The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 06132006 - D.4 DA 06/13/06 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on June 13, 2006 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Uilkema, DeSaulnier, Glover and Gioia NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Piepho CONTINUED to July 1, 2006, at 1:00 p.m. the hearing on the administrative appeal of Nam.Phuong Tran and Trung Dung of the Community Development Department decision to allow solar panels at 1951 Green Valley Road, Alamo. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKF,N AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE.SHOWN. ATTF,STEll en,Clerk drthe Board of Supervisors County Administrator By eputy DA 06/13/06 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on June 13, 2006 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Uilkema, DeSaulnier, Glover and Gioia NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Piepho CONTINUED to July 1, 2006, at 1:00 p.m. the hearing on the administrative appeal of NamPhuong Tran and Trung Dung of the Community Development Department decision to allow solar panels at 1951 Green Valley Road, Alamo. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON-1'1-IE TES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS O M DATE SHOWN. ATTESTEt— nd Q o e Board of Supervisors nistrator By cputy TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra ,, W,: .r FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa County coif COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR `:rA ' DATE: June 13, 2006 SUBJECT: SCHOFIELD & ASSOCIATES FOR NAMPHUONG TRAN & TRUNG DUNG (APPELLANTS) MICHAEL WEINER (OWNER) APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE INSTALLATION OF SIX GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR PANELS. THE PROPERY IS LOCATED AT 1951 GREEN VALLEY ROAD IN THE ALAMO AREA (APN 193-770-001), COUNTY FILE #Z106-11230, DISTRICT III. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS UPHOLD the Community Development Department's decision that approved the installation of six ground mounted solar panels and deny the appellant's appeal. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED —OTHER— VOTE THER_VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) CORRECT COPY OF AN A ION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUT OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE E SHOWN Contact: Lorna Villa(925-335-1236) ATTESTED cc: Community Development Department(CDD) JOHN CU EN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Catherine Kutsuris, Deputy Director SUPERV ORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Schofield &Associates, Appellant Dr. Tran & Mr. Dung, Appellant Dr.Weiner, Property Owner ,DEPUTY County Counsel Bryan Ranch Homeowner's Association o f r rio t CIS—V ti s, e"� vJ+� w�`x`�r".+�- .��'.-` �-i'f^r'°"..',,��.i: �i�c.`jr ''4i aCi��I.S_C•:*��4 _ ' !�' -'; _ 'S""'_ _. ,, 'T-`Y-`` u�a,_r.''�u�'z.-�y }..'•�GGII''��` ,M,_ ��t• I,..` CC,,,, d .it ! s,'-.; ''i'^ - .,.i,� !t ``tial•;:' -a s:'.��',". t. '4y. x '� .k;' **.n�<i�t.�4 ��i' .ti'' ,:A'•i. ': - `r�'.�, ;ltl, -p5�r{`n.�: ,'�•"'' v,i��. .�Mr!�41`' "'i-v��'' '�}i�.` ,�.�1,�..,r�.:'i?; � by 37'#alb;•" .�.r `. ':iY t':1%r��•F` a.-' - , .• '.'�..�{' o!Y`..•.,,�•xtl •i%�'iY`�`�G.i�, ;.2'.: +'{' _.�1:y �`~ krii '.I .._i. .;�ii,�,"'.-'��i�';', t-�V� t�L5z;4'v'-J'+: 'V .l. �..S rt�`rW, h M tju �H-..t.{.^..'a,• `'.''Cy.. .Yid _ ._ 14.+�j}:'>•:V -!'f��, i l.�'t�G', iy,� .f. i �i:Xr�!5y ^}:F'.� ' ,�r.l..`.. ei'. .�•i'>...1^!is��,. •G.,''h;zi:.-. �5y rC.`. - 7tV'i'y`; .,a_.Y.'�'J r v:l(�•,%i .S'".':1.. ,t:: -�a�'"l'. _ `'1.�. _ �C. -11�vt�` �f",,ai:Y,.NtI., ..,'i�- '.1 ��•� • !'A-..`tr-c:..1r.l.:i,y1�'�}^7:'..''��#�!yW'1:'..;4rf--t!c,!x+L�'.#+'},•r.:a._r.r.r�,«,ir:_?`S._v.Vy°'•.1!.,n?.7.,7r1•�.f.,�iy.Y'!�.3+.4 y9:,.,rync�.:t::-_�,,...�.s•. ,x /a• iv--��,',F - t�ij�i:tC!:�,,';:'r jtik:.S�} ..4±-.'c,Ii'..':`�: �.��+.�y....,,H.'.r..�.,•rA>�-,,x'1 la,i . '.k..- =Y1. " :rr� r. ..� _. !+-'',t c- :'ti w� i•'��. •',.':• c'I. �. �};:, �L's`J_j'�'.-�. #'•'+C:'ia '}�:,,i' .: i°�.,.t; �ri.,'?t.e..`. -.r.a,41^' .t.... •:¢Ati.i. - `+it:"r.t _ �%,`^�` iUS�:�`r �.+�'4 Sv' ,S.k .1•'l''` ..t ..t'.�✓ �J�•�,7��? _��p_ ..i (t a._ K;Y.,'f4, 'J,`a•'F•°dei' 'S• A.. I:� 4 t 'PA. x �.4�• :F_.+'•:' _ _ -�.t,f lt3- 1�1;:�.i: `a.;� +�yJ• rc4,:G�k„- .� +'S•-'}y'- p�S kgSs:":: '�', •.t _ _ tip': `t�tai,� :±.��c<L�4 a ''3'R 'i. '' � t,:,'+>.r�:.,• v :s.•` .' .. _ Or, }°. .s-1kK''�5,yulfrt�� M-v,�`' �l'.'N =7� •Sr:sk.�i;h"�',` ��"�•s,�,�+}V�-�+:.Lfi'y.� ..._ ^i. . . _.�. � _�.�.�•+''�„_...•. �,,,.,,._..r-•-- z. ,t�,'�: 01 the berm as seen looking north . from the toot solar panels t Iyin S 3`r „..•.'tea �- �}� y 'tq� i'e+ /i n`~� •�a r i yr�`�r��,, .... f_ r' iY"�s>"3 t r r�s'r ,r'^y,..ru eS•.- ,R +sq' .,'-+Lt y ; +{ yet, ';.3. T:. .0 } 9Mr.. . ,7�,i � s �� `tt. s ��in � � v .4f•. -f�,�'�a'"�J*ij''!'�'��'�� r�'��,�• rf.''`'�.� �,.1,�;t, ' r �`` .��T;-q .� `t*��` .r`-'��•i� I_Y 4r�F:� t _�'1• 5a.. Y "'�f� }- k v,l sr 'r`G'�f;e+-'� •y�`�, {.°j*� '"' r.{.`�, *' .�." 't� 61 n+r^^''*^"'s T- w' �.S i ..., .szl ,gs''t� ; `��✓,y. `i" 'r .� A r�'tP11,1� „5. �C'� j r.�.`fit i;7 - � �rL �y(t '�•,,y�y� i h' i 4v�'r�'"Xi� '" t '•-._:! � ,+.,;x.,,°' .�ikaS� � #v �'•��'�'� �f'"t" < :,,,,,-r:� _ '�� - �rr,�+F�, �� J �'6es•:. a �T.,'^ss� ,. yrd�'l;"�i.. !F"?�.: r.�'Ldtr � � ��- ^'a f. z.,r"�� ,#°��''°o'SGrt�?G_Tat a1,• T.� r� vti..7?f'.f- v '•y T y<r w.K,,; t1�,+;{,..,,,`.� +.t' r, -v�Nr'1'w"h 1R. 6 aj.ys •r � rr.A .5.;�va� �•-.ws-` .c�- r a .��. �'"!�y� 4 i! � '' �r.*�o� f rl ii fi t4 jxrta 1 i` ytsx. c j �`yNti �iy { y' e`t T� y Trk F�'y.�,,-�t�,�,y; -�q}�. w r y '�41•!k,�;t`�',�;;�v.,�+,,.x-;,�� r, � i3 �:: }� `a` th'�,,h'L,,tiic'e M�o��'� -`' �A•�y,.,,,�1S•i1� ,�.. x~ ..._..��*, � ��,�.:�1..2.,:-'�.i�K''��' t"",r .'s`�-�i r r.k � t.� �*'S, `•,.ray �.� y. i. T. .yi..2�� 1. �.�* •as•? �� a th �;. y'7(.� �.s.`+;r,'�` �, s y '� f r�.,�,},9r`Y�� .r' L'(�i+-.fir � ir' '�F�++r17�` ii'� � �R ��• btv_•r *1`_ �`d't'�' L� '�! y.Y�54i,1�4i k�s t "�-�i�� ,Gr�,f" f �•'ti+�` '.r n�.'kr1� '�! 1 ..� ',,�,�, �+T"r,r. -. n, �,�.� 4' },�ma�'•``'^yy �+y ��"�- -. - _ -- -fir. '*.:• Y.:,{".•.,'!.6. .. ��Y�I•'y� .. � _ .'y.�*.4-- ti, - 'X54 }"-7,._ -411 ti�T '.<.' 1 ''Ir �"Y.{F,l'�•-.:.i."_!��—.'�w`:.: r'`:. 11'� W1i E3. :1 . :� 1� 0.0.0. ! tl x,;•,, .M ►� ^'�u�J'.r,-��r;`ts��:'�� t �5"�`tp �y ''�"`-:iv.. ��. '-Y.. _ - - _, ,,f_,> r`Y'rf � fs5�}'t'�:�,t., +. �ti+�SI,:.I.r�3��,� .. �I ..•.?..:::•; _ -_ _ —. i-' •,- - •t"i;`tx_,µ.1r -�,;•...4`1 '1ViS'.'�^v i.N.•'13 � .,'.'I xt Z'h�. .-rIr - ;r: r� �,t: ,j-• "'J.— '2',4`-.� 'r A.7C''�r �, r�}ii,,n J �ntf�.'r;-L i •r'J''"t'.s; ' " .... `.„.rXr ''c.`. 1�;�:�.i:i`_;.r�t' •:C 'jr r'i' ..s y i ,X#.' r, 1.,. +.*r ,v,;Frn. ,•+ -" 'f'.p�4,..-..4'�:r. .C.'L�, i.;�f...i�� ,M1 +jk',:,t; 7�.. :. 'jxt. Y ?::�'{ �,� { .�.'7 t, �,A'. ��I. �f. r.w'.-,,.�n "sF.+�•'}'� •tis• .rt:a,�K.•: v�7,*. - x:N��}�� frs t Y., yvLt� M1e '{1�'1 .�1' „�l•' k '�. .YY. Solar Panels as seen looking north from the southwest corner of 'Dr Weiner's property. s� YM r t 1 �;. ./" :''1� sti' r.'