Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10012002 - D.4 TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS f. f Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2002 SUBJECT: NtAMP'HUNG TRAN (APPELLANT) MICHAEL WEINER(OWNER)APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT THAT DETERMINED THAT SOAR PANELS ARE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THE PROPERY IS LOCATED AT 1951 GREEN VALLEY ROAD IN THE ALAMO AREA (APN 193-770-001), COUNTY FILE #DPO13016, DISTRICT III.' SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS UPHOLD the Community Development Department's decision that the solar panels/rack are an accessory structureand deny the appellant's appeal of the decision subject to conditions. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE'' OTHER SIGNATURE (S): ACTION OF BOARD ON October 1. 772 ZPPROVED As'RECOM;;NDED X OTHER' x ****SEE ATLADM AUbII f FOR BOARD ACTION**** VOTE OF SUPERVISORS i HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND = UNANIMOUS(ASSENTNme ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT:' AB TA{N: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Lorna Villa(925-335.1236) ATTESTED October 1, 2002 cc:Community Development Department(CDD) JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE 130ARD OF Catherine Kutsuris,'Deputy Director SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Dr.Tran&Mr. Dung,Appellant Dr.Weiner, Property Owner { County Counsel BY ,DEPUTY Mr.&Mrs.Yang Edward Shaffer Ronald E.Van Buskirk' September 18,2002 Board of Supervisors Fife#DP013018'' Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT The appellant (Dr. Tran) 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. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The appellant is appealing the placement of three solar panels arrays at the west end of 1951 Green Valley Road in Alamo. The subject property is located within the Bryan Ranch Development locatedin the Danville/Alamo area of the County. The development was approved as a Planned Unit Development District in 1978, and included several conditions of approval.The Community Development Department determined that photovoltaic panels are an accessory structure and-a Conditions of Approval Review (COA)was necessary to ensure that the panels are consistent with the intent and purposes of the P-1 District. Condition#2 of the subdivision states: "Prier to issuance of any building permit andlor grading permit for work on any fat, 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 and yard and height dimensional requirements and other provisions for development and use on each lot shall be the Single Family Residential District R-15..." The project site is a steep 3.73-acre lot with elevations varying from 535 at the bottom of the property to 775 at the top of the site. The single family home recently constructed is located at the east end of the lot. The solar panels will be located approximately,400 feet from the residence and will not be visible from this distance because of the change in topography. The panels for each array are approximately 30 feet long, by 6.5 feet high. The overall height (which includes the support post)ranges from 7'8"to 1 VY based on its location. The solar panel cells are indigo brae; the panel structure and cross arms are powder coated with a dark sage. The original proposal approved by the Deputy Director included a four-foot high equipment shed to house the inverters and electrical panels. However, recently the applicant has indicated that the panels will be installed at a fined angle of 36 degrees thereby eliminating the need for equipment shed. The charge from a seasonal tracking to a fixed system does not increase the size of the panels or add any additional equipment to the panels and is considered to be consistent with the original approval by the Community Development Department. Exhibit A is a chronological list of events that pertain to this application. September 18,2002 Board of Supervisors Pile#DPO13016 Page 3 APPEAL DISCUSSION Listed below is a summary of the appellant's statement and staff's response. 1. Appeal:Point: The appellant has indicated that the determination by the Community Development Department that the solar array is an accessory structure under the Single Family Residential District is in error and not supported by the zoning: regulations, Response: The R-15 single-family residential district allows a detached single-family dwelling on each lot and the accessory structures and uses normally auxiliary to it. The solar panels were considered to be accessary to the residence since the power generated by the panel would support the residence. It was also found to be consistent with the following two accessory building standards identified in Section 82-4.212 of the Zoning Ordinance: a. A floor area coverage of 600 square feet on lots greater than twenty thousand square feet in area, b. Fifteen feet in height. 2. Appeal Point: The appellant has indicated that no analysis has been provided to ensure the panels and landscaping can withstand the high winds and rain drainage associated with the location. Response: The solar panel installation required a building permit and the plans submitted were in with all code requirements. 3. Appeal Point: The appellant has indicated that no review of the solar array's location has been conducted to ensure it will blend with the landscape and not impact the local streets and structures. Response: Staff conducted a site inspection when the story poles and mock solar panels were in place. The site was also viewed from Stone Valley Road, connecting collector streets and from Dr. TTran's residence at 60 Glen Court Drive. Staff concluded that while driving along Stone Valley Road it would be minimally visible. We agree that the panels will be highly visible from the neighbor's residence however; the panels comply with the accessory structure setback. The property owner has also stated that alternative locations were considered; however,the hill top location provides the most direct access to sunlight. In order to decrease the panels impact the:property owner has agreed to the following: Moving the panels 10 feet further from;the Tran's property; A five-foot high berm, 40 to 60 feet in length to help screen the panels; September 18,2002 Board of Supervisors File#DP013018 Page 4 « Grading at the west end of the panels to lower the height; and The planting of 12 15-gallon trees and one box tree. 4. Appeal Point: The appellant has indicated that the analysis of alternative locations and equipment appears incomplete.We feel that there are alternative locations where these solar structures could be place with no significant impact on the system efficiency or cost, but Dr. Weiner for unclear reasons, has refused to choose those locations for placement of his solar structures. These locations would pose little impacts on anyone in the community directly. Response: See response to issue #3. 5. Appeal Point: The appellant has indicated that the grading to lower the solararray and the construction of a 5-foot high berm may cause drainage, visual, and construction impacts, which have not been addressed. Currently Dr. Weiner is not required to obtain a grading permit even though the grading and fill of the hillside appears to exceed'what is indicated on the plans. Additionally, several cats greater than 5' are not supported by a retaining structure and this construction would significantly change the existing course of drainage. Reponse: The Grading;Ordinance does not require applicants to obtain a grading permit for the projects involving less than 200 cubic yard of dirt. Based on the information contained on the site plan submitted for a building permit by Dr. Weiner, the amount of grading proposed does not require a grading permit. According to the Building Inspection Department, the 55-foot long berm does not need to be engineered, 6. Appeal Point: The appellant has indicated that the proposed landscaping is inefficient and insufficient to serve as view screening'purposes. Lona term maintenance requirements are not clearly outlined. Response: We agree in part with the position, in that the solar panels are extremely visible from the neighbor's property. Dr. Wiener's south property line that abuts Dr. Tran's property is separated by a wire fence. The property owner has agreed to place twelve 15-gallon trees along the southwest property line. The California native species is evergreen and has a rapid rate of growth. It will be placed 15 feet on center commencing at the southwest cornier of Dr.Weiner's property. The site plan identifies a low volume drip emitter for each new tree. The Tran's landscaping in this area includes shrubs and trees that could be supplemented to further mitigate the view. 7. Appeal! Point: The appellant has indicated that the solar panels will have significant impact on our safety and property value, to have such large intimidating visible unblended structures to be located so close to our backyard. Currently due to lack of a water source at the construction site dust polluted the area in our backyard. Tractor` September 18,2002 Board of Supervisors File#DP013016 Page 5 moves around next to area of high and dry weeds posing fire danger. Soil is piled up to 5 feet high without being wateredand compacted causing dust to fly down to our pool and spa when it is slightly windy. Response: We concur that the panels will are large and extremely visible to the neighbors as there are no other structures or topographical features that screen the panels from view. However, the southern most arrays will be located 65 feet from the south property line, which;is significantly further than the three-foot minimum distance required for accessory structures. CONCLUSION The solar panels comply with the P-1 standards of the approved subdivision. Staff recommends that the Board'uphold the Community Development Department's decision that the solar panels are an accessory structure and permitted to be,placed as conditioned and deny the appellant's appeal subject to the following condition. « The property owner of 1951 Green Valley Road shall defend, indemnify, arra hold harmless the Contra Costa County Planning Agency and its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this decision.'The County will promptly notify the property owner of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. G:Current Planning/Staff Reports/DP013016 Board Order.2' ADDENDUM TO ITEM DA October 1, 2002 On this date, the Board of Supervisors considered the appeal by Namphung Tran of an administrative decision of the Community Development Department that determined that solar panels are an accessory structure on the property located at 1951 Green Valley Road in the Alamo area. Catherine Kutsuris,Deputy,Director, Community Development Department presented the staff report and recommendations. Also present was Dennis Barry,Director, Community Development,Lorna Villa and Aruna Bhat,both from the Community Development Department. The chair opened the public hearing and the following persons presented testimony. Dr. Namphuong Tran,Appellant,;60 Oak GlenCourt,Alamo; Dr. Michael S. Weiner, Applicant, 