,� western fan
ran,s hornet •
taker'{rom th est to the�
ew ol thea he n Pa�,e\ lPa�e\ otos
A soUtheas rarer of the roost s
highest co
�S t
i I � 6 ;. � i' ,y ^1r,_.'.'nf"•r^tY"—Y'--.4,•-w '� '^-2 ..rtc r'�.
x T
� s _ .•,+i6 '."�.� .14..^'.. �..--"-tY u"'�.r..+�+' M �• � �K .ry; * gx*J.4arGb-r�"-`t ,x
i^ ° _..r�..:._....Mj-^"•�""�f _,.,...,,�, �, � 4N �t"'� ` 9`i .,Nus tjt�"°'7�b,.�,a-%z�
_
•r z .r.. a
�� � j 9+�.� •`f, A rlti
f
}
f
I
r
�j qui t• � �
`��f. s+j,,� rS. -� �7 T!m fi��'' �� � ��jr y ,.. ,.�r,„ ~1< ,yr•..�.�., � '
{ •
� r L. I I ,rdi+:x•o��ryya,,YiS nC - .�'�T.�u'"hy' -Ya'+•un
VIM
✓ 'F s.rKa' w'L. f , �,,,�",,,s,9,.,,� ,1,<r r;' Nay- m _
�]:rf�i`: •. y F s y o-�� � f " r .' f 6`f-eye ,� _ �' .r'
A
_r.. -: 1 "":,N-•mac. ca:: _ fin
r..
l ;
ii
•;y' ... ti ' r. P t �)r a ''r{,�� � ti:�`v'�`�Yy,F�T�tif Y i l��� v .
1-
�
,�. _ `+1�< t N vM y.: r 5n�~i �c�L�,�[`� rr•��3M��., r i r�k��svS�lNdm't�,r��ys�{n .
�� r � S rt'r` � � rn r� Nr jO fir+ �• ,Y�"r�S� WLI ���z� �n
;s k"Y.1h a
.rF•.:! yy ��p�V 6c��FP° f x. �'•�r�a; al 6.� x�y 5 ..
.n� e
Y
.�` ....'. j.Qyy.....J lLYS ...
i
z
Solar Panels as seen from Dr. Tran's property.
is
of •� %r
a �h
L`a yk$ f
. w
il p foga
- .: � F ,� +5: a '"�'. a-rs9K 1 ' � �r 1, �f ru.Lv r^w �k-�•
tkr iti �•�� +Yzb,e >Y:rti c f. x0 r rtix atr eb. � W,'�.pf^�. � �...,,,
MM riN Y;u
9 aAp r
r - 2 5 a >• n7. -
✓3 5
�I x
"N
a i 2 w-'s fy
S w v + r i t J .. �. }d- -
�."'
_ Y
R - f � � �.'M3 Irf ;j�h•y('-a!y ,{o- r
��� of i, P • is,
lyh. -
jw
j mol.i
� i f
J 4 ..
J IR,
i +� r�� '+ypii�`Xr"�✓`r�' �P9'G't r+ .ar�}rsa,.^d :.J=�,• r~ it +..�"',
5 •rTb �R M 4 .'. k" ^Lti,,'xi �f� .., h
1 u"s^_�•d'R`al ,a Ip+r+'2i��~i r flo-'F't t' �.:y �' !" .yh-µ"hi
t:: syr v^
Sl
tt�
P.�.n
x .�.F. � i x�p es�b„- � � {, y ' „��1,w}.� a ` e ✓� �'� ,�,'�;C.si�`ss�'gLr.
M ire`-�i -q.-
H
q:r - M♦ i:{„L At rrR m h���F Sd "c {.+gyp `da'r �a�
,' l Sxv A<fi.4i fG fla�.UGL {trdpit`k Yip . -
vz a
,'K' aF hp�'� {rsr� a��'��.LLr�f �dt Y'•'�j�.! Jr r4 � ..a"„ _ tv 36�Y" �.��l�rf 43A4 y
it yy �Y
"� c--�.rP�f �9V� •➢i M j+fr• i19��W� f -'r" - !1 . IW ��!