� a 4 c 1 _♦ f 1 '.-,,,1.. .:,... {} ��-_ '�' ;: y �7F-.,1r�_�.� �' L� �. a moi.�YY.. � � T � fh'�\., J � �b} �. � 1.1 �f 4..r/ f h - l g�...�<Y;. .,i•_.: 'cl x r� ',�V r i 1�• �t ti.,,.f.�r "` 4 � / ,' �. � rL✓i '�'� � .S' - �� L�• X � �� a- irx:: ti 0�.''. • r,,'l�r .. ~- Y-R rT } � 2 *� N4 T •�, �'r .w�tiTft ,.f. 1 ,y; f rte . i y 1: � -lip - 7,, �f'� �. 1.1,r SFJ• 5 j`tJ Y `....} UT a'�"_ ;sK W iA*sl d'.,/i✓'_. .,rr Pfi+'Y,, _ 2T�:'a1.�' ,t Q� a Ni•i.'•„�r'.;'Y I:I' �. " - t > - ..” ,IAF. •�S` .! :t.k l :2',�. -�i': • �" Yi A southeasterly view of the Tran's home taken from the western (and therefore highest) corner of the most southern panel (panel closest to the Tran's home) . /j 1 •,y irr'j f 4,. 'N,Z�{�f •?•ip�t�?'L'�'',•" � ,�'• �S, •. it i :.,,• t.,•�i,''�•',,� •..� I �,.,5h s F;� �11,47:.i�..9 ..:=•a``R�4�y�r��i�, i�•' ��iA{� .s� +�� f��,R�.r: �,.�;, ;��I .'�� J • [[_� �. :�•'v+`��y�:'�Ci ..i:'��",;Ildl .�Y. '� -'.d X71'. i ��, '`1/l9� ��ar!• 2^�`,f,-:tiZ�l-'T ��"`I; .j +:,7�.��i � .r .P:ri'• ` �•�t ,:'.t-iT.,•,�'f"'.,. A close-up of the solar panels. �� '• ,qS�� s�-' � • h. -rev._• JM '� '_, a it+�J �" `'� �r i..��^ x� � -s t �++rw � �-,,.' � P�sr►'.ks--�• - 7 �� 9 •* 1 7f- ; �� rrt �v Cf• iI�,. 'is -�-�a t�. !� 4:s �• } > ��, st -y ..�� -� T iht �, L ,;.� � {.3�ts�;•�; r 4 yn�`• _"�Y''. 55 - ;.�,1�y,�i i,:J. a_►}fl•i>_ � 7 M art [LhC _Y vy 4 .i .�;�� ,F,i - �' Cyt ^��,t„�C Yr'�.37R �•,t Jnr � -d'._ -i' `r"'�,.j_ t? ' + .I �x' �i�y �'„ ,., 4�'•'_ - '• .k. �'/r 47 t ��'l,.a -(" Via.,t� -� '/ ti•• �r ,., _ - � t i,44� 't` t4 .� } Jr.{,�.t�•^ -t � �yrrr • �fy+„ -'-Y"v�y '� .r t�;'S q i n j i f a•: � k+_ 7' 2`.�•''t+v "�. "tt'--4 t Pt f.- c•L.�*`al' •�' h 1 } f,.A?• a,�,�r } ! s - 4 •-4 a �'"i('t�" -a? . JJJ. k. .'r-fit";. .b',•rt Gs1 -t �, ' a a I a •� - `y5'�•4..: t tom, �'r pr. '�. !_.s(_,. >.�,4y` -t .� .Y•�','.,C,� t i Ft � �,t;� �� ,,y•tt y>„rLa�l`p`{(F�� 4 �}� y� -;Y � ��_�. }�G Q�.a .� 4i�•. G,.^+--4t yf � �i ��s r_„� •6'•- -� _ «fit f• .h " y-^y��`Y� .t'• {v�3,P,C�-er R �' s,.`� "'`ti;,µ�i �a�`,z� .�. � � - _ If - _ 7l.��• =,.,.c,y„ _+ .eta, t��'Y� � -•. s !. . . .. r y r-,�-`'- - i 't;�'t �";,'�'�y'R7��. { ��-9:r,. std...._„� .'„ �Y�•��Y'•"�c.� - : R Ir r ' _ _ � ti�+� �w. ! :r L� R t � Arrt}`� :+ s,•e - _ '_''�.^.`.'�?� 3 t �t_ . f L �' '�..; a ,� tT-�3 4 n "r�l �'• � c,_Y� +'' .a�.. • ,+.*' ` -�"�kS�7�rS;7'y°F�„� •t�" y .al}` y"'1�r�,°.�-'s"'ky•b .-. `ti ..tit „r 1� ,vJr ii��e :•,1't '. � -,s,+"S'wJ •i�,.. y*;:r r 1 ;•i�_ .�� - r r4�,t .�;. �, `4t5'�rd�tet. ,y`� i��i;,• '�.'''r tie x _ i.�„�•-C-d i��,7�� l�•''f�b,c�3� �+#i� rr�: y •r .�il�Tl., rrax�zr� ?1'+�.'ri 1 } � s� ie s .r� ,yArS q.r,J Y '.2.k,T^' o-:;'�r`�°"i.,r, " r�pa�,.k`�..�• s Y�+]� �•i�G' c�.�t ,y.�� Y ��x,3` i� 4 'L +3r P"!ry"7�N....' " [�Y � �+-r^� t 'Ca �-.��,. : .?-rte,, x • r�-i ^ a:. ['� '7f _ •*fi�� f. �'Sj.,,t'r 4��-r i� !-l..S.' .T rte._,gar;„rrryC.��'}_ x p�,,,yY[�- q3. �� i. �� ..+,�� 1'` �`(• i 4 t t "+�f'' J,•1ti+ r5'.w1 ,� }�. F'�.+' +'.{_ "L'b.xCr .fit 1 .'•4`11 i' "r Cti ,+tNd,'"f "�"".'u.`S{�� ' ..,lh;' ~; � ',t$`y �'�{} '` •r j' r _•r t �„ .t • ..».,} Sk j,y. r J i rtte� p, �r ,Y - ?�. 41". UP ��t r'� _� � >� •'� i a jv' 4t y4f r,5f.�' ..q 4„ °��•l`e '"1 Y xl r.' '_��}.i • y� + �, � ?1 ', s`.'. ,�1.�- iti �z 4,r,,TGf4 ,�•*, 't`vi+rr- .tet � .�-y` s.�.i�'� :.r s' r E. P t..�!`•' :r+ yi ur - _ �s,F c T ♦ .. -� .(.. ^�, �, o- 3:'/. --- •� a. � "^.✓'' .�,6j14.�'J 4 •,i�v, .a-,.Kn�r�n'L`6-•��'f_r � 7v� L- } • '+ - •r� r.F •� - • :n,Si r �s y .�i i . 'r�v�.,�„lJh7"�j��` •?' .k• k�.� C r'- �`�`l. ",.. ","�,;!:''4'�.1,•xc- . t� �z -��«%.y s ' +i• ;r'•..�,. y �' �i'fi}.?y. y :M,t r _�r 'Ar4 C��jr��a ,^'S�f. 'ti,'. �s'rl,'.�� :3' .r�... ��r.r. +r ,?:E :�,:: +.E '�'r c �t•- s�,, °d'Si� sa � � yv. :w•.�i tqJ •:fd Yq ». V -, y, ��. ". 1?r�..;'w• ,LS�!•►yJ��.eYa2, �,t�.,�l+ i w�.'�^f ��'f�' -'.Gh'rY 7r��Y o�-�-��r�,,�;,�-,.t�{ ,•• .n” � _ � M1 s,�.• < y.' •o-,``iaj- TY= .xxt. 'f-4�xi`' +}.w Y:;v. ' i'F'Fd'y��' {' z.`•a- - -"'"! l� ` - ��' "' %r*:"`rR M � [.l'd ' ��.•7�•x M tS' 4.4: � ) ♦ ��. -'a'. �� a i}*- j,_ p: ~t sr.• `r ' re�` iii7Z'rade-f "iG'_ • Y Y4 `.,•.Y - y x _ _ .,-yf` •r. '.td r�•w.•rzT4 F9�.r �'i, ♦ �, .r' J.F'j�y� = 4.ro.. -.� >tY. T ,� r'r,r "^.�'r `t'r,�tMG •4, *" tL 1 "R� ,?r r 1'1 ^'i'• _ yRi ♦ •. _ i Y r - i"it$ sr' ?..74• r V•`'� >. •--. .'4' - !/H.•'x rE+ rig `� t � _ '•.+,. �'?'.r�"`+ .. x .i•. t ( :i r- f a: ^Yt_ YL r L�7: Hey'. .•."� A int`, �-�.,� � -nom - '. :ti'•. C _ r � y .s .- t4'u• +.'re`s $ 1 a., n.^a- - `-r - �~ ,.^.c'.i".ti"• �.<y+a,r,�.� ` .. .i4; � s�'c.'�. ,r� �w f� tl.'�'t .y. S `�, _ ,M1 y_�t r- �.a •i�j + F d •. ,. •. ',.V.'�" gy��!l,,�+nd rs! JrJCh t y 4. 44, "r WE"t-1, �OFf �� ,W S� }a !• _ - �x H�h' �•% *•+� t•�f.•L,�''°kT,��.�f r _ �,3ry; ',l� tf'•l � - �-', ; r s .� r: '3.-r '�1'tY}:�.�•«.� .0 ' - .,,,cie. .'7` wry ��'� 0. ''� P�r v+.2r �•�yb � �4r•:. � ll'+! ;,� ti"'�f, 5'7 �45'x•j' > �-r ^.+ d L r''�'r� � •?4 .t+.. d �F �L+ate:*''�Cx � �:: t} �z�IY tt•S .. c. � �. ,air �•j_ ;'�, �f�r�a � •.��'. r"" •>�'�� i tom`� � �,� � -!''`; ` ,�,.�1,j•..'�_ �.r,. .; '�'5^.�,�.5 fL S '!� ,,,t• ;' �: t �"��,� ^t �. S�.ertyV�. T 1� •� c'. �' x•.f �F .c�'� + �;�y;. - ,..c^Pi ,.� y ,.,�iS?:' VS:'vr 4 � '� ';l 'iY-� �p'3.`•• r 3,1? ,� J (.1w }1 / � t;ti w;�,l.}�,. 3 �, ,7•.:... •- +`.��'w or,�' r s''A,} rye` `+ r= - f \ t r � '"7r•,� F�. 5.„ k-� .�. �+�3'�'•:�' ..Y�c az i ,r 3.T �_.e��. {�M1+'.� Qy�_ `+ • .t.5-r 3' ,c '�.�,�c "_�� +�� K ��s' ..;.� �' '� ^sr a`.r ;.-�''ti.�-•" �- .�� ti•}1y: . 4r s:�5�.;6.�'�5K,4°`-' r=t o-.F'd' f ��x^.r t !'fi -1, f 5 1; +• {r�y,' 7G•�r � 4{ y - ..�r�..,F� ,y`_' 9� t r �S�r �''a'S4 �, � [J1. eG y'S,,t< ^��e1' .tK'�,✓ =a a Y:'J7C"•�.t �, � � J� }+_:;"�•�V�4.i'.5 ��'- ',. W t '�' _.-.�ej y.,,y, 11rT O.} *yJ,z � Jam*'-:Y' ./�v� .: c_'n-��'�Jt.��:._.}�' �~• ,t <c�4�`-�--n� '+, �,`f� '' ��; t L, •�••ra��s� P'�'.t'�["` `�t'F%'}��:c�°'-'�.', �< � ��.,. ,�. x,F,-��:t r'Y'��NrY... g��.+�' � '��°S vi• ..r.. � •`�'. tiG�•-R=�`-'-.•��i•,F`q'•�'d'�'h i`.�.a�'�f`��+� _ _ .;Sx��. _ �'�,� u-�v � - _ -�.'`G`��fi'r"� yT ,2-@•S'�egc�•k�.t ,-�,�rtJwq - � a+ t.aRr1'�.�� ,Pj�s' r r�•ry �.,�. - � a�1j}'r..,. .��w�`f. - r � 4_ h is p7'rItF� �i��' rte°-,�,3��,+��;fo+r��d{jF �.�F'r•'� 1�r:ft ri i C� � �S� - .,,u �'. 's'' A tea'"' s� J'a { N a a� �..°• �:�-ri. x �y s 3 !� �, _ a ..35'S- r-5r- " �`}'"'�'�'r � .• '44 �R� ��1�� ,.,+1"if:�r`F'{�!Y•� n,93;'!'-`i�., _ �!` K�i.�'�'J y �� '��4� 4 �h 1. ' ,3 L"b ��'-` i'� 't tt �:.Rf`i. oJ"�xj4 �_ �.A,� ;� s-e,� fix. �o_ _;_.• ..,£�„�F'_ � `� r.. •y--�':� •1.�',li �"y,n.-. Rtd '6=r.17c. --'.,.+fi }�j :�r k. °'�-: .:;tmy7.9�'i�g•- 'x7,-js r. Vla..' ty� (,�c. ,3+n �•,i t• '` N,, °.,-'� �� _.{ y ,.r.P.. •r+..rrdP ,tom a �. i +•. ,��r ..{Y�" �;�' ^'♦Y.:+,r.•,. -:F`` �... ��. - >• ,� _ `� ''�v �.-�..�N r��" er„�4•r.r �rS-rn� � ��' •.�F ,'.] - W. ��.:.. t�r.�.""L` s t�+'.�'I �� P:•.9 � �k J'Y.tit� G• P�'�'•r,�J1 � �}.�ff 41 _ "y.. ' � 4 �,,y�,VC ��,yh�~-�f'�"}� } `!•+�. - _ C rr-r 3��'�''`f� •r! `� ^k- �;,'#r�'. _-� :.r -..