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.
But the Sun is the major source of Global Warming.
When liberal worlds collide.
All that house and no land.
Amazing what people will put up with.
Another enviro-wacko with more money than brains. It looks to me from that picture like he has fixed panels facing east and west and south. Atrociously inefficient both electrically and economically. Only a liberal with way too much money would blame somebody else to try to compensate for his obvious engineering gaffe. Of course maybe it’s just a question of it being All About Me.
On Google Satellite photos, part of the solar-panel-owner’s roof shades another part of his roof where he does NOT have panels. Should some of his own roof come off?
Instead he puts a bunch of panels next to the property line and expects the neighbors to cut their trees. Much of his roof not affected by the trees doesn’t even have panels. This guy should re-arrange his panels before going after neighbors.
Or the neighbors should buy a spotted owl as a pet...
Popcorn?
Actually it would be better to bull doze down both of the houses in Santa Clara and move the residents to — let’s say a funny farm.
I suggest a brace of pistols and about ten paces in opposite directions. Let’s hope they are both crack shots.(not pun intended)
Perhaps planting eight Redwood trees along the fence about ten feet from the neighbors house is not a good idea. They grow to 100+ feet.
Environmentalists fighting environmentalists. Break out the popcorn!
Geesh, can the houses be any closer to each other?
OK, Cut them down, but aim for the neighbor’s house.
They're packed in like urban brownstones.
It seems like the guy could offer to put a solar panel on the neighbor’s roof and let them rebate him the remaining $60 per year that he’s paying, and let them benefit from the panel themselves. If he’s down to $60 a year, he’s in the realm of diminishing returns anyway. He’d make friends instead of enemies and everyone would get to enjoy the beautiful trees.
That said, the law’s the law.
In that case, the guy with the panels should invest in a shotgun, a chainsaw, and rent a flatbed to haul the logs from the trees off.
Where are the Berkeley Tree-Sitters, now?
Well, actually, since GovernMental EnvironMentalists have been writing our laws for the past 40 years, the law has become a complete A$$!!!
Beer -> Nose -> Keyboard
[cough] Good one!
One night, a crash was heard. :-(
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.