Posted on 01/24/2008 1:45:45 PM PST by SmithL
In a case with statewide significance, the Santa Clara County District Attorney's office cited a Sunnyvale couple under a little-known California law because redwood trees in their backyard cast a shadow over their neighbor's solar panels.
Richard Treanor and Carolynn Bissett own a Toyota Prius and consider themselves environmentalists. But they refuse to cut down any of the trees behind their house on Benton Street, saying they have done nothing wrong.
"We're just living here in peace. We want to be left alone," said Bissett, who with her husband has spent $25,000 defending themselves against criminal charges. "We support solar power, but we thought common sense would prevail."
Their neighbor, Mark Vargas, considers himself an environmentalist, too. His 10-kilowatt solar system that he installed in 2001 is so big that he pays only about $60 a year in electrical bills.
Vargas said he first asked Treanor and Bissett to chop down the eight redwoods, which the couple had planted from 1997 to 1999 along the fence separating their yards.
Later he asked them to trim the trees to about 15 feet.
"I offered to pay for the removal of the trees. I said let's try to work something out," Vargas said. "They said no to everything."
He installed the panels.
After several years of squabbling and failed mediation, Vargas filed a complaint with the Santa Clara County district attorney, arguing that the trees reduce the amount of electricity he can generate. In 2005, prosecutors agreed.
They sent Treanor and Bissett a letter informing them that they were in violation of California's "Solar Shade Control Act" and that if they did not "abate the violation" within 30 days, they would face fines of up to $1,000 a day.
The law, signed by former Gov. Jerry Brown in 1978, is rarely used. But county prosecutors say Treanor and Bissett are breaking it.
"It's not that we think trees are more or less important than solar collectors. It's that our state's leaders have said under the following circumstances, solar takes precedence," said Ken Rosenblatt, supervising Santa Clara County deputy district attorney for environmental protection.
The law was written by former Assemblyman Chuck Imbrecht, a Ventura Republican, as a way to guarantee, amid the energy crises of the 1970s, that people who installed solar panels would not see a drop in their investment from nearby trees.
It affects only trees planted after 1979, and it bans trees or shrubs from shading more than 10 percent of a neighbor's solar panels from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.
It does not apply to trees or shrubs that were there before the solar panels were installed. But -- and here is the key distinction -- it does apply to existing trees and shrubs that later grew big enough to shade the solar panels.
A violation is an infraction, similar to a parking ticket, but with fines of up to $1,000 a day.
The redwoods, which Treanor and Bissett say they planted for privacy, are now 20 to 40 feet tall.
In December, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Kurt Kumli found the couple guilty of one count of violating the Solar Shade Control Act.
In a partial victory for each side, he ruled that six of the trees can remain and that the two generating the most shade must be removed. He also waived any fines.
But the couple appealed. Why? They are worried that their case sets a precedent.
Their lawyer can find no other conviction under the shade law.
"We could be done with this and walk away," Bissett said. "But then this could start happening in every city in the state."
Rosenblatt said that prosecutors in Sonoma County are watching the case because they have a potential violator.
Meanwhile, Vargas says he cannot move his solar panels -- on his roof and his trellis -- because his roof does not have enough room.
Kurt Newick, who sells solar systems for a San Jose company, says he loves trees as much as anyone, but he falls on the side of solar energy.
"I'm a big tree fan. They increase property values and provide shade and cooling. But it's actually better for the environment to put solar on your roof than to plant a tree," said Newick, who is also chairman of the global warming committee of the Loma Prieta chapter of the Sierra Club.
"On average a tree only sequesters 14 pounds of carbon dioxide a year and a solar electric system offsets that every two or three days," he said.
But Frank Schiavo, a retired San Jose State University environmental studies lecturer, said the law needs fixing.
"If you have trees, you should be left alone," said Schiavo, who also has solar panels on his roof. "This is going to turn into a nightmare for some homeowners. It doesn't seem fair."
Bissett and Treanor plan to ask state politicians to modify the law. Until then, they say, they are groundbreakers.
"We are the first citizens in the state of California to be convicted of a crime for growing redwood trees," Bissett said, forcing a smile.
Could be that the prosecutors are pushing the case so that the law itself will become the issue.
One, I thought they were sorta finicky about where they grew; wouldn't think that suburbia would be conducive to them.
And two, man those suckers are gonna get big.
The trees were planted before 2000. The solar panels were installed in 2001, with the neighbor knowing the trees were already there. Checkmate, case closed. You cannot hold someone in retroactive violation of the law.
Another law that is coming is one that would override CC&Rs with respect to solar collectors, not unlike what the FCC did for satellite dishes. In our area, solar collectors can not be visible from the street. Roof tops would work well, but some CC&R thumper will whine until such a law is passed.
In this case you can. The law was intentionally structured that way.
A protected tree on any private or public property shall consist of any of the following:
Any tree having a main trunk or stem measuring 37.7 inches or greater in circumference (12 inches or more in diameter) at a height of four and one-half feet above ground level, or in the case of multi-trunk trees a total of 75.4 inches in circumference (24 inches or more of the diameter) of all trunks in the following areas of the County:
parcels zoned "Hillsides" (3 acres or less) parcels within a "-d" (Design Review) combining zoning district parcels within the Los Gatos Specific Plan Area. Any tree having a main trunk or stem measuring 18.8" or greater in circumference (6" or more in diameter) at a height of 4.5' above ground level, or in the case of multi-trunk trees, a total of 37.7" in circumference of all trunks (12" or more of the diameter) in the "h-1" New Almaden Historic Preservation Zoning District. Any heritage tree, as that term is defined in §C16-2 of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Any tree required to be planted as a replacement for an unlawfully removed tree, pursuant to §C16-17(e) of the Tree Preservatioin Ordinance. Any tree that was required to be planted or retained by the conditions of approval for any Use Permit, Building Site Approval, Grading Permit, Architectural & Site Approval (ASA), Design Review, Special Permit or Subdivision. On any property owned or leased by the County of Santa Clara, any tree which measures over 37.7 inches in circumference (12 inches or more in diameter) measured 4.5 feet above the ground, or which exceeds 20 feet in height. Any tree, regardless of size, within road rights-of-way and easements of the County, whether within or without the unincorporated territory of the County.
Source:
http://www.sccgov.org/sccsearch/ui.jsp?ui_mode=answer&prior_transaction_id=33511&iq_action=5&answer_id=16777216&highlight_info=4213579,981,1061&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eclerkrecorder%2Eorg%2Fportal%2Fsite%2Fplanning%2Fplanningchp%3Fpath%3D%252Fv7%252FPlanning%252C%2520Office%2520of%2520%2528DEP%2529%252FProperty%2520Info%2520%2526%2520Development%252FEnvironmental%2520Protection%252FTree%2520Removal%2520Regulations#__highlight
Apply for heritage tree status.
If they had cut down the trees before the solar panels went up they would have been arrested for cutting down the trees.
Envirowackos just want whatever they want whenever they want it.
Like wilderness areas where they work to get laws passed keeping everybody out so nature stays pristine.
Now they want to use those “pristine areas” for their pet project of solar panels destroying the pristine wilderness.
Even the BLM sees through their immature antics.
Envirowackos can.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.