*'R•"��:�rti �.if a ��r'S�Qyr't}"��s{ G.rx l�t a ' - �. s ;y} �• t.: -i�'va P.�r- A r �a'.. .,s• -il�f rt'•1 fi� �{r y`i� .. ^� rS ('�y„�6'.�><r.t + fin' � f 1 �•��'��; N f�f r ?fi+,•s, ":� R a3� �1 �1L'S� '� `'�kJ t�".+ n..•1."yj }R 4�'s� .' J4 ��a J. _nom,. -t x�' 1 '4z Yr ��` 4 wy�. - 'i.a•Y�.+r .r._.....+r..�.a :r LL .�LL� �•. - •R 3 +:•�I'J� TJ T } �-�NRY`.i.�.. .nt��+nT r,P"+- K`' .t' s t��^,G'��"'T�. TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ' Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP '`" �:�:�.: :., •� ; Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR �;:T^. �� County DATE: May 23, 2006 SUBJECT: SCHOFIELD & ASSOCIATES FOR NAMPHUONG TRAN & TRUNG DUNG (APPELLANTS), MICHAEL WEINER (OWNER) APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF - THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE INSTALLATION OF SIX GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR PANELS. THE PROPERY IS LOCATED AT 1951 GREEN VALLEY ROAD IN THE ALAMO AREA (APN 193-770-001) (COUNTY FILE #ZI06-11230) (DISTRICT III) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. RECOMMENDATIONS UPHOLD the Community Development Department's decision that approved the installation of six ground mounted solar panels and deny the appellant's appeal. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Lorna Villa(925-335-1236) ATTESTED cc: Community Development Department (CDD) JOHN CULLEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Catherine Kutsuris, Deputy Director SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Schofield &Associates, Appellant Dr. Tran & Mr. Dung,Appellant Dr.Weiner, Property Owner BY ,DEPUTY. County Counsel Bryan Ranch Homeowner's Association May 23, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#Z10611230 Page 2 II. FISCAL IMPACT The appellant (Schofield & Associates) has paid the initial appeal fee of $125.00. The property owner (Dr. Weiner) will be required to pay for staff time in excess of $125.00 associated with the processing of this appeal. III. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The appellant is appealing the placement of six additional solar panels arrays at 1951 Green Valley Road in Alamo. The subject property is located within the Bryan Ranch Development located in the Danville/Alamo area of the County. The development was approved as a Planned Unit District in 1978. On July 2, 2002,the Community Development Department approved County File#DP013016 Condition of Approval Review(attached)for the placement of three photovoltaic panels. The approval.identified conditions the property owner(Dr. Weiner)volunteered to incorporate to help screen the panels. The decision was appealed by Ms.Tran and Mr. Dung and ultimately, the Board of Supervisors upheld the Zoning Administrator's decision to allow the three photovoltaic panels. In. February of 2006, Dr. Weiner requested approval to install six additional photovoltaic panels at the west end of his.property. The Community Development Department approved the installation of the additional panels on February 22, 2006. This decision was also appealed. The project site is a steep 3.73-acre lot with elevations varying from 535 at the lower level of the property to 775 at the top of the site. The single family home is located at the east end of the lot. The solar panels are located approximately 400 feet from the residence and are not visible from Green Valley Road because of the topographical difference. IV. APPEAL DISCUSSION Listed below is a summary.of the appellant's statement and staff's response. 1. Appeal Point: The proposal doubles the accessory structure in size by adding six new solar arrays(94)sq.ft. each,which are being placed closer than the sixty five foot setback that was required by the original conditional approval. The Zoning Code limits the area coverage of an accessory structure to 600 square feet. The six new solar arrays add an additional 564 sq. ft. to the existing accessory structure that is 612 sq. ft. The accessory structure approved in 2002 already exceeds the limitations set forth in the Ordinance. Response: The Zoning Code allows detached accessory structures to be placed three(3) feet from the property line if it is set back at least fifty feet from the front property line. The location of the six new panels,which are to be placed 26 feet from the south property line, May 23, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#Z10611230 Page 3 complies with the setback requirements. ,The zoning does not limit the number of accessory structures. 2. Appeal Point: The pending proposal doubles the size of the accessory structure allowed by the 2002 approval; does not address that the pending proposal installs six (6) new solar arrays when the 2002 approval limited the accessory structures to three (3); does not address mitigation for a setback from the property line to reduce the adverse effects on our property; does not address any mitigation for vegetation or:other growth to shield the visual effect to our property; and does not address reflection and glare that not only occurs form the existing accessory structure but also from the installation of the six (6) new solar arrays. Response: The 2002 decision was related to the application.to install solar panels. It did not otherwise establish limitations on the property. It should be noted that the State law was amended to specifically limit local agencies in the review of solar energy systems. Government Code Section 65850.5 requires local agencies to administratively approve applications to install solar panel systems through a nondiscretionary permit. Review of applications is limited to whether the system will have an adverse impact on public health and safety. The visibility, aesthetic design, and reflectivity are all examples of issues beyond the review prescribed by State law which states (refer to Government Code 65850.5): (a) The implementation of consistent statewide standards to achieve the timely.and cost-effective installation of solar energy systems is not a municipal affair, as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but is instead a matter of statewide concern. It is the intent of the Legislature that local agencies not adopt ordinances that create unreasonable barriers to the installation of solar energy systems, including, but not limited to, design review for aesthetic purposes,. and not unreasonably restrict. the ability of home owners and agricultural and business concerns to install solar energy systems. It is the policy of the state to promote and encourage the use of solar energy systems and to limit obstacles to their use. It is the intent of the Legislature that local agencies comply not only with the language of this section, but also the legislative intent to encourage the installation of solar energy systems by removing obstacles to, and minimizing costs of, permitting forsuch systems.. (b)A city or county shall administratively approve applications to install solar energy systems through the issuance of a building permit or similar