�`" rk,h. .'>�i �' ,at nt :u, �t� .,r>F rY y t t „ - . '•
tin" s-� .fi';- s'>x%�` •` r�� �, �1�m�." ' . �t� ::
• i L
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP '� `5 Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR �:. -; County
:� ivuH
DATE: May 23, 2006
SUBJECT: SCHOFIELD & ASSOCIATES FOR NAMPHUONG TRAN & TRUNG DUNG
(APPELLANTS) MICHAEL WEINER (OWNER) APPEAL OF AN
ADMINISTRATIVE (DECISION :OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE INSTALLATION OF SIX
GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR PANELS. THE PROPERY IS LOCATED AT 1951
GREEN VALLEY ROAD IN THE ALAMO AREA (APN 193-770-D01) (COUNTY
FILE #Z106-11230) (DISTRICT III)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
1. RECOMMENDATIONS
UPHOLD the Community Development Department's decision that approved the
installation of six ground mounted solar panels and deny the appellant's appeal.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
_UNANIMOUS (ABSENT_� CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
ABSENT; ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
Contact: Lorna Villa(825335-1236) ATTESTED
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) JOHN CULLEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Catherine Kutsuris, Deputy Director SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Schofield & Associates, Appellant
Dr. Tran & Mr. Dung, Appellant
Dr. Weiner, Property Owner BY DEPUTY
County Counsel
Bryan Ranch Homeowner's Association
P141-
NORM 11111111111111M
Now
May 23, 2006
Board of Supervisors
File#Z10611230 '
Page 2
H. FISCAL IMPACT
.The appellant (Schofield & Associates) has paid the initial appeal fee of $125.00. The
property owner (Dr. Weiner) will be required to pay for staff time in excess of $125.00
associated with the processing of this appeal.
.III. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The appellant is appealing the placement of six additional solar panels arrays at 1951 Green
Valley Road in Alamo. The subject property is locatedi,within the Bryan Ranch Development
located in the Danville/Alamo area of the County. The development was approved as a
Planned Unit District in 1978.
On July 2, 2002, the Community Development Department approved County File#DP013016
Condition of Approval Review (attached)for the placement of three photovoltaic panels. The
approval identified conditions the property owner(Dr. Weiner) volunteered to incorporate to
help screen the panels.The decision was appealed by Ms.Tran and Mr. Dung and ultimately,
the Board of Supervisors upheld the Zoning Administrator's decision to allow the three
photovoltaic panels.
In February of 2006, Dr. Weiner requested approval to install six additional'photovoltaic
panels at the west end of his property. The Community Development Department approved
the installation of the additional panels on February 22, 2006. This decision was also
appealed.
The project site is a steep 3.73-acre lot with elevations varying from 535 at the lower level of
the property to 775 at the top of the site. The single family home is located at the east end of
the lot. The solar panels are located approximately 400 feet from the residence and are not
visible from Green Valley Road because of the topographical difference.
IV. APPEAL DISCUSSION
Listed below is a summary of the appellant's statement and staff's response.
1. Appeal Point: The proposal doubles the accessory structure in size by adding six new.
solar arrays (94)sq.ft. each, which are being placed closer than the sixty five foot setback
that was. required by the original conditional approval. The Zoning Code limits the area
coverage of an accessory structure to 600 square feet. The six new solar arrays add an
additional 564 sq. ft. to the existing accessory structure that is 612 sq. ft. The accessory
structure approved in 2002 already exceeds the limitations set forth in the Ordinance.
Response: The Zoning Code allows detached accessory structures to be placed three (3)
feet from the property line if it is set back at least fifty feet from the front property line. The
location of the six new panels, which are to be placed 26 feet from,the south property line,
May 23,2006
Board of Supervisors
File#Z10611230
Page 3
compiles with the setback requirements. The zoning does not limit the number of
accessory structures.
2. Appeal Point: The pending proposal doubles the size of the accessory structure allowed
by the 2002 approval; does not address that the pending proposal installs six (6) new
solar arrays when the 2002 approval limited the accessory structures to three (3); does
not address mitigation for a setback from the property line to reduce the adverse effects
on our property; does not address any mitigation for vegetation or other growth to shield
'the visual effect to our property; and does not address reflection and glare that not only
occurs form the existing accessory structure but also from the installation of the six (6)
new solar arrays.
Response: The 2002 decision was related to the application to install solar panels. It did
not otherwise establish limitations on the property. It should be noted that the State law
was amended .to specifically limit local agencies in the review of solar energy systems.
Government Code Section 65850.5 requires local agencies to administratively approve
applications to install solar panel systems through a nondiscretionarypermit. Review of
applications is limited to whether the system will have an adverse impact on public health
and safety. The visibility, aesthetic design, and reflectivity are all examples of issues
beyond the review prescribed by State law which states (refer to Government Code
65850.5):
(a) The implementation of consistent statewide standards to achieve
the timely and cost-effective installation of solar energy systems is
not a municipal affair, as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI
of the California Constitution, but is instead a matter of statewide
concern. It is the intent of the Legislature that local agencies not
adopt ordinances that create unreasonable barriers to the
installation of solar energy systems, including, but not limited
to, design � review for aesthetic purposes, and not
unreasonably restrict the ability of home owners and
agricultural and business concerns to install solar energy
systems. It is the policy of the state to promote and encourage
the use of solar energy systems and to limit obstacles to their use.