1951 'Green Valley Road,Alamo; Yuen-Chuan Yang, 1965 Green Valley Road,Alamo; David Blomqust,Bryan Ranch Homeowner's Association, 114 Goldenridge Road,Alamo ' Jack Behseresht,Alamo Improvement Association, 1350 Sugarloaf Drive, Alamo; Robert Luehrs,Helping Hand Landscape Design, 201 Spring Street,Pleasanton The chair then closed the public hearing and returned the matter to the Board. After fin-ther discussion, Supervisor Gerber moved to approve the staff recommendations as presented today, with the modifications that staff work with the property owner regarding the landscape prior to its being,planted. In addition, she,requested that look at a countywide policy regarding solar panels,including criteria and the consideration of neighboring properties, relative to screening and other issues discussed today. The Board then took the following action: ■ CLOSED the public hearing; ■ DENIED the;appeal by Narnphung Tran(Appellant); ■ UPHELD the Community Development Department's decision that the solar panels/rack are an accessary structure at the property located at 1951 Green Valley Road in the Alamo area. CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF EVENTS February 7, 2002 and March 7, 2002: Dr. Weiner submits solar panel proposal, to Baan Ranch Homeowners Association for review. March 22, 2002: Bryan Ranch Homeowners Association requests story poles prior to making a decision €n the solar panels. April 26, 2002: Bryan Ranch Homeowners Association denies the proposal. April 29, 2002: Dr. Weiner submits a Request for Determination to the Community Development Department to install three photovoltaic panels. Community Development Department determined that aCondition of Approval Review is required to review the panels. May 15, 2002: Alamo Improvement Association does not support the placement of solar panels at 1951 Green Valley Read. May 29, 2002: Dr. Weiner submits application for Condition Compliance Review to the Community Development Department for placement of thee photovoltaic panels. June 14, 2002: Bryan Ranch Homeowners Association issues a second letter stating they "reluctantly approve"the placement of solar panels. July 2, 2002: Community Development Department approves the placement of three photovoltaic panels. July 29, 2002: Dr. Tran, a neighbor residing at 60 Glen Court request review of staff's July 2, 2002 approval to place solar panels at 1951 Green Valley lead. August 2002: At staWs suggestion a meeting was scheduled;prior to issuance of a building permit for the interested parties to meet with staff and discuss their concerns. Dr. Weiner refused to meet until he had obtained a building permit. Subsequent to issuance of a building permit a second attempt'for a meeting failed because Dr. Weiner was unwilling to meet. August 7, 2002: Community Development Department's, Deputy Director determines that staffs review and approval of the solar panels dated July;2, 2002 is valid. August 14, 2002: Dr. Weiner obtains a building permit for the solar panels, August 29,2002: Dr. Tran contacts the Building Inspection Department questioning the depth of the cuts and the amount of dirt being moved at the Weiner property;; September 5, 2002: Dr. Tran (property owner of 60 Oak Glen Court)file an appeal. September 5, 2002: Building Inspection Department issues a Notice to Comply to Dr. Weiner. The notice requires the property owner to confirm that the grading is in conformance with the approved plans by certifying the quantity of dirt moved, the pad elevation and slope grade. Information submitted by the property owner in response to the notice was incomplete and additional information has been requested. September 15, 2002: Mr. Yang the property owner at 1965 Green Halley Road located to the north of Dr. Weiner's property contacted the Community Development Department to express his concerns with the solar panels. He expressed concern with the visibility of the panels from his site and questioned the placement. To date, written correspondence from Mr. Yang has not been submitted. RE V Mr.Ttung Dung& SEP =.' 2002 Dr.NamPhuong Tran 60 Oak Glen Court CLER—MAM4? s'!PERVISC RS Alamo, CA 94507 C0NTr CGST CO. September 05,2002 Hand Delivered Centra.Costa County Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Board 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 R.e. Notice of Appeal Related to Planning Departments July 2, 2002 and August 7, 2002 Determination for Placement of Photovoltaic Panels at 1953 Green Valley Road Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors: As the neighbors immediately adjacent to and impacted by the proposed installation of the large'solar arrays by Dr. Michael Weiner at 1951 Green Valley Road in unincorporated Contra. Costa County near Alarm, we are bringing this appeal to challenge the determination and approval of the Community Development Department allowing the project to move forwards On July 2, 2002, .Lorna Villa, project''Planner with the Contra Costa County Community Development Department issued a Condition of Approval Review determination for the proposed project. Please refer to July 2, 2002 letter from Ms. Lorna 'Villa to 'Dr. Michael S. Weiner (copy attached). This determination finds that the solar array is "an'accessory structure" under the Single Family Residential District (R-15) zoning regulations and grants approval for the placement of a control building and associated solar panels,tracking equipment, concrete foundations and accessory equipment covering approximately,800 square feet adjacent to our backyard. We believe that this determination is in error and is not supported by the, zoning regulations and evidence in the Community Development Department's files related to this project. The July 2 determination promotes compliance with a number of voluntary conditions related to the installation of the solar array. These conditions are not based on any independent analysis by the County and inadequately address the project alternatives, Pursuant to County Code§ 144.002,`zany person aggrieved by an administrative action taken by any officer of this county under this code may appeal the action to the board of supervisors." 1063,53901 -d 5£St- 9E-5 6 ueji 2uonx4dweW ecS - 1 T ;?o 01 cies July24,2442 Page 2 the health, and safety, visual, financial and other concerns of the neighborhood, which would be considered during a full land use,permit review. We have serious concerns that this solar array is not suited for the proposed location next door to and up sloped from our home for a variety ofreasons = No analysis has been:provided or:studies conducted to insure the proposed solar array and the proposed landscape plan can withstand the high winds and rain drainage often associated'with the open landscape of the proposed ridgeline location. No review of the solar array's location has been conducted to insure that it will blend with the landscape and will not impact the local streets and structures. Please refer to the letter from the Alamo Improvement Association dated May 15,2002. • The analysis of alternative locations and equipment appears incomplete. We feel that there are alternative locations where these solar structures could be placed with no significant impact on the system efficiency or cost, but Dr. Weiner for unclear reasons, has refused to choose those location for placement of his solar structures. These locations would pose little impacts on anyone in the community directly. • Grading to lower the solar array below grade and the construction of a.'5- foot high berm Reside the solar array may cause unforeseen drainage, visual and construction impacts, which have not been addressed. Currently Dr. Weiner is not required to obtain a grading permit even though his grading of this hillside is more than 5;1 (at least 2:1 at some points),the fill of the berm is in excess of 3' in height,several cuts that are greater than 5' and not supporting by a retaining structure, and this constriction would significantly change the existing course of drainage. • The proposed landscape seems to be very inefficient and insufficient to serve as view screening purpose. And neither the County Planning Department nor the Dr. Weinces HOA has outlined clearly what the minimum maintenance requirements are for this landscape in the future. We are afraid that once the solar;parcels are built, and the site inspected, that Dr. Weiner would pay very little attention to the maintenance of this view screening landscape, since it is so out of the way from him. Please 10635394VI -d SES'i- 9E-S 6 ueal 2 om4dweW ecs = i i ao OT ja July 24, 2002 Page 3 refer to the attached landscape architect letter of professional opinion and suggestion. • Last but not least, it has significant impact on our safety and property value, to have such large, intimidating, visible, unblended structures to be located so close to our backyard. As of now,',because of lack of running water source at the construction site,when the dry soil is moved and piled up, dust polluted the area in our backyard. Tractor moves around next to area of high and dry weeds, posing fire danger. Soil is piled up to 5 feet high without being watered and compacted causing dust to fly down to our pool and spa when it is slightly windy. We do not object to Dr. Weiner's proposed contribution to fighting escalating energy bills. However, we believe that 'approval of such a large protect with all its potential impacts must be analyzed to insure proper placement and compliance with the County zoning regulations as well as community standards. We have attempted on multiple occasions to meet with Dr. Weiner to discuss the above issues but he has consistently refused to meet with us.' Ms. Loma Villa had also tried:to arrange for such meeting to occur, but Dr. Feiner insisted that he would only consider such a meeting after he received his building permit. And until now, after the permit is issued,we have been unsuccessful in having a meeting with Fir. Weiner. He had rushed to start the construction even prior to the issue of the permit, most likely in hope that by the time the Board of Supervisors had a chance to review this matter,that he would have finished the construction, and by de facto the structure would be allowed to stand as is. .Based on the information above, we request that the July 2 'Conditions of Approval 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 comments regarding this appeal, please contact me at (925) 362- 1388. By my signature, I verify under penalty of perjury that the statements contained herein,to the best of my knowledge, are true and correct: A�;Oz NamMuong Tran IUS3S394V1 it ' SO5 T- 9E-5 6 ueul Zunn4dweW ecs = 1 I 20 OT dos July 24, 2002 Page4 Attachments: 1, July 2, 2002 Condition of Approval Review 2. August 7,2002 Community Development Department meter': 3. Alamo Improvement Association Letter 4. Helping Hand Landscape Design Architect Letter Cc: Lama Villa,Community Development Department S "d ue.al 2uon4dweW . e£'S : T t 20 01 dOS Community ContraLoom it Bary,aice _, GCommunity Development Director Development Costa Department County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,California 94553-0095 �wr Phone: (925)335-1236 " July 2,2002 Dr.Michael