nondiscretionary permit. Review of the application to install a solar energy system shall be limited to the building official's review of whether it meet all health and safety May 23, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#Z10611230 Page 4 requirements of local, state, and federal law. The requirements of the local law shall be limited to those standards and regulations necessary to ensure that the solar energy system will not have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety. However, if the building official of the city or county has a good faith belief that the solar energy system could have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, the city or county may require the applicant to apply for a use permit. (c) A city or county may not deny an application for a use permit'to install a solar energy system unless it makes written findings based upon substantial adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. The findings shall include the basis for the rejection of potential feasible alternatives of preventing the adverse impact. (d) The decision of the building official pursuant to subdivisions (b) and(c) may be appealed to the planning commission of the city or county. (e) Any conditions imposed on an application to install a solar energy system shall be designed to mitigate the specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety at the lowest cost possible. (t) (1)A solar energy system shall meet applicable health and safety standards and requirements imposed by state and locally permitting authorities. (2) A solar energy system for heating water shall be certified by the Solar Rating Certification Corporation (SRCC) or other nationally recognized certification agency. SRCC is a nonprofit third party supported by the United States Department of Energy. The certification shall be for the entire solar energy system and installation. (3) A solar energy system for producing electricity shall meet all applicable safety and performance standards established by the National Electrical Code, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and accredited testing laboratories such as Underwriters Laboratories and, where applicable, rules of the Public Utilities Commission regarding safety and reliability. May 23, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#Z10611230 Page 5 3. Appeal Point: During the past three and one half years, the vegetation planted on the earth berm to the south of Dr. Weiner's property has been neglected and allowed to become unkempt. It has not provided the visual shielding that the mitigation required for visibility of the existing solar arrays and has not prevented glare and reflection. The addition of six (6) more solar arrays will not only increase the visibility from our property, but will cause an even greater negative.impact on our property's value. Response: The July 2, 2002 approval to install three photovoltaic panels was subject to landscaping conditions with which Dr. Weiner volunteered to comply. Subsequent to the installation of the three panels,the required landscaping was installed in compliance with the approved permit. 4. Appeal Point: Dr. Weiner's property is located within the Bryan;Ranch Homeowner's Association. Dr. Weiner's application to the Bryan Ranch Architectural Committee was denied (attached) on January 13, 2006. As of the February 22, 2006, Conditions of Approval Compliance Review, the proposed project has not been approved by the Architectural Committee. However, it appears that Dr. Weiner re=submitted his request after the County issued a building permit on February 24th and received a conditions approval from the Architectural Committee on February 28, 2006 (attached). This approval was based on the erroneous representation that the 2002 mitigation measure had been complied with, that the County has approved the project as well as alleged relaxed setback distance requirements. Response: Please refer to the response for Appeal Point#2. 5. Appeal Point: We would like to call the Board' attention to the magnitude of the solar energy production that is proposed. The 2002 solar arrays were represented to produce 7,800 kwh per year. Dr. Weiner's physical data proposes to install six new solar arrays generating a total of an additional 6,800 kwh per year. Utilizing -the California Energy Commission's recommendations, the combination of solar arrays should satisfy the electric need of two residences. Which means that this is not simply being installed for residential consumption. Perhaps this is why Dr. Weiner offered to sell electricity to us. What Dr. Weiner proposes is the equivalent of solar panel "farm" that certainly is not in compliance with the zoning regulations for the planned community. Response: Please refer to the response for Appeal Point#2. 6. Appeal Point:The proposed solar array is not suited for the proposed location next door to our home for a variety of reasons: • No review of the solar array's color or location has been conducted to insure that it will blend with the landscape and that the glare will not impact the local streets and structures. • There was no analysis of alternative locations. May 23, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#Z10611230 Page 6 • There is no analysis that the solar arrays presently existing as well as proposed have and will cause excessive reflection that intrudes into living areas and amount to a nuisance. • There is not analysis for grading and construction to minimize the visibility to our house and local streets and structures. • There is no analysis that the proposed solar arrays satisfy the minimum setback required by the 2002 mitigation measures. • There is no analysis that the proposed solar arrays will create excessive energy production that would amount to a business venture that is not in compliance with the County zoning regulations. Response: Please refer to the response for Appeal Point#2. V. CONCLUSION Pursuant to Section 65850.5 of the Government Code, local agencies are required to administratively approve applications to install solar panel systems through a nondiscretionary permit. Review of the application is solely limited to requirements necessary to mitigate specific, adverse impacts on public health and safety.The proposed panels do not impact public health and safety. Staff recommends that the Board uphold the administrative decision that allowed the installation of six (6) additional solar panels and deny the appeal. G:Current Planning/Staff Reports/Z106-11230 Board Order. SCHOFIELD &1LSSOCWFES ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION TT IE PLAZA AT SA*I RAMON ITL-. 925-327-0009 San Joaquin valley a icc: 2000 CROW CANYON PLACE,SUITE 270 RAX: 92S-327-0009 IS x1 j Street,P.