It is the intent of the Legislature that local agencies comply not
only with the language of this section, but also the legislative intent
to encourage the installation of solar energy systems by removing
obstacles to, i and minimizing costs of, permitting for such systems.
(b) A city or county shall administratively approve applications to
install solar energy systems through the issuance of a building
permit or similarnondiscretionarypermit. Review of the application
to install a solar energy system shall be limited to the building
official's review of whether it meet all health and safety
I
F
e.
May 23, 2006
Board of Supervisors
File #Z10611230
Page 4
requirements of local, state, and federal law. The requirements of
the local law shall be limited to those standards and regulations
necessary to ensure that the solar energy system will not have a
specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.
However, if the building official of the city or county has a good
faith belief that the solar energy system could have a specific,
adverse impact upon the public ;health and safety, the city, or
county may require the applicant to apply for a use permit.
(c) A city or county may not deny an application for a use permit to
install a solar energy system unless it makes written findings
based upon substantial adverse impact upon the public health or
safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or
avoid the specific, adverse impact. The findings shall include the
basis for the rejection of potential feasible alternatives of
preventing the adverse impact.
(d) The decision of the building official pursuant to subdivisions (b)
and (c) maybe appealed to the planning commission of the city or
county.
(e) Any conditions imposed on an application to install a solar energy
system shall be designed to mitigate the specific, adverse impact
upon the public health and safety at the lowest cost possible.
(f) (9)A solar energy system shall meet applicable health and safety .
standards and requirements imposed by state and locally
permitting authorities.
(2) A solar energy system for heating water shall be certified by
the Solar Rating Certification Corporation (SRCC) or other
nationally recognized certification agency. SRCC is a nonprofit
third party supported by the United States Department of
Energy. The certification shall be:for the entire solar energy
R system and installation.
(3) A solar energy system for producing electricity shall meet all 'a
applicable safety and performance'standards established by
the National Electrical Code, the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, and accredited testing laboratories such
as Underwriters Laboratories and; where applicable, rules of
the Public Utilities Commission regarding safety and reliability.
7;
r
3
May 23, 2006
Board of Supervisors
File #Z10611230
Page 5
3. Appeal Point: During the.past three and one half years, the vegetation planted on the
earth berm to the,soufh of Dr. Weiner's property has been neglected and allowed to
become,unkempt. It has not provided the visual shielding that the mitigation required for
visibility of the existing1solar arrays and has not prevented glare and reflection. The
addition of six (6) more solar arrays will not only increase the visibility from our property,
but will cause an even greater negative impact on our property's value.
Response: The July 2, 2002 approval to install three photovoltaic panels was subject to
landscaping conditions with which Dr. Weiner volunteered to comply. Su bsequent to the
installation of the three panels, the required landscaping was installed in compliance with
the approved permit. I
4. Appeal Point: Dr. Weiner's property is located within the Bryan Ranch Homeowner's
Association, Dr. Weiner's application to the Bryan Ranch Architectural Committee was
denied (attached) on January 13, 2006. As of the February 22, 2006', Conditions of
Approval Compliance Review, the proposed project has not been approved by the
Architectural Committee.' However, it appears that Dr. Weiner re-submitted his request
after the County issued a building permit on February 24th and received a conditions
approval from the -Architectural Committee on February 28, 2006 (attached). This
approval was based on the erroneous representation that the 2002 mitigation measure
had been complied with, that the County has approved the project as well as alleged
relaxed setback distance requirements.
Response: Please refer t i the response for Appeal Point #2.
5. Appeal Point: We would like to call the Board' attention to the magnitude of the solar
energy production that is proposed. The 2002 solar arrays were represented to produce
7,800 kwh per year. Dr. \1 einer's physical data proposes to install six new solar arrays
generating a total of an additional 6,800 kwh per year. Utilizing the California Energy
Commission's recommendations, the combination of solar arrays should satisfy the
electric need of two residences. Which means that this is not simply being installed for
residential consumption. Perhaps this is why Dr. Weiner offered to sell electricity to us.
What Dr. Weiner proposes is the equivalent of solar panel "farm" that certainly is not in
compliance with the zoning regulations for the planned community.