S. Weiner 1951 Green Valley Road' Alamo,Ca 94507 Dear Dr.Weiner: Re: County File#DPOI3016 Condition of Approval Review For placement of photovoltaic panels n 1951 Green Valley Road,Alamo On May 29, 2402, you submitted a Condition of Approval Review under file#DP413016, to install three photovoltaic panels on your property referenced above. The property is located within the Bryan Ranch Development located in the Danville/Alamo area of the County. The development was approved as a Planned Unit Development District in 1978, and included several conditions of approval. The Community Development Department determined'that photovoltaic panels are an accessory structure and a Conditions of Approval Review(COO)was necessary to ensure that the panels are consistent with the intent and purpose of the P-1 District. Condition#2`of the subdivision states. "Prior to the issuance,of any buildingpermit andJorgradingperrnit for work on any lot, theproposed 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 other provisions for development and use on each lot shall be the Single Family.Residential District R-15... I have reviewed and considered all information you submitted including revised"Option B"site plan submitted on June 25, 2002. The letters submitted by Dr. NamPhuong Train,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 14,2042 from the Bryan.Ranch Homeowners Association have also been reviewed. We met on June 23,2002 to view the site and mock-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.Trann's property at 60 Oak Glen` 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. Although it would be extremely difficult to see the panels from Stone Valley Road,I appreciate your willingness to plant a box tree to the east of panels to screen any possible view from Stone Valley Road. Your proposal (Option B attached)to relocate the southern bank of panels further from your Office Hours Monday-Friday; 8:00 a.m. -5;00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month CRUW south property lime 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 photovoltaic panels at the west end of the property. The project is approved as identified on plans prepared by Alvis Projects Inc.and as revised on Option B dated June 25,2002,subject to the conditions you have volunteered to incorporate as listed below. Please note that the items listedbelow also include comments from Bryan Ranch Homeowners Association. The following items shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review 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 solar panels.The tree shall be planted outside the drip line of the existing trees and located to screen any possible view of the panels from the east 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.' c. Four 1$-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 enol 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 mite that any grading involving more than 200 cubic yards will require a soils report and grading permit. 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 electric 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 Sonar Rating Certification Corporation or other nationally recognized agency certifies the proposed photovoltaic system. 2 Once the above listed information is submitted and accepted as adequate the puns will be approved by the Community Development Department. Ifyou have any questions do not hesitate to cal meat(925)335-1236; Sincerely, ':4�- C1 € t Lorna Villa Project Planner Attachments; Option B Site Plan dated June 25,2002 Landscape plan June 14,2002 letter from.Law Offices of Gagen,McCoy,McMahon&Armstrong Bryan Ranch Homeowners.Association letter dated April 26,2002 cc: Archer Norris,Attention Ed Shaffer, 2033Borth Main Street Suite 800,Walnut Creek, CA 94596 w/attachments Byron Ranch Hone Owners Association,C/o Jean Bates&Associates,P.O.Box 3428,Danville,Ca 94526 Alamo Improvement Association,P.O.Box 271,,Alamo,Ca 94507 Trung Dung&NamPhuong Tran,60 Oak Glen Court,Alamo,Ca 94507 wlattachments Catherine Kutsuris, Community Development Department G.curr plan/letters/DP013016COA}tr 3 Community ! Gt Dennis M.Barry,ArcP bvidt,b Pment Community Development Director Costa Department County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing ' ` Martinez,California 94553-0095 Phone: 925-335-1210 August 7, 2002 :Mr.Ronald E. Van Buskirk Pillsbury Winthrop LLP' PO Box 7880 San Francisco CA 94124-7884 Edward Shaffer Archer Norris PO Box 8035 Walnut Creek CA 94596-3728 Subject: Solar Panels at 1951 Green Valley Road, Alamo Dear Messrs.Van Buskirk and Shaffer: This responds to the July 29,20102 correspondence from Mr.Van Buskirk requesting a review of the July2, 2002 letter issued by Loma Villa related to the placement of solar panels at the above listed property, 'Since correspondence has been submitted by Mr. Shaffer as well, this letter has been addressed to the attorneys representing both parties. In reviewing Ms.Villa's July 2,2002 letter,I considered the information contained in Mr. Van Buskirk's July 29,2002 submittal,the August 6,2002 correspondence from Mr. Shaffer,the August 4, 2002 and.the August 5,2002 correspondence from Alvis Projects, Inc. submitted on behalf of the applicant,the August 7,2002 correspondence from A. B. H. Construction submitted on behalf of the applicant,the August 1, 2002 correspondence from Mr. Weiner and the July 25, 2002 and July 31, 2002 letters from the Bryan Ranch Homeowner's Association. The issue before the Department is whether the installation of the solar panels is consistent with the final development plan for the site. Condition#2 of the'final development plan'states: "Prior to the issuance of any buildingpermit andfar grading permit for work on any 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 other Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:010 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd& 5th Fridays of each month provisions for development and use on each lot shall be the Single Family.Residential District R-I5... Afterreviewing the materials listed above, as well as the materials submitted prior to July 2nd,I have concluded that the decision of Ms. Villa as articulated in the July 2, 2002 letter to Mr. Michael Weiner is valid. Since Mr. Weiner has previously expressed a willingness to plant landscaping along the south property boundary to provide screening, my concurrence is based on the applicant's agreement that the four 15 gallon screening trees which will be planted be increased to 12 trees. This decision constitutes an administrative decision by the Department and,as such, is subject to the appeal provisions in County Code Section 14-4.002/004. Should you wish to file an appeal, a verified written notice of appeal and the$125 filing fee must be received by the Office of the Clerk of the Board by 5:00 P.M., September 6, 2002.'The appeal letter must concisely state the facts of the case and the grounds for the appeal, including the special interest and injury. Correspondence from Mr. Van Buskirk, as well as correspondence from the applicant and oral conversations with Department staff from Mr. Shaffer,represent that the parties have been willing to discuss the matter in an attempt to resolve the issue,but that the other party was unwilling to participate or that their suggestions lacked the specificity upon which a discussion could be based. The Department has offered to meet with both parties in an attempt to resolve this issue amicably. I wish to reemphasize the offer that has been extended to bath sides that we will be willing to meet with you in an attempt to resolve this issue, so that the matter dries not require placement on the Board of Supervisor's calendar. At this point an indication from both parties that they are willing to participate is all that is necessary. If you have any questions related to the filing of an appeal,you may contact me at'335- 12 10. 35-1210. Again,I believe that it would be prudent to attempt to resolve this issue without the necessity of a Board of Supervisor's hearing. Our staff will remain available should; both parties agree to meet. Sincerely, Catherine K.utsurs Deputy Director CK/mp cc:- Michael Weiner Tmng,Dung and NamPhuoz g Tran ID SEP 03 *02 11 :11 No 003 `''P .01 WOW September 3,2002 ..... Review Official Planning Department County of Contra Costa Rae: Weirter Residence, 1951 Green`alley Road, Alamo To Whom ft holey conn m: Upon reviewing the work,proposed for the Weiner Residence to acvomtnodate their installation of PV panels,I would like to make the following observations: The proposed screening is insufficient to provide adequate cover in mitigating the visual impact of the solar panels.The regularly spaced placement of the plants is bath too low in quantity as well as unnatural in appe"ance. A suggestion would be to use more plant material, ineyorporating evergreen varieties such as Arbutus uunedo, Ceanodms,and Rhat mus ealifornica. These should be placed in a natural array, not in a geometric Pattern. The proposed berm shown on the sitt plan is to consist of a dirt pile on top ofe xisting tall grass and weeds. This will likely;allow the dirt to slide onto the adjoining property under rainy''conditions,in addition to which it also is unnatural in appearance, It would be faun more attractive to have the grading following existing natural contours, and the potential' for the dirt to slide should be addressed by the incorporation of a keyway or outer such measure. Additionally,the disturbed ground arca should be hydroseeded with matching native grasses. In following up, a call was placed with the Contra Costa County Planning Department, and we were informed that a grading permit is required should any of the five following' conditions arise in a given job: Any strue ture(s)supported by fill in excess of 200 cubic yards; if grading is to be 91 (20%)or greater, if fill'is used in excess of 3' in height, if any cuts are made to a depth greater than S' which are not to be supported by a retaining structure; 1228 Quartyr Lane*Suite 8• Pleasanton,CA 94886.925-846-2933*Fax 925-946-1009 ' SESt- 9E-5 6 ue,al Zuo'n4dweN dos = iO 20 CO des I D SEP 03'02 11 : 12 Na .003 'P.02 and, if any work to be performed significantly changes the existing course of drainage. The work planned for the Weiner Residence exceeds all five ofthe above conditions necessitating a pit. On the last point:'it appears that the result of the grading changes will redirect drainage to an existing oak tree, Please call if them are any questions. Sincerely, Robert B. Luchrs Principal E ,r 'd SE5 T- 9E-5z6 ueal 2uan4dweN dOS = T 0 20 ,60 des AIM. IA P.O.box m • AUMO, CMEOP IA 94%7 * (M 86&-%C6 May 15, 2002 Mr. Richard Maxey. Manager of Bryan Meadow Homeowners Association JEAN BATES AND ASSOC. 3840 Blackhawk Rd_ Ste. 120 Danville, California94506 RE. SOLAR PANELS`ON DR. 