().Boc 1637 SAN RAMON,(_4 94583 EMAIL: mai1&641a-xom Modwo,California 95353 WEB: www.6cli4law.com 2n9.576-BBA6 Far.209-576-675 Reply to; San Ramon I March 23,2006 ---- - � P1l1R 2 ` RECD i •� HAND DELIVERED - - Contra Costa County Board.of Supervisors Clerk of the Board 651 Pine Street,Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Notice of Appeal Related to Community Development Department Condition of Approval dated February 22,2006, Compliance Review 1951 Green Valley Road,Alamo,CA 94507 County File#7106-11230 Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors: Dr.NamPhu,ong Tran and Mr. Trung Dung are the owners of the property located at 60 Oak: Glen Court, Alamo, California, which is immediately south.and adjacent to the proposed solar panel array that Dr. Weiner wishes to construct. We are bringing this appeal to challenge the administrative decision made by a County Officer. On February 22, 2006, Ms. Catherine Kutsuris,Deputy Director wi.tl-,the Contra Costa.County Community Development Department, issued a Condition of Approval Compliance Review for the proposed project. This deterrninatio.n finds that the proposed photovoltaic(?V's panels are an accessory structure that comply with the R-15 District standards and concluded that the panels comply with the provisions of the zoning district and.with the intent and purpose of the P-1 District. We believe that this determination is In error mid is not supported by the zoning regulations and evidence in the CommunityDevelopmernt Department's files related to this project. This determination is not based on an adequate independent analysis by the County and inadequately addresses the project alternatives, health, safety,visual, financial and other concerns which would be considered during a fall land use permit review, Ms is the second project by Dr. Weiner for installation of solar panel arrays at this same location on his property. The first project was the subject of contested proceedings that resulted in approval based on the negotiation of mitigation measures because of the magnitude and Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Re; Notice of Appeal March 23,2006 Page 2 i exposure of that project. This ultimately was presented to the Board of Supervisors at the Board hearing on October 1, 2002 (County File#DP013016,District M). We enclose a copy of the Board's decision as Exhibit"A'. The mitigation included,the limitation to three(3) solar arrays which would be permitted to be installed sixty five(65) feet from the southern property j line (that abuts our property). The approval was .for a total accessory structure size of 612 square feet for the three solar arrays to be installed on terraced.pads intended to reduce the height and visibility from our house, installation of an earth berm along the south property line with the planting of four(4) trees plus an additional 30 inch box tree to the northeast of the arrays. This installation was completed in 2002. i The new proposal virtually doubles the accessory structure in size by adding six(6).new solar arrays (44 square feet each), which are being placed closer than.the sixty five(65) foot setback that was required by the original conditional approval. Section 82-4.212 of the Zoning Ordinance provides standards for an.accessory structure: (a) a floor area coverage of 600 square feet on lots greater than 20,000 square feet in area; and., (b) 15 feet in height. The six (6) new solar arrays adds an additional 564 square feet to the existing soar array.accessory structure that is 612 square feet. The accessory structure approved in 2002 already exceeds the limitation set forth in the Ordinance. The Compliance Review does not address that the pending proposal doubles the size of the accessory structure allowed by the 2002 approval; does not address that the pending proposal. installs six (6) new solar arrays when the 2002 approval.limited the accessory structure to three (3); does not address any mitigation for a setback LTom the property line to reduce the adverse effect on.our property; does not address alternative sites on Dr. Weiner's property which could be to the north and out of view of our property; does not address any mit)gation for vegetation or other growth to shield the visual effects to our property; and, does not address the reflection and glare that not only occurs from the existing accessory structure but also from the installation of the six (6) new solar arrays. During the past three and one-half years, the vegetation planted on the earth berm to the south of Dr. Weiner's property has been neglected and allowed to become unkempt. It has not provided the visual shielding that the mitigation required for visibility of the existing solar arrays and has not prevented glare and reflection. The addition of six(6) more solar arrays will not only increase the visibility from our property, but will cause.an even greater negative impact on our property's value. sDr.Weiner's property is located within the Bryan Ranch.Homeowner's Association. Dr. Weiner's application tot he Bryan Ranch.Architectural Committee was denied on January 13, F: 2006, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit"B", As of the February 22, 2006 Condition of 1 Approval Compliance Review, the proposed project bad not been approved by the Architectural Committee. However, it appears that Dr.Weiner re-submitted his request after the County issued j Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Re: Notice of Appeal j .March 23,2006 Page 3 a building permit on February 24'and received a conditional approval.from the Architectural j Committee on February 28, 2006,copy of which is attached as Exhibit"C". This approval was based on the erroneous representation that the 2002 mitigation measures had been complied with, that the County had approved the project as well as alleged relaxed setback distance requirements. We would also like to call the Board's attention to the magnitude of the solar energy production.that is proposed. The 2002 solar arrays were represented by the installer to produce an estimated 7,800 kwh per year. The State•of California Energy Commission in it's Consumer Guide and guides to system.design and installation state that the average residential properly consumes 7,500 kwh per year. In other words, the 2002 solar arrays should satisfy more than 100% of the needs of the average residence. Here,.Dr.Weiner's physical data proposes to install sial new solar arrays generating a total of an additional 6,900 kwh per year. Utilizing the California Energy Commission's recommendations,the combination of solar arrays should satisfy the electric needs of TWO residences . . . which means that this is not.simply being installed for residential consumption. Perhaps this is why Dr. Weiner offered to sell electricity to us. What Dr.Weiner proposes is the equivalent of a solar panel `farm' that certainly is not in compliance with the zoning regulations for the planned.community. The proposed solar may is not suited for the proposed location next door to our home for a variety of reasons: • No review of the solar array's color or location.has been conducted to insure that it will blend with the landscape and that the glare will not impact the local streets i and structures. • There is no analysis of alternative locations. • There is no analysis that the solar arrays presently existing as well as proposed have and will cause excessive reflection that intrudes into living areas and amount to a nuisance. i • There is no analysis for grading and construction to minimize the visibility to our i house and local streets and structures. i • There is no analysis that the proposed solar arrays satisfy the minimum setback required by the 2002 mitigation measures. • There is no analysis that the proposed solar an'a s will create excessive energy production that would amount to a business venture that is not be in compliance with the County zoning regulations. Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Re: Notice of Appeal March 23, 2006 Page 4 I' We recognize that.the State's policy is to encourage alternative energy production, however this policy has never been intended to.eliininate the rights of neighboring property owners to ask for mitigation that will avoid a negative impact to our and our neighbors' properties. Dr. Weiner in creating his collection of nine(9)solar arrays completely disregards any mitigation for the negative effect that it has on the property of others. Based on the information above,we request that the February 22, 2006 Condition of Approval Compliance Review and the pending building permit application for the proposed solar array be suspended pending resolution of this appeal,by the Board of Supervisors. If-you have any questions or comments regarding tlti,s appeal,please contact me at(925)362-1388. By our signatures, i verify under penalty of perjury that the statements contained herein, to the best of my knowledge, are true and correct. Very truly yours, amPhuon Tran Trung Dung Enclosures cc: Louis F.Schofield, Esq. xPP"I[if MUM-190 BRYAN RANCH HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION Architectural Committee Project Review Request Project No. 94-05 Owner: Michael Weiner Applicant: Same Phone: 831-2830 Property Address: 1951 Green Valley Rd. Tract: 6188 Lot: 1 The Applicant/Owner hereby applies for approval to make improvements to Owner's property as described below or in attached plans and specifications. By making this Request; I acknowledge that the Bryan Ranch CC&R's and Architectural Rules are binding on the Applicant/Owner, and agree that the subject property and all improvements added thereto shall be maintained in full compliance with the CC&R's and Rules. Dated: December 16. 2005 Sitynature on File Owners Signature Install a supplemental solar panel system per the attached, undated reduced size drawing by AlvisProjects, Inc. sheet PV-1 and 5 pages of selected portions of the full sized drawing. The Architectural Committee reviewed the information submitted and based on that review and consideration of the Bryan Ranch CC&R's and the Architectural Rules reached the following decision on 1-11-06 (X) Not Approved for the reasons indicated below. ( ) Approved subject to the following conditions: 1.. The proposed equipment location shown on plan PV-1 violates the County & ARC approved property line setback distances per"Option B, Enlarged View #1" drawing for the existinc, solar panels. ?. Existing solar panel location shown on the submitted plan does not agree with the County approved "Option B, Enlarged View#1"that specified a setback from the southem property line of 70 feet Nvith a ft high screening berm 40 to 60 feel long and 35 feet from the western property line. 3. The submitted plan PV-1 is not legible and much information has been blacked Out. A full size drawing IS reUuired that shows the true location of the existing panels, associated equipment, landscaping and the location of proposed equipment with details of what is actually proposed including the installation and routing of conduit to the main power distribution panel in the home. 4. Additional view screening landscaping may be required in addition to the.l2 15-gallon Flannel Bush along the southern property line and the Chinese Pistache tree that were required in 2002. Prqject tuning: Per CC&R Section 3.04 D & E, wort: must start within 8 months of the approval date, or the approval shall be deemed revoked. Within 8 months after start of construction,work must be completed. The Architectural Committee is to be notified when work is complete. Any/all approvals made by the Architectural Committee are for aesthetic purposes only. County and State Code requirements apply. Date: Bv: For the Committee _. File: 1951 Green Valley Rd_P 94-05 Rev: June IS.'_003 "'VAN RANCH HOMEO WNE'RS 9 AS'SOCIA TION c/o Jean Bates & Associates, PO Box 669, Danville, California 94526 (925) 838-2095 January 13, 2006 Michael Weiner 1951 Green Valley Road Alamo,CA 94507 Re: Architectural Committee Project Review Project 94-05 Dear Mr. Weiner: The Architectural Committee has rejected your application to install additional solar panels on your property for the reasons indicated in the enclosed Project Review Request Form. However, the Committee will reconsider your application, provided it contains the information specified in the Committee's denial. You are encouraged to resubmit your request, taking advantage of the guidance provided. I have attached the "Procedure for Requesting Reconsideration by the Board of Directors" if you wish to appeal the committee's decision. Sincerely, Paul R. Wilkinson Administrative Assistant Cc: Architectural Committee Chairman Enclosures: Project Review Request dated January 11, 2006 Procedure for Requesting Reconsideration by the Board of Directors County Condition of Approval Review dated July 2, 2002 Michael Weiner letter with Option B dated July 3, 2002 . Michael Weiner letter dated August 14, 2002 agreeing to plant 12 Flannel Bush Dile: 1951 Grcen Valicy Rd_P 94-05 Denni lCP Community Contra Comm it Barry, pme Community Development Director Development Costa Department County inty Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,Calilf0mia 94553-0095 _ 1 � i Phone: (925) 335-1236 July 2,2002 i.' L1� Dr. Michael S.Weiner 1951 Green Valley Road Alamo,Ca 94507 Dear Dr:Weiner; Re: County File#DP013016 Condition of Approval Review For placement of photovoltaic panels 1951 Green Valley Road,Alamo On May 29, 2002, you submitted a Condition of Approval Review under file#DP013016, 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(COA)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 ofanybuildingpermitand'orgradingpermitforwork-onany lot, theproposed revidential buildings and accessory structures to be located on that lot shall be first submitted for review and approval by the County Planning Director. The guide to be used to establish setback, yard and height dimensional requirements and otherprovisionsfor development and use on each lot shall be the Single Family Residential District 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. NlamPhuong Tran, your neighbor at 60 Oak Glen Court in Alamo, a letter dated May 15, 2002 from the Alamo Improvement Association, and ietters dated April 26, 2002 and June 14, 2002 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.Tram'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. AIthough 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 the 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 1 Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. n firs is rinGart tha 1m. 3rd R 5th Fridays of each month south property line lessens the impact to the adjacent property_ The additional landscaping along the south property line and grading to the west of the panels you propuse also contribute to minimize its effect. The conditions of the subdivision require compliance with the Single Family Residential District R-15.I 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 listed below also include comments from Bryan Ranch Homeowners Association. The following items shall be submitted to the Community Development Department forreview and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a building permit. 1. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted and include the items listed.below. Additionally, approved all landscaping shall be installed prior to requesting a final inspection of the panels. a. One 30-inch box Chinese Pistache.tree shall be planted along the east side of the solarpanels. 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 cast side of the property. b. A five-foot high berm,approximately 40 to 60 feet in length,planted with native grasses,shall be located to the southeast of the panels.to help screen the view of the panels from the adjacent property to the south. c. Four 15-gallon trees shall be planted along the south property line, 15 feet on center commencing at the southwest comer of the lot. 2. Two copies of a grading plan in compliance with the Grading Ordinance shall be submitted that demonstrates the west end of the panels will be decreased in height. No cut shall be steeper than 2:1. Identify the volume of the cut, the volume of the fill and the approximate amount the panels will be lowered.Please note that any grading involving more than 200 cubic yards will require a 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 stray. Additionally,the concrete pad for the placement of the automated drive equipment shall be minimized as much as possible. 7. Demonstrate that the Solar Rating Certification Corporation or other nationally recognized agency certifies the proposed photovoltaic system. 2 Once the above listed information is submitted and accepted as adequate the plans will be approved by the Community Development Department. If you have any questions do not hesitate to cal me at(925)335-1236. Sincerely, � �ra C�-n a- i Lorna Villa Project Planner Ati.achrnrrlts: Option B Site Plan dated June 25,2002 Landscape plan j f7'V-L June 14, 2002 letter from aw Offices of Gagen, McCoy, McMahon &Armstrong Bryan Ranch Homeowners Association letter dated April 26, 2002 cc: Archer Norris,Attention Ed Shaffer, 2033 North Main Street Suite 800, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 wlattachments B}Ton Ranch Home Owners Association,C/o Jean Bates&Associates,P.O.Bax 3428, Danville,Ca 94526 Alamo Improvement Association, P.O. Box 271, Alamo, Ca 94507 Trung Dung&NamPhuong Tran, 60 Oak Glen Court, Alarno, Ca 94507 w/attachments Catherine Kutsuris, Community Development Department G:eurr nlan/Ietters/DP013016 CnA 1t- Community COntl a Dennis it Barry,Development 11 Community Development Director Development. Costa Department County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 c'. M Idlr a' S� (925) 335-1236 Phone: v. r� rOUt1'C February 22, 2006 Dr. Michael Weiner• 1951 Green Valley Road Alamo, CA 94507 Dear Dr. Weiner: RE: Countv File #Z106-11230 Condition of Approval Compliance Review 1951 Green Valley Road The Community Development Department has reviewed your application to install six photovoltaic panels at the west end of your property at 1951 Green Valley Road. The property is located within the Bryan Ranch Development which was approved as a Planned Unit Development in 1978. The conditions of the subdivision require compliance with the Single Family.Residential District R-15. The photovoltaic panels are accessory structures and a Condition of Approval (COA) Compliance Review is necessary to ensure that the panels are consistent with the intent and purpose of the P-1 District. Staff has viewed the site and considered.all information submitted including the site plan submitted on February 10, 2006, and the letter dated January 11, 2006, from the Bryan Ranch.Homeowners Association. The site visit of February 16, 2006, revealed that due to the topography of the site, the six panels proposed would be lower in height than the existing panels that were installed in 2002. The Community Development Department has evaluated your proposal against the R-15 District standards and concluded that the panels comply with the provisions of the zoning district and with the intent and purpose of the P-1 District. Based on this, approval is granted for the placement of six photovoltaic panels at the west end of your property, as generally identified on plans dated February 10, 2006,prepared by AlvisProjects, Inc. Please note that the determination to be made by the Deputy Director is considered an administrative decision made by a County Officer. Pursuant to the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code the decision may be appealed directly to the Board of Supervisors within 30 days (by March 24, 2006) of the action. Office Hours Monday- Friday:8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st. 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month Enclosed are three copies of the approved plans to be used for building permits. If you have any questions you may contact Lorna Villa at (925) 335-1236 or Aruna Bhat at (925) 335-1219. Sincerely, Catherine Kutsuris Deputy Director Attachment: Approved plans (3 sets) Cc: Byron Ranch Homeowners Association, c/o Jean bates & Associates, P.O. Box 3428, Danville, Ca 94526 w/o attachment Alamo Improvement Association, P.O. Box 271, Alamo, CA 94507 w/o attachment Trung Dung &NamPhuong Tran, 60 Oak Glen Court, Alamo, CA 94507 w/o attachment C:currplan/letters/Z106-112301tr 1951 Green Valley Road Alamo, CA 94507 Midiad S. VVe�rer /I Q , April 6, 2006 Board of Supervisors: I thank Lorna Villa for providing me this opportunity to present my concerns regarding the appeal by Tran and Dung of the Community Development Department's decision to issue a condition of approval on February 22, 2006, regarding the installation of solar panels. At the outset I wish to point out that most of the concerns contained in the appellants' letter are identical to those contained in the letter submitted by the appellants September 05, 2002. These include the issues of color, location, grading, and county setbacks. I am confident that the staff report .will adequately address these points. On the other hand, I am personally disturbed`by several statements of the appellants that are both patently false as well as politically and socially dangerous. The appellants allege that