Response: Please refer to the response for Appeal Point #2.
6. /appeal Point: The proposed solar array is not suited for the proposed location next door
to our home for a variety of reasons:
• No review of the solar array's color or location has been conducted to insure that it
will blend with the landscape and that the glare will not impact the local streets and
structures.
• There was no analysis of alternative locations.
I
ryg 'titlZcykrtknxyfl.?'%:`ud°"s
^ a.
w
Pix
• 1
May 23, 2006
Board of Supervisors
File#Z10611230
Page 6
• There: is no analysis that the solar arrays presently existing as well as proposed
have and will cause excessive reflection that intrudes into living areas and amount
to a.nuisance.
• There is not analysis for grading and construction to minimize the visibility to our
house and local streets and structures.
• There is no analysis that the proposed solar arrays satisfy the minimum setback
required by the 2002 mitigation measures.
• There is no analysis that the,proposed'solar arrays will create excessive energy
production that would amount to a business venture that is.not in compliance with
the County zoning regulations.
Response: Please refer to the response for Appeal Point #2.
V. CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Section 65850.5 of the Government -Code, 'local agencies are required to
administratively. approve applications to install solar panel systems through a
nondiscretionary permit. Review of the application is solely limited to requirements necessary
to mitigate specific, adverse impacts on public health and safety.The proposed panels do not
impact public health and safety. Staff recommends that the Board uphold the administrative
decision that allowed the installation of six (6) additional solar panels and deny the appeal.
G:Current Planning/Staff ReportslZ106-11230,Board Order
SCHOFIELDA.SISDCIATB
G�
ATT0RNLY5 lAT LAW
A PItOMIONA.L LAW C6RPORATION
7-IL PLh2A AT SAN LWON I TFL: 925-327-0006 Scan iaaquin VaShy o5cc
2"CROW CANYON PLACE,SUMIr270 PkK 92S-327-009 1500 J S==t'P.C.BON 1637
SAN RA 400',Il 04593 EMAIL'. maA@ach*%--ccm Madam,Ca6iarrm 05151
WFB: w .¢chtlam.crnn 2n9.576•HAA6 1=a::2U9.57lrf1S
rul to: San Ramon
March 23, 2006 -�
f1! R 2 RECT
HAND DEUVERED -- ----
i
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Clerk of the Board
651 Pine Street,Room lab
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Notice of Appeal Related to Community Development Department Condition
of Approval dated February Z2,2006, Compliance Review
1951 Green Vali ey Road, Alamo, CA 94507
County File#Zl l 6 -11230
Honorable Members of the Boar of Supervisors:
Dr,NamPhuong Tran and Mr. Trung Dung are the owners of the property located at 60
Oak Glen Court,Alamo, California, which is immediately south and adjacent to the proposed
solar panel array that Dr. Weiner wishes to construct, We are bringing this appeal to challenge
the administrative'deeision made by a CounryOfficer. On February22, 2006, Ms. Catherine
Kutsuris, Deputy Director with the Contra Costa.County Community Development Department,
issued a Condition of Approval Compliance Review for the proposed project, This
determination finds that the proposed photovoltaic ('PV's panels are an accessory saveture that
comply with the R-15 Distzict standards and concluded that the panels comply with the
provisions of the zoning district and with the intent and purpose of the P-1 District. We believe
that this determination is in error and is not supported by the zoning regulations and ev idence in
the CommunityDeveloprnent Department's files related to this proicn. Thus determination is not
based on an adequate independent analysis by the County and inadequately addresses the project
alternatives, health, safety, visual, financial and other concerns which would be considered
during z full land use permit review,
This is the second proj ect by Dr. Weiner for installation of solar panel arrays at this sarn:
location on his property. The first project was the subject of contested proceedings that resulted
in approval based on the negotiation of mitigation measures because of the magni rude and
�a
Contra Costa County Board.of Supervisors
Re; Notice of Appeal
March 23, 2006
Page 2
l i
exposure of that project, This ultimately was presented to the Board of Supervisors .at the Board
hearing on October 1, 2002 (County File#DP013016, District M. We enclose a copy of the
Board's decision as Exhibit "A". The mitigation included.the limitation to three(3) solar
arrays which would be permitted to be installed sixty five(65) feet from the southern property
line (that abuts our property). The approval was for a total accessory structure size of 612 square
feet for the three solar arrays to be installed on terraced.pads intended to reduce the height and
visibility from our house,installation of an earth berm along the south property line with,the
planting of four(4) trees plus an additional 30 inch box tree to the northeast of the arrays, This
installation was completed in 2002.