'WEINER"S PROPERTY Dear 141r.Maxey: I-am writing-you in my capacity-as the Chairman of the AIA Planning Committee and in support of the decision to not allow construction of solar panels at the top of the hillside on Dr. Weiner's property. Having been alerted by the owners of the adjoining property located at 60 Oak Glen Court to the proposed construction of large solar panels on the hillside directly beside their property, I visited the site and was very concerned that Dr.'Weiner had proposed this site for construction of several'banks'of large solar panels. As anyone visiting the site is aware,it is directly across f om the neighbor's home and would significantly impact the future value of their property. Had Dr. Weiner proposed'this construction during the approval process of his residence, which was reviewed by the AIA, our committee would not have allowed this construction on such a prominent site. Further, in the same spirit of cooperation shown by Dr. Weiner's neighbors during the process of approval of his residence,Dr. Weiner needs to consider the impact of his actions on his neighbors. Should this be allowed to set precedence within our community,:I can only imagine other property owners,that sirnilarly do not understand the impact of'their actions,will demand the ability to construct solar panel sutures that will diminish the value of our community at large and the enjoyment we all have living is Alamo. One wonders about such a scenario with banks of solar panels covermg all of our beautiful hillsides. Thant you for your well reasoned.finding and actions regarding this matter. g Since ly, Rog F hairrrm , Al Improvement Association cc: NarnPhuong Tran DPO13016 ` PCI. $ � Z6 x'22 4 � 41` Pct. r, 4T� Co 39 NE C /3Y � trft ,rss � 40 '96, �< fl }25 _p Weiner Residence 1951 Green Valley Road; a i 7 ,SMB ; Tran Residence 60 Oak Glen Court` r\ OAK t. G( cY et sari CT y 17 u* r C► ES 24 w t r - JE 92t Jq 41 w ^ sa+9 Op pWN C7. n a 42 37 a ^ u 27 o est rads, 4 41 so 44 A yr'+ua �115� Pt ACE ! _3e, a✓a sz✓✓ a �? s 1ODD 39 3 IMF- PROJECT SITE &'NEIGHBORS SITE DP013016 l ,t 4 r`. �* s Y a - f •4 „ r s I ♦�f 1,1 v 11 t1 c R•6 r.44 k - cr l ` 2 k 40. t A. R-20 ,�,. PA A-21 n Will [ r�9a�a t,t i1"i'tiJ ZONING/GENERAL PLAN MAP DP013016 00 ti ��✓ / 000 JJ i IS ISO IS 411 mom / J •+ • t' t i�v r" iti ♦ • r it { +♦ : r !1 `f ,.4 5 :.,_ „ 1 t • TOPOGRAPHY MAS' 'M ni ii, 'M ion IT 06 �Ilcj_ AIR tF E f 3N d E x F` YEA 44, ao o ovi n ra -a� r a N ; ��� x � a a ig" Mo o. e 4 Stu a `� ,�• At '�' ._ a � W ALA � a.ai"�314 x SNI ~xa x Y c�y �¢ Frac i dP E b 2 Iiiitilgoi­ ii" �: � amt x �Y Sa t s N Ste. .N V smog, m rMM'. � MR mr ac m i Y �3a"tE L N �. i �n a,<, y ��,Yr 'f iE iG',N, 4 3'R a3,yp 2.F 3'w ' Al, t � ^k o m {" ill aIFKI a.'.;°x., L a'= ''L tie fr � ai 1W, A only a ' i v5 a 1 Al 2 lot at A Ra..A a . y re r So 1W Mi 04 7 nu aF 'A tof uzi oil Al Mo ti �a 1SWIN 90-60 - � F WAS- Y` uY. a➢a 4# F. Al 5 `a M oi s13 I _ a? . , Y x 3 b 4 Io'n', toy v y � ' t if, QR JV u 4 $ `,a h g No" m " �� ���F ` p E + w.� a N n °..'°ter _ o Vi x A-'tZ,p. zap,3 °b so 3 W, a „n navy 'Esig own '£r a ois vin, a' igi r 1 N s ,T4 5 And t M, a"l ' ii all, x. a >:k yazi, EW it A VI - ¢ ,, {3t a . ILI 1"i N v � Y a� n' t 1 t � } Ili Y & x 3 I r � y b y�. �vx w. 1 # # %# I # �I # # # # #jejtj # # # } :#tee#ee ::%�:�ejteeee Mill te�ee�jjj o on I ME gill! �3eeee#eFeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeej zeeejjeeruu:. ju y ecce#}1,' eeeeeie;'%%e' �^3 �"eeieeeeeeeeeeeeuur. '�.�YieeS?eeeeeee]� eeeeei5�ejj`e`^^}� e�Et:'e'ee5e}ee... 1}I;Illlpeellllj}ey#`'j":!' eeeei�ie�eeeeeeeeeeeezeeeeeejee.....^. .:#.•:."'#' #tees a?eti:'e°e :eY.Seeeezieeeeeeeeeeezeeeezeeeeeeeeeeee5eeeee�ee�e:; e� �>�:� yuu%#at'1%` !e •a.s, :y% `�o-'zetejie? eet##e e�eieeee?.. eerie£' e'!ieee„ eeee°ye^�^ tee ., uu#� esje�a'}'sji aeee�°3: eee°y',i'#1y •X; ees#i'^ :4 %# tt jjee�#S. .. _ r ......win ••...•..T..::. .'�e:uie:;:aeeaueaueuueuuuuu:r:,. �.• •. .................... w- '#eek 3 3 y# re?e.a •' .;%�. .ems��,y„�. 3 s�� � '�� :# i:. s:s.. :e Ci L f w Qw d LU04 SAS JOMOd JBIOS i>- o Ln z N Ad JGUIGM O JW PUB E Ja' �.. ��. u� gg ffff a 7 v � YCQY -I s CD 1 W N -¢lpr�i a o�rctt,a az. t._.- #____ P�. Z O �r •-4 p 9 O ]MNz? K V: CE z LJ-`r -C o o r z w �> z � Oo0 z m ©ate O� z d �mddZ z Z :< Lnj>, jw> ��� O oxa a _ mzzNy �� N� G a �w �cQN o w p Qox,� � 00 z0a g�o�¢ `= w> Q E. N a ur J� wof r \ h (.I) Boz z o� ° LGl ©w ©,c zxvn� z za P $ Ivy n rnLJSO m � `r "zzr0 � �1� g� W O !g� I COI ❑11 O N O co, O W N CJ Z I.J.. "d oz z dd cew z Qao w w ��o w z 1 ¢w o o { Li < Ln W wd w YO u~i wxw > zo �aP I �x zww � r -jdf Oz yg C7 d Z dnwnz ¢ m� cnzda-0-:� c�¢ 6g� (I Ioh LLJ J i ga W J N _ J CL � .. Ito w {.l� Li LL Lam. rK E. `� tJ - r a & v ; rt pill, Eli, 111it IN ' a r'. r ;C, d CD NIRISP m cn A. CO .I z c) a a {' CL w w W1� Li 'xs LIMON for ric Cavby W% P.a]50x,271 • AI AMO, CAUl+OPMA 9450T (925) 866-3606 DATE: September 30, 2002 TO: PUBLIC HEARING BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SUBJ::' NAW HOUNG IRANAPPEAL Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the appellant against this project. I am Jack Behseresht and I am a member of the Alamo Improvement Association Planning;Committee. Roger Smith, our Chairman, asked me to represent AIA today at this hearing,'to speak in t'avor of the appeal filed by the Tran family and to note for the public record several!importantpaints regarding this appeal. First, we acknowledge it is in response to higher energy costs and improved technology that homeowners choose to install solar,paneling. However, left unchecked and without controls, there is nothing to protect our County from a proliferation of solar paneling constructed on all of our prominent hillsides throughout''the County. Can you imagine what a spectacle this would be for all of us? Today,Dr. Weiner's installation of self-'standing "ground rack" solar paneling is certainly damaging to the Tran family's enjoyment of their home and its property value. Anyone making a site visit to the Tran's property clearly understands the reduction in value this construction has forced upon them. Tomorrow, this type of installation, able to utilize almost any panel size andmaterials(including highly reflective materials)'could be built next door to,your home'and significantly reduce its value as well. It is our understanding that the County;does not have a detailed policy regarding the construction'of solar panels and their impact- visual and other wise to their communities and adjacent neighbors. Without a detailed policy for this type of construction, this could he a disaster in the making,for all residents of Contra Costa County, not just for the Trans and their appeal of Dr. Weinees construction. The AIA urges the Board of Supervisors to take whatever action is appropriate to control the future construction of free standing "ground rack" solar paneling.' The AIA requests that either such installations be prevented altogether or, through the public hearing process, be reviewed in detail without entitlement,just as required for commercial antennas- another visually prominent type of construction. Further, highly reflective materials used in such installations should be significantly limited or not'allowed at all. The ATA recommends that solar paneling installed on the roof area of residences be the preferred method for this type ofconstruction and that this type of construction continue to be allowed. However we would also urge that highly reflective materials be significantly limited or not allowed At all for this construction as well. ALAMO. O.VEMENT A680CIAUON fbr Fme CamUy kft P.O. F)OX 2n ALAMO, CAUPODMA 94507 • (925)866.360E The AIA believes the Tran family is significantly impacted by this construction and by the lack of detailed County policy for this type of construction. If it is possible to correct this type of construction' through legalmeasures, the Trans should have their appeal supported by the Board. If there are no current legal measures available, then the AIA believes the Tran family should be assured that appropriate sight mitigation'measures be required of Dr. Weiner to minimize the construction project's negative impact to their property. Thank you for the opportunity to make these comnments for the Public Record. REQUEST T(3 SPEAK FORINT {TYMEE (3) MINUTE Lim) PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY Complete this fora,and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Nance: � -1u ..-yam P one Address: 60 D pity Zip Code S 1 am speaking for thyself car organization: (naris oforganization,, tion} CHECK ONE: 1'wish to spew on Agenda Item# L4 Date:' My Comments will be general for against I wish to speak on the subject of 1 do not wish to speak on the subject but leave'these comments for the board to consider: Mr. Trug Dung& Dr.NamPbuong Tran 60>>Oak Glen Court Alamo,CA 94507 Rte ID OCT 2002 October 01,2002 c1_E1�Kao s;. 1vlsoRs cc 1t13a COSTA co. .Spear Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Board 651 Pine Street,Room 107 Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Notice of Appeal Related to Planning Department's July 2, 2002 and August 7, 2002 Determination for Placement of Photovoltaic Panelsat 1951 Green Valley Road Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors: As the neighbors immediately adjacent to and significantly impacted by the proposed installation of the large solar arrays by Dr. Michael Weiner [at 1951° Green Valley Road in unincorporated'Contra Costa County near Alamo], we are bringing this appeal to challenge the determination and approval of the Community Development Department allowing the project to move forward.' On July 2, Mrs. Loma Villa, Project Planner with the Contra' Costa County Community Development Department issued a Condition of Approval Review determination for the proposed project. The July 2 determination promotes compliance with a number of voluntary conditions related to the installation of the solar arrays. These conditions are not based on any independent analysis by the County and inadequately address the project alternatives, the health, and safety, visual, financial and other concerns of the neighborhood,which would be considered during a full land use,permit review. We Have serious concerns that this solar array is not suited for the proposed location next door to and up sloped from our home for a variety of reasons. Issue #1: No analysis has been provided or studies' conducted to insure the proposed solar array and the proposed screening landscape plan can withstand the high winds"and rain drainage often associated with the open landscape of the proposed ridgeline location.'' There were significant"amount of grading done on the hillside as ' Pursuant to County Code§ 14-4.002,"any person aggrieved by an administrative action taken by any officer of this county under this code may appeal the action to the board of supervisors.» 