Dr. Weiner has, during the past three and one- half years, neglected the vegetation planted on the earthen berm. That is untrue. The only vegetation planted were several trees that have continued to grow despite the voracious appetite and incessant attacks by the local deer population. I have regularly cleared weeds around the trees, re-staked the trees for reinforcement, and protected them with netting. The appellants' claim that the solar arrays"will cause an even greater negative impact on our property's value" has no supporting evidence and is contrary to evidence based on the independent property appraiser, Zillow.com, which demonstrates a steady increase in value of the appellants' home since the installation of my initial solar arrays in November 2002. Please see accompanying exhibit. The story chronicling the denial by the Bryan Ranch Homeowners' Association Architectural Review Committee is both inaccurate and misleading. The Architectural Review Committee did deny my request on January.13, 2006. This denial, however, represents a violation of California Civil Code 714, which clearly states that such denials are void and April 8, 2006 Page 2 unenforceable. More ominously, the denial by the Architectural Committee reflects an illegal impersonation of a county official and therefore represents a potentially serious criminal offense. Furthermore, Weiner did not re- submit any request to the Architectural Review Committee. Their letter of approval dated February 28, 2006 was unsolicited, gratuitous, and replete with false statements such as`"new information" and "relaxed setback distance requirements." The paragraph pointing out the magnitude of the solar installation should be scrutinized because of its political and social implications. Both Dr. Weiner and the appellants reside in homes considerably larger than the average California resident. The appellants' implication that Dr. Weiner is either not worthy to be permitted access to the electricity he needs to run his household, or is engaging in some form of illegal activity, is both preposterous as well as fascist. Such malicious accusations should not be tolerated in this or any other-governmental forum! I strongly believe in the rule of law and the rights of citizens and neighbors to express their grievances. This appeal, however, is both redundant and malicious. The substantive points were dealt with in the October 1, 2002, hearing before the Board of Supervisors. No land use or political issues have changed. I have demonstrated the usage of.more electricity than I have generated and feel compelled, as a responsible and concerned citizen, to mitigate that usage by increased generation. The placement of additional solar panels provides a reasonable and sanctioned solution. What should not be sanctioned is the abuse of process by the appellants, not only in bringing up issues that have already been resolved, but in doing so in an inflammatory and malicious fashion. While the costs related to this hearing are typically borne by the defending party, I beseech the Board in this matter to make a determination waiving those costs and insodoing illustrate to the public its support for solar and alternative energy and its intolerance of abusive and redundant appeals. Sincerely, Michael S. Weiner, M.D. w�unm UNITED STATES PQ§Tj 4i:�LEt�W N C. r9 ff y � }`-'�l�' r , Postage 8, a eslPaid tw;iF,�s> :S Ti ermi 'W'e�w�mbRAt�` m. • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • n M M oma'm 3 ;A Board of Supervisors �� Contra Costa County oT 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553-12930 L. —-'M , REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Comple � L /te jthis form and place, it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: G 'L fCAAE19914 XE Phone: 9a r- 3 a-7 • opo g Address: D-0OD Co-a u" (!S%N Yoyj PL Sim a--7o_ City: "VM ON (Address and phone number are optional;please note that this card will become a public record kept on file with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting) I ams speaking form self. or G: } T-. p g Y � �At,4 n12. ND N is- CHECK ONE: II II �E] I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: 3 0 6 I My comments will be: ❑ General C'3 Forlp❑ Against ❑ I wish to speak on the subject of: ❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider: Please see reverse for instructions and important information REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) �3 Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. �j Name: �_ Phone: '741,5 Address: ;� i V City: (Address and phone number are option ; please note that this card will become a public record kept on file with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting) I I am speaking for myself or arganizatia!a: � e tig, CHECK ONE: 11 I wish to speak on Agenda Item # �J� Date: —b My comments will be: ❑ General XFor ❑ Against ❑ I wish to speak on the subject of: ❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider: Please see reverse for instructions and important information REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form,and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: �' 1C ML r I � � U Phone: Address: _�() //L City: (Address and phone number are optional;please note that this card will become a public record kept on file with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting) I am speaking for myself or organization: CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item # 4, Date: �o My comments ill be: ❑ General ❑ For ❑ Against ❑ I wish to speak on the subject of: ❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider: Please see reverse for instructions and important information Zillow.com -Data& Graphs -Real Estate Value, Local Real Estate Trends Page 1 of 2 Zi'low.co "eta Your Edge in Real Estate 60 Oak Glen Ct,, Alamo, CA 94507 ZESTIMATETM: $31575r664 Value Range: $3,146,584 - $3,825,960 Market Value Change Show: Dollar Oo Percentage Time frame: lyre 5yr1 10yrl Since_last_sale - -.. .. $4.00M $3.64m-: $3.00M-: $2.50m $2.00m $1.50m $1OOm (C IIIOh;�Illn;;+. Ot1i Jan02Jan03 Jan04 Jan05 Jan06 Compare: This home 94507 Alamo Contra Costa CA USA Show sales ZestimateTm Rankings j This home at $3,575,664 is valued higher than: Zindex (Median ZestimateTM) j • 98% of homes in 94507 ZIP code $1,266,333 • 98% of homes in Alamo $1,266,858 1 • 99% of homes in Contra Costa County $598,163 • 99% of homes in CA state $527,088 • 99% of homes in United States $256,565 Historical Value Trends Show as: (: % $ r % annualized Past: This home 94507 Alamo Contra Costa CA US 30 days --- — 1.5% ---2.3% -2.2% _0.9% ------ - 0.3%--1.9% 1 year —5.5% — 25% 25% 20% 20% 14% j I 5 years 42% 113% 113% 133% 172% 87% 10 years 147% 192% 192% 272% 267% 98% I Last sale (09/15/2000) 74% 121% 122% 149% 181% 89% http://www.zillow.com/Charts.z?chartDuration=5years&zpid=18427739 4/5/2006 ell 90 .0 �. �.. w ilk no rn -13 10 VKNOI � a 8 n r r+ Z 1 V zgN O� O L Y ppL fC'}t 2 ` TApZZ o Z�g�N�o o g\2 F , and er ,v�st� Dr far paw �Zpo61 QL$m iii a S� JJaa g� \ w#