The new proposal virtually doubles the accessory structure in size by adding six(6) nem,
solar arrays (44 square feet each), which are being placed closer than the sixty five (6 5) foot
setback that was required by the original conditional approval. Section 92-4.212 of the Zoning
Ordinance provides standards for an.accessory stractirrv. (a) a floor area coverage of 600 square
feet on lots greater than 20,000 square feet in area; and., (b) 15`feet in height. The six (6) new
solar arrays adds an addifioual-564 square feet to the existing soar array accessory structure that
is 612 squ.are feet, The accessory structure approved in 2002 already exceeds the limitation set
forth in the Ordinance.
The Compliance Review does not address that the pending proposal doubles the size of
the accessory structure allowed by the 2002 approval; does not address that the pending proposal
installs six (6) new solar arrays when the 2002 approval,limited the accessory structure to three
{3); does not address any mitigation for a setback from the"property line to reduce the adverse
I effect on our property; does not address altemative sites on Dr. Weiner's property which could be
to the north,and out of view of our property; does not address any r ill gation for vegetation or
other growth to shield the visual effects to our property; and, does not address the reflection and
glare that not only occurs from the existing accessory structure but also from the installation of
i
the six (6) new solar arrays.
During the past tluee and one-half years, the vegetation planted on the earth berm to the
south of Di. Weiner'sprop erty has been neglected and allowed to become unkempt_ It has not
provided the visual shielding that the mitigation required for visibility of the existing solar arrays
and has not prevented glare and reflection. The addition of six (6) more solar arrays will not only
increase the visibility from our property, but will cause an even greater negative impact on our
property's value.
J
Dr. Weiner's properly is located within the Bryan Ranch Homeowner's Association. Dr.
Weiner's application tot he Bryan Ranch.Architectural Committee was denied on January 13,
2006, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit'B". As ofthe February 22, 2006 Condition of
I Approval Compliance Review,the proposed project bad not been approved by the Architectural
1 Committee. However, it appears that Dr. Weiner re-submitted his request after the Count},issued
i
4
1
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Re: Notice of Appeal
March 23,2000
�I Page 3
r
I'
�j a building permit on February24'and received a conditional approval.from the Architectural
j Committee on February 28, 2006;copy of which is attached as Exhibit"C"• :Thin approval was
i based on the erroneous representation that the.2002 mitigation measures-had been cornnlied with,
that the County had approved the project as well as alleged relaxed setback distance
I
requirements.
'
We would also like to call the Boards attention to the magnitude of the solar energy
� t� by
production that is proposed. The 2002 solar arrays were represented by the installer to produce
m estimated ?,800 kwh per year. The m
State of California Energy Commission in it's Consuer
Guide and guides to system design and installation state that the average residential property
consumes 7,500 kwh per year. In other words, the 2002 solar arrays should satisfy m ore than
100%of the needs of the avet{age residence. Here, Dr.Weiner's physical data-proposes to install
Arc new solar arrays generating a total of an additional 6,806 icwh per year. Utilizing the.-
California
heCalifornia Energy Commission's recommendations, the combination of solar arrays should
satisfy the electric needs of TW, residences . , . which means that this is not simply being
installed for residential consumption. Perhaps this is why Dr. Weiner offered to sell electricity to
us. What Dr. Weiner proposes is the equivalent of a solar panel 'farm' that certainly is not in
compliance with the zoning regulations for the planned.community.
I
The proposed solar May is not suited for the proposed location next door to our home for
a variety of reasons:
• No review of the solar array's color or location has been conducted to insure that
it will blend with the,landscape and that the glare will not impact the local streets
and structures f
II11
• There is no analysis of alternative locations.
There is no analysis that the solar arrays presently existing as well as proposed
have and will cause excessive reflection that intrudes into living areas and amount
to a nuisance.
There is no analvsis for grading and construction to minimize the visibility to our
house and local streets and structures,
• There is no analysis that the proposed solar arrays satisf}'the minimum setback
required by the 2002 mitigation measures.
• There is no analysis that the proposed solar arrays will create excessive energy
production that would amount to a business venture that is not be in compliance
with the County zoning regulations.
x
o,.
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Re: Notice of Appeal
March 23, 2006
t
i Page 4
�Y.
i We recognize that the State's policy is to encourage alternative eller
'. gy production,
I' however this policy has never been intended to eliminate the tights of neighboring pro e
Fx I P m
owners to ask for mitigation that will'avoid a n.egitive impact to our and our neighbors'
properties, Dr. Weiner in creating his collection of nine (9)solar arrays completely disregards
z: anv mitigation for the negative effect that it has on the property of others.