10635394v1 July 24, 2002 Page 2 shown on the pictures without a grading permit. We did contact the county and let there know about our concern for the amount of dirt digged up as well as the level of grading that was dome. Large part of the construction was carried out even before any permit was issued. In view of the recent fire in Morgan Hill, which destroyed 31 homes and the cause of which is thought to be possible related to a Solar structure at this time, we think that the county need to make certain that Dr. Weiner's solar structures would not potentially become a major fire hazard to this beautiful community of Alamo. This fire threat seems to be Very likely to us, since for the last 2 years of owning his property, Dr. Weiner has not complied with the weed abatement along the property line as required by the local fire department. Even now, we can still see the tall, dried weed along our property line. We propose: Careful reevaluation of the construction site for fire risk associated with such a solar structure and the actual grading done and to request the installation of appropriately needed mechanisms to prevent mudslide onto adjacent properties including our own. We also would like to see this area be kept free of dried weeds to avoid increased risk of fire danger, since it is so close to our backyard. Screening landscape is a mustand not voluntary, not just for view screening but also to reduce the impact of gusty winds (which is a know factor on this bill) blowing the large amount of dirt down into our backyard, pool and spa: We are known to have up to 65mph wind up this hill over the last 2 years.' Issue'#2: No review of the solar array's location has been conducted to insure that it would blend with the existing landscape and will not impact the neighbors, local streets and structures. Everyone who has seen the site has expressed his or her concerns and discontents with such a project on this hillside. The members of the Bryan Ranch HOA and of the Alamo Improvement Association have independently strongly recommended that such a solar structure should not be allowed on this hillside. But it appeared that the Planning Department think that it is all right for us as next-door neighbor to Dr. Winer to be `:`significantly impacted" by such a structure as long as others in the community seem not to be affected. ,Does it mean that we are of less importance than the others in this community? We wonder if such a structure would be built and affected only one of the staffs in the Planning'department or to any of the County officials, whether or not it would be OK with them. We propose: The planning department needs to take into consideration the interest of everyone in the community; especially when there is potentially better solutions to the problem exist as in this case (such as roof top or down the hill 10635394V 1 July 24, 2002 Page 3 locations). After all, we do pay the same level of taxes as everyone in this county and would expect to be treated equally by the county departments. The Planning department needs to 5;;take ''into consideration community standards before approving such unusual structures to be built. The law could be blind and rigid, but we human are not, and so we need to be able to 'see and make appropriate adjustments when it comes to decisions making. We hope that the Planning department would be more careful in approvingsuch a project in the future, to avoid more of such unsightly structures to be built on these beautiful and prestigious hillsides around Mt. Diablo. Issue #3: The analysis of alternative'locations and equipment appears incomplete. We feel that there are alternative locations where'these''solar structures could be placed with no significant impact on the system efficiency or cost, but Dr.''Weiner for unclear reasons, has refused to choose those locations for placement of his solar structures. These' locations would pose little impacts on anyone in the community directly. The Planning department has not adequately addressed such'>a request proposed by us. They ;only took Dr. Weiner's word on this matter that there are no other locations`'`suitable. We had requested to have an independent local Solar Installation'company to;review the 3 proposed sites (even if we had to pay'for the service), but the request was refused by Dr. Weiner and ignored by the Planning department. The irony is that the Planning department did at one point request for such a review from Dr. Weiner, but seems not to have appropriately followed up on that request. This is probably because the original assigned planner went on maternal leave and Ms. Villa was freshly assigned to the case and may not quite understand the intricacy of the case. lir. Weiner had provided inadequate proposals for the construction costs of alternative locations. He chose a company that would give an expensive quote for the rooftop and down the hill location but none for the hilltop location. He used this data to compare with the previous bid he received from his contractor who did not even provide the quotes for the same alternative locations as the other company. He is comparing apples to oranges. We proposed to pay for the difference in cost if it is higher than for the current site, so that no one will have to be directly impacted by these structures. We did even propose for Dr. Weiner to sell us this piece of his property to avoid more scaring into the hillside and to preserve the natural appearance of the hillside. Dr. Weimer told us that it was an interesting proposal, but he would only consider it as a second option if he would not get an approval permit to build the solar panels. We also<asked'Dr.Weiner to delay the construction for such larger structures until he could establish how big of a Solar system he would need after aryear of living in his new house, 'since we think that a 6AKwatt ,system would be too big'for his 1©635394V1 July 24, 2002 Page 4 actual needs`. We came to this conclusion by comparing our monthly energy usage over the last 2 years. We propose: If possible, we would like to request Dr. Weiner to reduce the size or number of his solar structures. This would significantly helps with the view issues from our backyard as well as the visibility of the panels from Dr. Weiner's other neighbors. In view of our energy crisis, we believe that energy conservation is crucial. The construction of large solar panel system as this one for residential use defeats that idea, since it seems to convey the message that it is ok to consume more, as long as one can produce more,rather than to conserve energy. Issue #4: Grading to lower the solar array,below grade and the construction of a 5-foot high berm beside the solar array may cause unforeseen drainage, visual and construction' impacts, which have not been addressed. Currently Dr. Weiner' is not required to obtain a grading permit even though his grading of this hillside is more than 5:1 (at least 2:1 at some section), the fill of the berm is in excess of 3' in height,'several cuts that are greater than 5' and not supporting by a retaining structure, and this construction would significantly change the existing course of drainage leading to potential mud slide onto neighboring property. From what we understand after speaking with the county grading inspector, if any of the above conditions were met, a grading permit would be 'needed. Currently the amount of ';grading could be not properly assessed, since the contractor/grader had already replaced' the soil back into the previously graded area farming 3 unnatural' and unsafe, non-compacted mounds of dirt. At this time, the berm that was created along the fence line are just dirt sitting on top of dried weed waiting to slide down into our backyard anytime during the rain season. We propose: The County Planning Department to carefully re-inspect the site for these'possible violations of grading level allowed for this project on this hillside, which potentially'could lead to major safety issues for surrounding neighbors. Issue #5: The proposed'landscape seems to be very inefficient and inadequate to serve as view screening purpose. And thus far the County Planning Department has not outlined clearly what the minimum enforceable maintenance requirements are for this screening landscape in the future. Neither the County planning Dept nor the Bryan Ranch HOA has stepped, up to take on the responsibility to act as the enforcer of these requirements. We are afraid that once the solar panels are built, and the site inspected, 10635394V 1 July 2 ,2002 Page 5 that Dr. Weiner would pay very little,,attention to the maintenance of this view screening landscape, since it is so out of sight from his house and view. We propose: The board would listen and refer to Mr. Robert Luehrs, ;a well- respected licensed landscape architect in this area, for his professional opinion and suggestions as to how a screening landscape should be done in this case. He will be speaking to you later. We will on our part be planting more native trees along our fence line to help us with the view screening issue. But since the panels are located' at an up-sloping ;location to our property, more and most effective screening landscape will have to be done on Dr. Weiner's site. The other important issue 'would' relate to the future maintenance of such landscape screening. We would like to request a clear written county requirements as to how such a landscape have to be maintained, i.e. requirement for Dr. Weiner to keep a constant #of trees of certain size and the appropriate replacement of these trees if they die within a reasonable stated time frame. Since these trees that are planted for the view screening purpose, it should'be required that they are,kept in healthy condition'and with adequate irrigation. We are concerned that if such a written and enforceable'requirements are not carefully outlined, that we might in the future having problem with Dr. Weiner's compliance and we.do not know who to turn to if such problem arise. Knowing that Dr. Weiner has not followed the weed abatement requirements, which only needed once a year, we are really concern with his compliance level to maintain this landscape in the future, if the county would not act as an enforcer. And from our past experience, we seem to be very unsuccessful in communicating to ''Dr. Weiner on these issues; we need a third party to be involved. Since we are not members of the Bryan''Ranch HOA, we request'that the county act as the enforcer for this view;screening landscape requirements to resolve any future issues regarding this project in an unbiased position. Issue #6: Last but not least, it has significant impact on our safety and property value, to have such large, intimidating, visible, unblended structures to be located so close to our backyard. As of now, because of lack of running water source at the construction site, when the dry'soil is moved and piled up, dust polluted the area in our backyard. Tractor moves around next to area of high and dry weeds, posing fire danger. Soil is piled'up to 5 feet high without being watered and compacted causing dust to fly down to our backyard,pool and spa even when it is only slightly windy. 