Based on theinformation above,we request that the February 22, 2006 Condition of
t Approval Compliance Review and the pending building permit application for the proposed solar *`
array be suspended pending resolution of this appeal,
by the Board of Supervisors. If you have
any questions or continents regarding this appeal,, please contact me at(925) 362-13 8 8.
l
BY Our signatures, i verify under enol of.
P t} perjury that the statements confain.ed herein,
1
' to the best of my knowledge, are true.and correct.
r
Very truly yours, .
amPbuon Traci
Trung Dung
Enclosures
cc: Louis F, Schofield, Esq.
1 t
BRYAN RANCH(HOi HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION
Architectural Committee
Project Review Request
JOwner: Michael Weiner Project;evo. 94-05
Applicant: Same Phone: 831-2830
Property Address: 1451 Green Valley Rd. Tract: 6188 Lot: 1
The Applicant/Owner hereby appli Is for approval to make improvements to Owner's property as
described below or in attached plans and specifications. By making this Request, I acknowledge that
the Brvan'Ranch CC&R's and Architectural Rules are binding on the Applicant/Owner, and agree
that the subject property and all improvements added thereto shall be maintained in full compliance
with the CC&R's and Rules, .
Dated: December 16. 2005 Signature on File
Owners Signature
Install a supplemental solar panel system per the attached, undated reduced size drawing by
AlvisProjects, Inc. sheet PV-1 and 5 pages of selected portions of the full sized drawing.
The Architectural Committee reviewed the information submitted and based on that review and
consideration of,the Bryan Ranch CC&R's and the Architectural Rules reached the following decision
on 1-11-06
(X Not Approved for the reasons indicated below.
I
( }l Approved subject to the following conditions:
1, The proposed equipment location shown on plan PV-1 violates the County d: ARC approved property
line setback distances per"Option B, Enlarged View #1" drawing for the existing solar panels.
2. Existing solar panel location shown on the submitted plan does not agree with the County approved
"Option B, Enlarged View#1" that specified a setback from the southern property line of 70 feet with a 5
fi high screening berm 40 to 60 feet long and 35 feet from the western property line.
3. The submitted plan PV-1 is not legible and much information has been blacked out. A full size drawing
is required that shows the true location of the existing panels, associated equipment, landscaping and the
location of proposed equipment with details of what is actually proposed including the installation and
routing of conduit to the main power distribution panel in the home.
4. Additional view screening landscaping may be required in addition to the 12 15-gallon Flannel Bush
along the southern property line and the Chinese Pistache tree that were required in 2002.
Prgiect timing: Per CC&R Section 3.04 D & E, wort: must start within 8 months of the approval date,
or the approval shall be deemed revoked. Within 8 months after start of construction,ivork must be
completed. The Architectural Committee is to be notified when wort: is complete.
Any/all approvals made by the Architectural Committee are for aesthetic purposes onlc. Count}'and
State Code requirements apply.
Date: :,; , Bv;
For the Committee -
Fik: 1951 Green Valie_v Rd_P 94-03
Ra.: lune IS.300}
t
- • 1
BRYAN RANCHHOMEOWNERS'ASSOCIA TION
c/o Jean Bates & Associates, PO Box 669, Danville, California 94526 (92-5) 838-2095
January 13, 2006
Michael Weiner
"1951 Green Valley Road
Alamo, CA 94507
Re: . Architectural Committee Project Review.
Project 94-0.5
Dear Mr. Weiner:
The Architectural Com nittee has rejected your application to install additional solar panels on your
property for the reasons indicated,in the enclosed Project Review Request Form. However, the
Committee will reconsider your application, provided it contains the information specified in the
Committee's.denial.
You are encouraged to resubmit your request, taking advantage of the guidance provided. I have attached
the "Procedure for Requesting"Reconsideration by the Board of Directors" if,you dish to appeal the
committee's decision.
Sincerely,
rJ'
,
Paul R. Wilkinson(
Administrative Assistant
Cc: Architectural Committee Chairman '
Enclosures: Project Review Request dated January 11, 2006
Procedure for Requesting Reconsideration by the Board of Directors
County Condition of Approval Review dated July 2, 2002
Michael Weiner letter with Option B dated July 3. 2002
Michael Weiner letter dated August 14, 2002 agreeing to plant 12 Flannel Bush
File: 1951 Green Valley Rd_P 94-05
DLnnl
arry,
lcP
Community Contra Comm My Deve pme
Community Qavelcpm=nt Director
Development Costa
Department CDunty
,mty Administration Building
651 Pine Street
4th Floor,North Wing
Martinez,California 94553-0095 i ` F—tet
Phone: (925) 335-1236
July 2, 2002
Dr. Michael S.Weiner
1951 Green Valley Road c
Alamo, Ca 44507
Dear Dr.Weiner;
Re' County File 4DP013016 Condition of Approval Review
For placement of photovoltaic(panels
1951 Green Valley Road, Alai
On May 29, 2002, you submitted a(Condition of Approval Review under file#DPOI3016, to install three
photovoltaic panels on your property referenced above. The property is located v6thin the Bryan Ranch
Development located in the DanvillelAlamo area of the County. The development was approved as a Planned
Unit Development District in 1975, and included several conditions of approval. The Community
Development Department detninined that photovoltaic.pancis are an accessory structure and a Conditions of
Approval Review(COA)was necessary to ensure that the panels are consistent with the intent and purpose of
the P-1 District. Condition R2 of the subdivision states:
'Prior to the issuance ofa I v buildingpermit and/or gradingpermitfor work-on an),lot, the proposed
residential buildings and accessory structures to be located on that lot shall be first submitted for
review and approval by the County Planning Director. The guide to be used to establish setback,
yard and height dimensional requirements and otherprovisionsfor development and as-e on each lot
shall be the Single Family Residential Disirici R-15..."
I have reviewed and considered allinformation you submitted including revised"Option B"site plan submitted
on June 25, 2002. The letters submitted by Dr. NamPhuong Trait, your neighbor at 60 Oak Glen Court in
Alamo, a letter dated May 15, 2002 from the Alamo Improvement Association, and letters dated April 26,
2002 and June 14, 2002 from the Bryan Ranch Homeowners Association have also been reviewed. We met on
Junc 23,2002 to view the site and,moek-up of the panels. We also viewed the site from Stone Valley Road
and connecting collector streets. On June 26,2002,I viewed the site from Dr.Ttan's property at 60 Oak Gin
Court; this property is located to the south of 1950 Green Valley Road.
At the site visit on June 23,2002,we discussed mitigations you proposed to screen the view of the panels from
surrounding properties. Althoughlit would he extremely difficult to see thepanels from Stone V a11ey Road,I
appreciate your willingness to plant a box vee to the east of the panels to screen any possible view from Stone
Valley Road. Your proposal (option B attached) to relocate the southern bank of panels furti-aer from your
1
Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8.00 a.m. • 5:00 p.m.
ntfirP m nincart the t.at. x 5rh Frloays D1 each month
t '
5h i
1-
x"V
l'- south property line lessens the impact to the adjacent property. The additional landscaping along the south
property line and grading to the west of the panels you propose also contribute to minimize its effect.
The conditions of the subdivision require compliance-with the Single Family Residential District R-15.1 have
evaluated your proposal against the R-15 District standards and concluded that the panels comply with the
provisions of the District, Based on this,approval is granted for the placement of three photovol taicpanels at
the west end of the property. The project is approved as identified on plans prepared by Alvis Proj=ts inc.and
as revised an Option B dated June 25, 2002, subject to.the conditions you have volunteered to incorporate as
listed below. Please note that the items listed below;also include comments from Bryan Ranch Homeowners
t Association.
ti The following items shall be submitted to the Community Development Department forreview and approval of
the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a building permit.
1. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted and include the items listed below. Additionally,
approved all landscaping shall be installed prior to requesting a final inspection of the panels.
a. One 30-inch box Chinese Pistache tree shall be planted along the east side of the solar panels. The
tree shall be planted outside the drip line of the existing trees and located to screen any possible-.dew
Y
of the panels from the cast side of the property,
b. A five-foot high berm, approximately 40 to 60 feet in length„planted with native grasses, shall be
located to the southeast of the panels to help screen the view of the panels from the adjacent property
to the south, f
rS
c. Four 15-gallon trees shall be planted along the south property line, 15 feet on center commencing at
the southwest corner of the lot.
2. Two copies of a grading plan in.compliance,with the Grading Ordinance shall be submitted that
demonstrates the west end of the panels will.be decreased in height.No cut shall be steeper than 2:1.
Identify the volume of the cut, the volume of the fill and the approximate amount the panels will be
lowered.Please note that any grading involving more than 200 cubic yards will require a sails report and
grading permit.
`F
3. A revised site plan shall be submitted that incorporates"Option B"(attached)which relocates the most
southerly panel to the north.