10635394V i July 24, 2002 Page 6 We propose: We request that appropriate safety action to be taken to help securing the soil that was churned up on this hillside for the construction of these solarstructures to avoid risk of mud/landslide. We also request the somehow, the county could make clear to Dr. Weiner of his responsibility to comply with the weed abatement requirements along the property line to reduce the risk' of fire danger during our dried and hot summer'months. We request his respect and consideration for the safety concerns of his neighbors and this community. We do not object to Dr. Weiner's proposed contribution to fighting potential escalating energy bills. However, we believe that approval of such'a large project with all its potential impacts must be analyzed to insure proper placement and compliance with the County zoning regulations as well as community standards. We have attempted on multiple occasions to meet with Dr. Weiner to discuss the above issues but he has consistently refused to meet with us. Ms. Lorna Villa had also tried to arrange for such meeting to occur, but Dr. Weiner insisted that he would only consider such a meeting after he received his building permit. And until now, after the permit is issued, we have been unsuccessful in having a meeting with Dr. Weiner. He had rushed to start the construction even prior to the issue of the permit, most likely in hope that by the time the Board of Supervisors had a chance to review this matter, that he would have 'finished the construction, and by de facto the structure would be allowed to stand as is., Based on the information above,we request that the Board of Supervisors'review and approve our requests. We had tried hard on our part to prevent such an appeal to occur, but we were unable to ask Dr. Weiner to agree to meet with us, even with the help of the Planning Department. We thank you for your time and patience. NamPhu g Tran At chore ts: 1. July , 002 Con ' ' n of Approv 1 Review 2. A ust 7, 2 Commun evelop t Department Letter 3 Alamo provem Association r 4. Helping H Landscape sign Architect: etter 10635394V 1 T R E TELI T) Pt AisE Pmt T LEGID Complete this&:f and place it In the be x �e sp��cers' roses before addressing the Bt>ard Name• l I' - 1' Phone 24-3-0 Adciress. ', %�"c� �° City zip Cade. "` ' am spealdnp for myself t-,� or crrg ization: (nam cifOrgan ti'Dn) CHECK ONE.' T ravish spe* Agenda Item# _ Date: , My Comments will be general for against I''iWsh to spe*on the subject caf I'do not rrfiish to speak cin a subject b xt leave these comm for t ie board t4 ccr ider: $PEAKFORM Trq ' TRRE AUNVTE Lima) PLEASt T tF IULY Complete this f€�jrn and plane it in the box near the speakers' rostrum befbre addressing the Board. Name- �, i'bohe Address: 6�A.), .��'� pity � D Zip Code I amspeaking for m self car organi atian name ADf OtkwliZatic n} CHECK ONE: I wish to spec on Agenda Item 4 Date. �� 1 �♦��-- MY Comsni x111 he gnral „ for against wish t0 speakon the subject of- ,, g2 Z I do not ish to pea on the obj et bnt lease these comm nts fI the board t,eons cler: TO {TkM-E ( ATE LINT) PUASE P"L.EGIR, Y Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakersrostrum befioil addressing the Board. Name. phone Address: I am speaking for myself or organization: (name of orgardzWori) CIC ECI ONE, r I:wish to speak on Agenda Item W: Date. / My.Comments v ll be general for a st I wish t spew on the subject of I do not,vvish.o spear on the subject but leave these comments for the board to consider. Tq{TITRE (. PLEASE PRINT LEGIO Y Complete this foxnt and place it in tie box neart speers'rostnun before addressing the Ioard. Name: 57_ i; �- . Address ,, city Grp Co€lef ' I am speaking for myself or orgam*zatihr: (name of organizatio ) CIEECI ON+, I wish w speak on.Agenda Item# Date: 1. My Comments will be general for gnt I wish to spew on the su Utct of I do not wish to speak on the sUb ect,but leave these con-ncnts for the board to consider: .................... ........... /REQ EST TOSP EAKFORM THOU (3) MwmE-:LIMIT) PLEASE P Nl iBLY Complete this-frm and place it in the:box near the speakers"rostmrn beforle�add t � addressing the Board, Name: Address: J�e oty & Zip Code: c — e 1 4 YA I wn speaking form y. self organization: (Warne©f 4pntzatibn. CHECK ONE: 1.wish tospeatc Amend Item* at D e, My corent: ill general I©r against 1wish t0speak o6thi&subject ie Leave speak:p :e u. �t b I t�se comments Bbthe��.ard to:consider: I do noot�wiskto.s." 4k the b A. r � ........... SENDER: COMPLETE Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also corgplete A. Signature item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ❑Agent a Print your narhe and address on the reverse ®Addressee so that we can return the Gard to you. B. Received by jPr€rrted;6me) C. [late of Delivery ■ Attach this card to the back of the rmailpiece, or on the front if space permits. D. Is delivery address different from item 17 D Yes 1. Article Addressed to: if YES,enter delivery address below: ❑ No Mr. Trung Dung Dr. NamPhuong Tran 60 Oak Glen Court 10eYp Alamo, CA 94507 Certified Mail ❑ Express Mail ❑Registered ❑Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑insured Mail ❑C.O.D. + 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 2. Article Number (Ran€sfer from service labef) MW %7-11 PS Form 3811,August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 1025$5-02-M-1035 D ". DELIVERY ■ C�orrtplete heirs 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Sign item 4 if Restricted delivery is desired. �� ❑ it ■ Print your Marne and address on the reverse ©. wee so that we can return the card to you. Received by( rir�ted Aiame) . Date of Delivery ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, Lobi or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address different © . Yes If YES,enter delivery differ ss be Mr. Trung Dung ��a� 'e� Dr. NamPhuong Tran 60 Oak Glen Court 3. Sery Type } Alamo, Ca 94507 l�l�tfiedd Mail ❑Ex ❑Registered ❑Re ri' f bwllandise ❑ insured Mail ❑G.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 2. Article Number (Trans#er from service labe�IM PS Fofrn 381'1,August 2001 Domestic Retur.h ."ipt 1025° M-1036 The Board of Supe visorsContra John Sweeten Clerk of the Board Costa a County Administration Building County and 651 Pine Street,Room 106 }^ (925)335-1900 Martinez,California 94553-1293 County John Gioia,1 st District Gayle B.tliiketvma,2nd District Donna Gerber,3rd District Mark DeSaulnier,4th District federal Glover,5th District September 23, 2002 ***Revised*** Mr. Trung Dung Dr. NamPhuong Tran 60 Oak Glen Court Alamo, CA 94507 Re: 1951 Green Valley Road Alamo,Ca 94507` Pursuant to Section 14-4.006 of the County;Ordinance Code,notice is given that October 1,2002,at 1:00 p.m. at 651 Pine Street,Room 107,Martinez,California has been set as the time and place for hearing by the Board of Supervisors of your appeal from the decision concerning the approval of the placement of photovoltaic panels at 1951 Green Valley Road,Alamo. If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only these issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County, at or prior to,the public hearing. Sincerely, John'Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator y. Danielle''Kelly,Deputy Cle cc: Catherine Kutsuris, Community Development Loma Villa, Community Development County Counsel BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING IN THE MATTER OF ) Appeal by Namphuong Tran ) Placement of Photovoltaic Panels ) 1951 Green Valley Road ) Alamo, Ca 94507 ) I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been,a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited with Contra Costa County Central Service for Certified mailing in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, first class postage fully prepaid a corrected copy of Notice of Hearing: Mr. Trung Dung Dr.NamPhuong Tran 60 Oak Glen Court Alamo, Ca 94507 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct., Martinez, CA. September 24, 2002 Danielle Kelly,Deputy Clerk CU O a a _n tr r 1 ......-- �...� .! Postage C3 Certified Fee >/ Return Receipt Fee I Postmark (Endorsement Required) Here C3 Tstrtcted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) 1 C3 Total Postage&Fees ru Fc��, Mr. Trung Dung s"- PCo Dr. NamPhuong Tran 60 Oak Glen Court Alamo, Ca 94507 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING IN THE MATTER OF } Appeal by Naphuong Tran } Placement of Photovoltaic Panels } 1951 Green Valley Road } Alamo,Ca 94507 } } I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been, a citizen of the United States,over age 18 and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, first class postage fully prepaid a corrected copy of Notice of Hearing: See attached list. I declare under penalty of pedury that the foregoing is true and correct.,Martinez, CA. .Date: September 24, 200 Ad 7 D ielle Kelly,Deputy Clerk BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING IN THE MATTER OF ) Appeal by Namphuong Tran ) Placement of Photovoltaic Panels ) 1951 Green Valley Road ) Alamo, Ca 94507 ) ) ) I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been, a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited with Contra Costa County Central Service for Certified mailing in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, first class postage fully prepaid Mr. Trung Dung Dr. NamPhuong Tran 60 Oak Glen Court Alamo, Ca 94507 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.,Martinez, CA. Date: September 20, 2002 Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk r. minims Ce Mhex, M7 C37Fje e $ C3 u? M Certified qJ €lePostmark C3 (Endor ) Here RBSMetsd CYeN'.r Fee M (Ftldor.Ct; €l 4 Required} _T C3 Total Postage&Fess, .10 C3 sear, Mr. Trung Dung ru 9�ee Dr. NamPhuong Tran .._._._ "si 60 Oak Glen,Court C2 cid .Alamo, CA 94507 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AFFIDAVIT'' OF MAILING IN THE MATTER OF ) Appeal by Namphuong Tran Placement of Photovoltaic Panels ) 1951 Green Valley Road ) Alamo, Ca 94507 � I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been, a citizen of the United States,over 18; and that today I deposited with Contra Costa County' Central Service for mailing in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, first class postage fully prepaid See attached list of names. I declare under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is true and correct.,Martinez,CA. Date: September 20,2002 Cti L/ Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk Pillsbury Winthrop Archer Norris w Ronald E. Van Buskirk Edgard Shaffer PO Box 7880 PO Box 8435 San Francisco, CA 94120-7880 Walnut Creek, CA 94596-3728 Byran Ranch Homeowners Assoc: Dave L. Blornquist Alamo Improvement Association C/o jean Bates &Associates PO Box 271 PO Box 3428 Alamo, CA 94507 Danville,CA 94526 193 770 001 193 760 004 Michael Weiner Trung&Namphuong Dung 9806'Davona'Dr 60 Oak Glen Ct San Ramon,CA 94583 Alamo,CA 94507 AVER' ® :Address Labels Laser 51600 a: w ' IN e' by JQ zM x � E a u .o _, W The Board of u ervi.uorsn o d Contra Costa County Adrrinistration Building and County Adm tstrator 651 Fine Street,Room 106 Martinez,California 94553-1293 County (925)335-1900 John Gioia,!s#District Gayle B.,Ullkema,2nd District Cranna Gerber,3rd District -' Mark DeSaulnler,4th District Federal Glover,5th District !ate September 20, 2002 Mr. Trung Dung Dr.NamPhuong Tran 60 Oak Glen Court' Alamo,CA 94507` Re: 1951 Green Valley Road Alamo, Cal 94507 Pursuant to Section 14-4.006 of the County Ordinance Code,notice is given that October 1, 2002,at 1:00 p.m. at 651 Pine Street,Room 107,Martinez, California has been set as the time and place for hearing by the Board of Supervisors of your appeal from the decision concerning the approval of the placement of photovoltaic panels at 1951 Green Walley Road, Alamo. If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raided