4. Provide evidence that you have made a good faith effort to deliver your landscape plans to the Bryan
Ranch Homeowners Association and have sought comments from their Architectural Committee.
5. The three foot high metal equipment box that will house the inverters and the elxtric panel shall be
painted to blend in with the hillside.
6. The revised site plan shall demonstrate that the automated drive equipment will be placed on the north
side of the panels for each array. Additionally,the concrete pad for the placement of the automated drive
equipment shall be minimized as much as possible.
7. Demonstrate that the Solar Rating Certification Corporation or other nationally recognized agency
certifies the proposed photovoltaic system
2
f
J
Once the above listed information is su`aznitted and accepted as adequate the plans will be approved by the
Cornmunity DevelopmentDepartm i t. If you have any questions do not hesitate to cal meat(925)335.1236.
Sincerely,
1Jdt'
(:> - a- rJ', I IS
Lorna Villa
Project Planner
Atachrncrits. Option B Site Plan dated June 25,2002
Landscape plan �'j�W-Z
June 14, 2002 letteromaty Offices of Gagen, McCoy, McMahon &Armstrong
Bryan Ranch Homeowrien Association letter dated April 26, 2002
cc: Archer Norris, Anendon id Shaffer, 2033 North Main Street Suite 900, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
w/attachments
Byron Ranch Home Owners Association,C/o Jean Bates&Associates,P.O.Boz 3428, Danville,Ca
94526
Alamo Improvement Association,F.O. Box 271,Alamo, Ca 94507
Trung Dung&AlamPhuong Tran, 60 Oak Glen Court, Alamo, Ca 44507 wiattachnirnts
Cathcrinc Kutsuris, Community Development Department
G:CarrVianllM=5/DP013016CDA!v
Zillow.com- Data& Graphs - Real Estate Value, Local Real Estate Trends Page 1 of 2
zitlo' .comm3eta
Your Edge-in Rea(Estate
60 Oak Glen Ct, A,iarno, CA 94507
ZESTIMATETI: $3,575,664
Value Range: $3,146,584 - $3,825,960
Market Value Change Show: Dollar % Percentage
Time frame: ixri SSrrj 10yrI Since last sale
$4.00m-
$3.64m
$3.00m
$2.50m
$2.00m-
$1
$1 ADm
n'12006 ilio+r:'.airri
$0.6m_ i
Jan02 Jarn03 Jan04 Jan05 Jan06
Compare:
This home
94507
Alamo
Contra Costa
CA
USA
Show sales
ZestimateTm Rankings
This home at $3,575,664 is valued higher than: Zindex (Median Zestimate TM) j
• 99% of homes in 94507 ZIP code $1,266,333
• 98% of homes in Alamo , $1,266,858
• 96% of homes in Contra Costa County $598,163
i
• 990/b of homes in CA state I $527,088
• 99% of homes in United States $256,565
Historical Value Trends Show as; (9- % $ % annualized
Past: This home 94507 Alamo Contra Costa CA Us
30 days 11.5% -2.3% -2.2°io -0.911/0 0.30/0 -1.9C/o
1 year 15.50/c 25% 2511/b 20% 20% 14%
5 years + 42% 113% 113% 133% 1720/c 87%
10years ---- 1 147% 192% 1929/b 272% 267% 98%
Last sale (09/15/2000) 174% 1210/c 122% 149% 181% 8911/b
I
http://www.zillow.cona/Charts.z?charLDuratiori=5years&zpid=18427739 4/5/2006
F7
D.Al
07/18/06
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on July 189 2006 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Uilkema, Pie pho, DeSaulnier, Glover and Gioia
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The Board heard testimony on the administrative appeal of NamPhuong Tran and Trung Dung of the
Community Development Department decision to allow solar panels at 1951 Green Valley Road, Alamo.
The following people spoke:
Denis Pinhey, resident of Alamo;
Louis Schofield, attorney for the appellants;
Michael Winer, resident of Alamo;
NmaPhuong Tran, appellant.
The Board then took the following actii ns:
CLOSED the public hearing; and CONTINUED the matter to August 8, 2006 at 10:00 a.m to provide the
applicant and appellant additional time I to complete a private agreement, as requested by said parties.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED d
Cull erk of the Boud of Supervisors
d Couory Administrator
By Deputy
L�INiTED STATES POSTQMN D C.4
(t9 stage&
uQl 22 TO-A'Y' 2cf,+6 PM � USPS o
• Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box •
IIJn C
Board o:Street,
rvisors �
Contra Cunty
651 PineRoom 106
Martinez553-1293