at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the County, at or prior to,the public hearing. Sincerely, John Sweeten.,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator ByWt "I WL-�� Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk cc: Catherine Kutsuris,Community Development Loma Villa,Community Development County Counsel CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Clerk of the Board' Inter-Office Memo DATE September 20,2002 TO: Dennis Barry,Director Community Development Department FROM: Danielle Kelly,Deputy Clerk Clerk of the Board of Sup ervisorsw SUBJECT: Appeal by NamPhoung T. Tran Re: Photovoltaic Panels,File#DP013016 1951 Green Valley Road, Alamo This office is in receipt of the attached Administrative Appeal by NamphoungT. Tran regarding the approval for placement,of photovoltaic panels at 1951 Green Valley Road,`Alamo,County File#DP013016, (Dr. Michael Weiner). The Board of Supervisors has scheduled this appeal hearing for October 1, 2002 at 1:00 p.m. in the Board Chambers. If'the appeal is timely and should be heard,please include the names,addresses and zip codes of all parties to be notified in addition to the Appellant, as soon as passible: If the appeal is to be heard on October 1,, 2002, as scheduled, please submit the appropriate material for Board consideration to this office no later than September 25, 2002. Thank you attachment cc: Catherine Kutsuris, Community Development Lorna Villa,Project Planner County Counsel CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Clerk of the Board Inter-Office Demo DATE: September 11,2002 TO: Dennis Barry,Director, Community Development Department FROM: Danielle Kelly,Deputy Clerk Clerk of the Board of Supervisors SUBJECT: Appeal by NamPhoung T. Tran Re: Photovoltaic Panels,File#DP013016 1951 Green Valley Road;Alamo This office is in receipt of the attached Administrative Appeal by Namphoung T. Tran regarding the approval for placement of photovoltaic panels at 1:951 Green Valley Road,Alamo, County File#DP013016, (Dr.Michael Weiner). The Board of Supervisors has scheduled this appeal hearing for October 1, 2002 at 11:00 a.m. in the Board Chambers. If the appeal is timely and should be heard,please include the names, addresses and zip codes of all parties to be notified in addition to the Appellant, as soon as possible If the appeal is to be heard on October 1 2002, as scheduled,please submit the appropriate material:for Board consideration to this office no later than September 25,2002. Thank you. attachment cc: Catherine Kutsuris,Deputy Director Lorna.Villa, Project Planner . . :EC ED Mr. Trung Dung =PIF Dr. NarnPhuong Tran 60 Oak Glen Court CLERK s ARD OF ,1 IPERVISORS Alamo, CA 94507 o�L-nr September 05, 2002 Hand Delivered Centra Costa County Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Board 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez,CA 94553 Re: Notice of Appeal Related to Planning Department's July 2 2002 and August 7, 2002 Determination for Placement of Photovoltaic Panels at 1951 Green Valley Road Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors: As the neighbors immediately adjacent to and impacted by the proposed installationof the large solar arrays by Dr. Michael Weiner at 1951 Green Valley Road in unincorporated Contra ' Costa County near Alamo, we are bringing this appeal to challenge the determination and approval' of the Community Development Department allowing the project to move forward.' On July 2, 2002, Lorna Villa, Project Planner with the Contra Costa County Community Development Department issued a Condition of Approval Review determination for the proposed project. Please refer to July 2, 2002 letter from. Ms. Lorna Villa to 'Dr. Michael S. Weiner (copy attached). This determination finds that the solar array is `'an accessory structure" under the Single Family Residential District (R-15) zoning regulations and grants approval for the placement of a control building and associated solar panels, tracking equipment, concrete foundations and accessary equipment covering approximately 800 square feet adjacent to our backyard. We believe that this determination is in error and is not supported by the zoning regulations and evidence in the Community Development Department's files related to this project. The July 2 determination promotes compliance with a number of voluntary conditions related to the installation of the solar array. These conditions are not based on any independent analysis by the County and inadequately address the project alternatives, ' Pursuant to County Cade§ 14-4.002,"any person aggrieved by an administrative action taken by any officer of this county under this code may appeal the action to the board of supervisors." 10635394v1 July 24, 2002 Page 2 the health, and safety, visual, financial and other concerns of the neighborhood, which would be considered during a full land use,,permit review. We have serious concerns that this solar array is not suited for the proposed location next door to and up sloped from our home for a variety of reasons. • No analysis has been provided or studiesconducted to insure the proposed solar array and the proposed landscape plan can withstand the high winds and rain drainage often associated with the open landscape of the proposed ridgeline location. • No review of the solar array's location has been conducted to insure that it will blend with the landscape and will not impact the local streets and structures. Please refer to the letter- from the Alamo Improvement Association dated May 15, 2002. • The analysis of alternative locations and equipment appears incomplete We feel that there are alternative locations where these solar structures could be placed with no significant impact on the system efficiency or cost, but,Dr. Weiner'for unclear reasons, has refused to choose those location for placement of his solar structures. These locations would pose little impacts on anyone in the community directly. •, Grading to louver the solar array below grade and the construction of a 5- foot high berm; beside the solar array may cause unforeseen drainage, visual and construction impacts, which have not been addressed. Currently Dr. 'Weiner is not required to obtain a grading permit even though his grading of this hillside is more than 5:1 (at least 2:1 at some points), the fill of the berm is in excess of 3' in height, several cuts that are greater than 5' and not supporting by a retaining structure, and this construction would significantly change the existing course of drainage. • The proposed landscape seems to be very inefficient and insufficient to serve as view screening purpose. And neither the County Planning Department nor the Dr. Weiner's HOA has outlined clearly what the minimum maintenance requirements are for this landscape=in the future. We are afraid that once the solar panelsare built, and the site inspected, that Dr. Weiner would pay very little attention to the maintenance of this view screening 'landscape, since it is so out of the way from him. Please 10635394V 1 July 24, 2002. Page 3 refer to the attached landscape architect letter of professional opinion and suggestion. • Last but not least, it has significant impact on our safety and property value, to have such large, intimidating, visible, unblended structures to be located so close to our backyard. As of now, because of lack of running water source at the construction site, when the dry soil is moved and piled up, dust polluted the area in our backyard. Tractor moves around next to area of high and dry weeds, posing fire danger. Soil is piled up to 5 feet high without being watered and compacted causing dust to fly down to our pool and spa when it is slightly windy. We do not object to Dr. Weiner's proposed contribution to fighting escalating energy bills. However, we believe that approval of such a large project with all its potential impacts must be analyzed to insure proper placement and compliance with the County zoning regulations as well as community standards. We have attempted on multiple occasions to meet with Dr. Weiner to discuss the above issues but he has consistently refused to meet with us. Ms. Lorna Villa had also tried to arrange for such meeting to occur; but Dr. Weiner insisted that he would only consider such a meeting;,after he received his building permit.' And until now, after the permit is issued, we have been unsuccessful in having a meeting with Dr. Weiner. He had rushed to start the construction even prior to the issue of the permit, most likely in hope that by the time the Board of Supervisors had a chance to review this matter, that he would''have finished the construction, and by de facto the structure would be allowed to stand as is. Based on the information above, we request that the July 2 Conditions of Approval 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 comments regarding this appeal, please contact me at (92'5) 362- 1388. By my signature, 1 verify under penalty of perjury that the statements contained' herein, to the best of my knowledge, are true and correct. Nam hong Tran 10635394V1 July 24, 2002 Page 4 Attachments: 1. July 2, 2002 Condition of Approval Review 2. August 7, 2002 Community Development Department Letter 3 Alamo Improvement Association Letter 4. Helping Hand Landscape Design Architect Letter Cc: Loma Villa, Community Development Department 10635394V I ommunit Contra Dennis M.Barry,AICP Community Development Director Development Cosh Department en I- County County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez,California 94550-0095 Phone: 925--335-1210 August 7, 2002 Mr.Ronald E. Van Buskirk Pillsbury Winthrop LLP PO Box 7880 San Francisco CA 94120-7890 Edward Shaffer Archer Norris PO Box 8035 Walnut Creek CA 94596-3728 Subject: Solar Panels at 1951 Green Valley Road, Alamo Dear Messrs. Van Buskirk and Shaffer: This responds to the July 29,2002 correspondence from Mr.Van Buskirk requesting a review of the July 2, 2002 letter issued by Lorna Villa related to the placement of solar panels at the above listed property. 'Since correspondence has been submitted by Mr. Shaffer as well,this latter has been addressed to the attorneys representing both parties: In reviewing Ms. Villa's July 2,2002 letter,I considered the information contained in Mr.Van Buskirk's July 29,2002 submittal,the August 6,2002 correspondence from Mr.' Shaffer, the August 4,2002 and the August 5,2002 correspondence from Alvis Projects, Inc. submitted on behalf of the applicant,the August 7,2402 correspondence from A.B. H. Construction submitted on behalfofthe applicant,the August 1,2002 correspondence from Mr. Weiner and the July 25,2002 and July 31,2042 letters froth.the Bryan Ranch Homeowner's Association. The issue before the Department is whether the installation of the solar panels is consistent with the final development plan for the site. Condition 92 of the final development plan states. "Prior to the issuance o,f'any'building permit andlor grading-perm t for work on any lot, theproposed residential buildings and accessory structures to be located on that lot shall befirst submittedfar or review and approval by the County Planning Director. The guide to be used to establish setback,yard and height,dimensional requirements and other provisions,far development and use on each lot shall be the Single Family Residential District R-15... After reviewing the materials listed above, as well as the materials submitted prior to July 2 d'I have concluded that the decision of Ms.Villa as articulated in the July2, 2002 letter to Mr. Michael Weiner is valid. Since Mr. Weiner has previously expressed a willingness to plant landscaping along the south property boundary to provide screening, my concurrence is based on the applicant's agreement that the four 15'gallon screening trees which will be planted be increased to 12 trees. This decision constitutes an administrative decision by the Department and,as such,is subject to the appeal provisions in County Code Section 14-4.0021004. Should you wish= to file an appeal, a verified written notice of appeal and the$125 fling fee must be received by the Office of the Clerk of the Board by 5:00 P.M., September 6,'2002.'The — appeal Te`t�rnus concise y state the� thee�a�rd-fihe-gro�ri�for-the-app�ecal-;- --- - including the special interest and injury. Correspondence from W.Van Buskirk, as well as correspondence from the applicant and oral conversations with Department staff from Mr. Shaffer,represent that the parties have been willing to discuss the matter in an attempt to resolve the issue,but that the other' party was unwilling to participate or that their suggestions lacked the specificity upon which a discussion'could be based. The Department has offered to meet with both parties in an attempt to resolve this issue amicably. ':I wish to reemphasize the offer that has been extended to both sides that we will be willing to meet with you in an attempt to resolve this issue, so that the matter does not require placement on the Board of Supervisor's calendar. At this point an indication from bath parties that they are willing to participate is all that is necessary. If you have any questions related to the filing of an appeal, you,may contact me at'335- 12 10. 35-1210..Again,I believe that it would be prudent to attempt to resolve this issue without the necessity of a Board of Supervisor's hearing. Our staff will remain available should both parties agree to meet. Catherine K:utsuris Deputy Director CK/nip cc: Michael Weiner' Truing Dung and NamPhuong Trac ,A* OF September 3 2002 s -" Review Official Planning Department County ofCaMM Costa Re:Weiner Residence, 1951 Green Valley Road, Alamo To Whom It May Comm: Upon,reviewing the work proposed for the Weiner Residence to accommodate their installation o>fPV panels,I would like to make the following observations: The proposed screening is insufficient to provide adequate cover in mitigating the visual impact of the solar panels.The regtdarty spaced placement of the plants is botlr tan low in quantity as well as unsawral in appearance. A,suggestion would be to use more plant material, Meorporu g evergreen varieties such as Arbutus anedo,Ceanothus,and Rhamnus cslifotnim. These should be planed in a natural array,not in a geometric Pattern- The atte n.The proposed berth shown on the site plan is to consist of s dirt pile on top of e"ng tall' grass and weeds.This will likely allow the dire to slide onto the adjoining;property under rainy conditions,in;addition to which it also is unnatural in appearance.It would be far more`attractive to have the grading,following existing natural contours,and the potential for the&t to slide should be addressed by the incorporation'of a keyway or other such measure. AdditiotrAy,the Soutrbed ground area should be hydros ted with snatching native grasses. in following up,a call was placed with the Contra Cast&County Planning Department, and we were informed that s grating Permit is required should any of the five fallowing conditions mise in n given job: Any structure(s)supported by fill in excess of 200 cubic yards, if grading is to be 5/1 (20%)or greater; if fill is used in excess of 3" in height; if any arts are trade to a'deptli gre Mer'than 5'which are not to be supported by a'ar+etaining structure; 1228 Quarry Lane•Sutte E+Pleasanton,CA'9460.925-846-2933 Feat 026-8464009 and, ifany work to be perfornned'significantly changes the existing course of drainage, The work Planned for the Weiner Reside exceeds all five of the above conditions imitating a permit.On the last point,it mars that the remit of the grading charges will redirect drainage to an adsting oak tree. Please call if them arse any questions, Sincerely, Robert B.L.uehrs Principal i i j P.O. Box V1 MAMO, awrOPNIA 94§Q7 • (9Z)�%& May 15, 2002 Mr. Richard Maxey Manager of Bryan Meadow Homeowners Association JEAN BATES AND ASSOC. 3 840 Blackhawk Rd. Ste. 120 Danville,California 94506 RE: SOLAR PANELS ON DR. WEINER'S PROPERTY Dear Mr. Maxey: I am writing you in my capacity as the Chairman of the AIA Planning Committee and in support of the decision to not allow construction of solar panels at the top of the hillside on Dr. Weiner's property: Having been alerted by the owners of the adjoining,property located at 60 Oak Glen Court to the proposed construction of large solar panels on the hillside directly beside their property, I visited the site and was very concerned that Dr. Weiner had proposed this site for constriction of several banks'of large solar panels. As anyone visiting the site is aware,it is directly across from the neighbor's'home and would''significantly impact the future value of their property: Had Dr. Weiner proposed this construction during the approval.process of his residence,which was reviewed by the AIA., our committee would not have allowed this construction on such a'prominent site. Further, in the same spirit of cooperation shown by Dr. Weiner's neighbors during the process of approval of his residence, Dr. Weiner needs to consider the impact of his actions on his neighbors. Should this be allowed to set precedence within our community, I can only imagine other property owners, that similarly do not understand the impact of their actions, will demand the ability to construct solar panel structures that will diminish the value of our community at large and the enjoyment we all have living in Alamo. One wonders about such a scenario with banks of solar panels covering all of our beautiful hillsides': Thank'you for your well reasoned finding and actions regarding'this matter. s Sincerely, ...... i Rog F rrt Chairm Al Improvement Association cc': NamPhuong Tran { Development cosi Department Count 851 Pkieftest ft fir,NUM V" MWALI (92S)3351236 J*2,2002 Dr.;Midbad&We a ' 1951 Gown Vefy osB Akmo,0&94SO7 i TamarDr.Weiner. Rr Canty M f#W36 Cwujos ofApl ' g Rrviw V,& 1M Creaa Vsft ftW. oft Mjw29,XM yae t CaoMw ofAppmtdRavaw=&wfbfMIN16.mrfs"ftw pb6jVVa�o pftdt tet YQW PrWatyVMjMaWsle%re. MW pca ady is bo"wi*,k the 'A26 Ileapmeac3otteDa:tdA9ersoFtl ►.'iltcdet�e said ilsti ND. ia is< d97$, smd end etrts of '1'beOMMMity l�ev�etc�p��ptd�bd �lfisficps�3a�a�t �#mdt[ of A�iF�i�+rL�� � mea.5�edmlt��snc ttdieixr�ates�p�a�Oseof ft F-3 MARC COMM#2 OM-6 s"WO t Via. ",warm Elieaftwoo+afmve�i 8pe 8��it;J� Ct�alty�:d(te rrafa[eno ed btuI and��r to be loc&eat ar &ec.firatt� rewte�►e�d'alai'�Y L � ibaverevicea�at�dski' :+ �.. itioJturevit�B""sibrp#a oa Arse 25,3f a fft SO= W r•NUMPkIM6�yp�r Gt r at 60 Uati a1ea CMft iri !►a aIMM doed MW 15,2M ft= 6c AIM*kggoV qn t Ate,nd d"L App[26 ==dl Weimm AM 23,2Mfib VjVW**sits sak W of t W�s Zt viswatl site from S# Yad j+Ro oudo�oc�ret #tma�+6, 2,.1�ieaedt'I�aitefiroam�r.'Tr�'��►�dOG�ct�e,a Colas;0krooputyujacmd to the wtl'i'of 1950 Gram Vdd*& 3. Act}iesitavWtttt A=23.=2,wedWcm=d ' ' PMPN ID=Mftvierwof't elstazm' sam+aeeimies. lfttldttltlbe�y�it + it► ate� �teVa1€t3rRti,J e t t+ g laect fi�tb eoat,a£t +tpis sr ate' vim VVaDW Ro>& Ympeep] {{ d3 aitech+ ate ttte'sa exa ad'p eta ter f�ronttyot3r 1 Office Hours Monday-..Fridety:&t O ILM.-5.00 P.M. Office is closed the tst.3rd&5th FtMdap 61 eavh Mont � sout prapaAY line lemsaass tla hwd to tae ark nt pMaty.The additicraal tseagaiz alc the sou& pmperty Hoe and V&ftIo ttte vmd ofthe pancisym pts om a lm conhibutat©=WmW its effect "thee tr!`$�taatbiott�o0mpcS3ng1�F ►i�sid+�ist�8�ij.Ilttve cva mdYom ttR4S� Od� t Chep muolyvA&the pttav caasrafd3e 'Owed aaaA%mpMvnlitVaa fwft offtampboWvolWcpauetsat %*wc*eod*f*epmqwty.Thep etia dee sm P P t .and ' as' d mm 4�iCn B lomat�aatlb�#, ��► yals.t�t+e vott�laa iu�$s NsWdbdow.Plemuftilhm dt tWmVod bolmidw snelude Conuftenu f am Rom R Hu� I � The ''` ii�cabeltbe milse�tyDapmi�atD, dex'ttf€ts'z�eu►saWvalof, ttao�ia�Ad€taittiatrrmAbr poor fio ►at�x etfa pahmit: 1. A aataat• ,ptu ate;b4 x*ad#cd maxi iwla&she tial fid blow- AddbkmUy, eapparc�odamA'haatlaaaag abell ba inn prior m t+�gtae�,g a il�t, of ►peas. a. One 34ob btu Eombe€ma l II,:* &*M the"4Ode cif"adwpods,'The �ttopted+ot� shCsl�tlh�oft#��>t �wd los�ed#o �ttypOsstble v of 68 pule sl,ead side of do praprady. b. A fi"kb&bi&h erm qpuumgdy48 to tit!Feet as kpjk pled hu*vc 04004 da be Ioco odsotlmsovfMWofIh&pvmktoh act P ntisevicerofthepe fzamtba 'SaftProperty c, Fear 15-SAUmtrees"be planted along theam*Pr'opwW lips.tSieeton=Pr mmuencingfit the lwomst oo+mer tube lot, 2. Two cava m of>a pAng plea is=opftm wi*do ftft be sub=i*d that thtWelttoad ofto pepete V&bo uaaW1 bdC No OAL"be iduper ttaam 21. l�sly of do e1#.*e�cit the dtaf app a tht leen&WM be 1 leu+ad.l'leaaoesmtcttsettsaay mats►ipgMee+ol3M20D + is re +e sa s pataad f l i 3. A xe gladea�be s>bmitLed mat aaccrcp+o "`tptioa 8"ta+ 'tich grt►tett Godwty'paael to ft nom, A. Prate evldataaee t w yae have m s gfled faith offs d to deliv+eryQW LIUMbOW p}aaa to 00 pmtt Bmwwams Amocu and ba"sought co�mmo t fr m t'hek AnW*t>€td Cc mi tee,. S, MW*m Foot b*motet W*nmt box tart will lame the h and ft ole tw pond sha►Il be paned to blend is sfh that Vie.' 6. rWusedaePlastetialtde M a ad Mo'thatdee M 0 d&rived W MiarptsM bc> eidt aft>u► s*reacB=y.aa444i nftttc epad#sartbopla="Ofl&e drive equs aaeat shall be u&imind as umeh as posaa : 7. Dom snto Haat the Saler Ratiog C:er0ficaticna Carpomtian or other nationally race►gaaza d agency I ceT sties the pmpasad pbo tovolW a synem. 2 C Orw IM shm Uged WmWica is submitted and ow*gad ap 4dequMe the p1w wiU be qpvvcd by tie CM=uWD-*v&l0pmmftDqwft=t Ifyou b eve'amy q Uws da not roetD ca l m ati( 25)335-2236; sem', 'L ' k ll 14mviuA 3 i Al i Opft B Site Plan dwd June 2002 Sun 14,2M le tw frc=law Of1`u a of G%vn.MaCbgr,McMgbm dr Amshmg' OOM AMVA Hotreec W=s.Aasaaiaaims fe w dated Aprn 25,2002 cc Armor Noma,Atm Ed fir,2033 North Mam Situ fte$00,Walnut Qvck.CA,94596 By=Ram Sam OvMen Awoc;lou.C/o ImDatra&Astor isrtes,P.O BM 3428,Duvale,Cs 94526 Alatua hWWI=m mon.P.O.Duet 271,Ahmad Ca 94507 Truag Dmg& 7ha.dO C ak Olm Com,Alm fak 94507'+h9whmeaU Gs�ua ptm+�t�l scc.�►u► 3 rk1e TOTAL PAGE.'06 rlc►c Project Description NAM'PHUNG TRAN (APPELLANT), MICHAEL WEINER (OWNER), HEARING ON AN APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE ZONING' ADMINISTRATOR THAT DETERMINED THAT SOLAR PANELS ARE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND ALLOWED THE PLACEMENT OF A SOLAR PANEL SYSTEM. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1951 GREEN VALLEY ROAD IN THE ALAMO AREA OF THE COUNTY (APN 193-770-001), COUNTY FILE #DP013016 (DISTRICT 3).