HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.2TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS February 16, 2006
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR SOLAR PANELS; LANDS OF GOESE;
13480 WILDCREST DRIVE; #245-05-ZP-SD.
FROM: Leslie Hopper, AICP, Project Planner
APPROVED BY: Carl Cahill, Planning Directory C,,
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission:
Approve the installation of solar panels subject to a development area credit
for free-standing solar panels only, not to exceed 1% of the net lot area, based
on the recommended findings and subject to the attached conditions of
approval; or
2. Deny the requested permit and direct staff to develop a proposed development
area policy for free-standing solar panels that can be uniformly applied to all
properties.
BACKGROUND
The 1.897 -acre property is located on the crest of a ridgeline near the end of Wildcrest
Drive. A 10,955 -sq. -ft. new residence was approved by the Planning Commission on
July 14, 2005 and is currently under construction. As a condition of site development,
the owner has dedicated a .57 -acre open space easement to protect the steep slopes in the
southeastern portion of the property along Wildcrest Drive. Surrounding uses include
single-family homes across Wildcrest Drive to the north, east, and south. A 27,000 sq. ft.
new residence (Lands of Evershine) is currently under construction on the adjacent parcel
to the west.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
As authorized under Sections 10-2.301 and 10-2.703 of the Site Development Code, this
application for solar panels has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review
and approval. Criteria for review from the Site Development Code include visibility,
siting, and landscape screening. Zoning Code review encompasses compliance with
development area limitations.
The applicant proposes to install 1,637 sq. ft. of solar panels in the southwest comer of
the property, outside the open space easement and outside the setback areas. The solar
panels would consist of 120 high-power modules (170 Watt) using poly -crystalline
Planning Commission
February 16, 2006
Page 2
photovoltaic cells. The panels would be parallel to the ground, approximately 24" above
grade, and mounted on concrete piers. There would be a total of approximately 25
concrete piers that are 8" in diameter. Collectively the piers would cover a total of
approximately 9 sq. ft.
The proposed solar panels would be located with a southwest orientation that is ideal for
system efficiency, and the system would supply 100% of the electrical power needed to
operate the Goese residence and pool. The black panels would have an anti -reflection
coating to reduce glare.
DISCUSSION
Development Area Policv
Section 10-1.502(b) of the Zoning Code defines "development area" to include floor area
as well as other coverage, including parking areas, patios, decks, walkways, swimming
pools, tennis courts, and other surfaces comprised of artificially emplaced building
materials such as paving, roofing, masonry, stone or wood.
The Town's policy on Development Area and Tennis/Sports Courts, Driveways, and
Pervious Surfaces (Attachment 4) states the intent of development area limitations:
The purposes of limiting development area on a site are twofold: 1) to
protect the natural features and rural character of the Town; and 2) to
minimize runoffand erosion concerns related to construction on slopes.
The Town has adopted the following policies to aid in implementing development area
limitations:
Policy 1. No development area credit will be granted for the use of semi-
permeable materials(s) on any of the following:
a. Tennis or sports courts
b. Driveways
c. Required parking areas
d. Turnarounds
e. Above -ground decks
Policy 2. In other development areas, credit for the use of semi permeable
materials) (grasscrete, etc.) of up to 100% may be granted depending on the
permeability and the appearance of the surface.
The proposed solar panels do not contribute significantly to the overall impervious
surface area of the lot (only 9 sq. ft.). However, they will occupy an area of 1,637 sq. ft.
and look like roofing material. The panels cannot be screened with landscaping or
otherwise disguised as natural land forms.
Planning Commission
February 16, 2006
Page 3
Proposed Development Area Credit
At the City Council meeting on October 20, 2005 the Environmental Initiatives
Committee presented a proposed Energy Efficiency Ordinance intended to encourage
homeowners to conserve energy and use alternative energy sources. The proposed
ordinance provides a package of homeowner incentives including a photovoltaic (PV)
incentive of one-to-one development area credit up to 500 sq. ft. for grid -tied PV
systems. The 500 sq. ft. development area credit was based on the area of free-standing
solar panels installed at the acre Town Hall property, which is 2.72 acres in size. As
reflected in the meeting minutes (Attachment 5), the Council expressed concern about
granting development area credits, citing potential misuse and adverse effects on steep
slopes and constrained lots.
Calculation of Development Area
As shown on the table below, the MDA for the project is 11,049 sq. ft. and the approved
new residence totals 10,955 sq. ft., leaving 94 sq. ft. available for development.
Development Area (Sq. Ft. oese Residence
Maximum Development Area DA
11,049
Approved new residence
10,955
Remaining MDA
94
Proposed solar panels
1,637
Footings(piers)
9
Excess development area
1,543
If fully counted as development area, without any exemptions, the 1,637 sq. ft. solar
panels would exceed the MDA by 1,543 sq. ft.
Planning Commission Action on 27500 La Vida Real
On December 8, 2005, the Planning Commission approved a new residence at 27500 La
Vida Real with 3,000 sq. ft. of free-standing solar panels. If fully counted as
development area, the solar panels would exceed the MDA for the site by 2,822 sq. ft.
The Planning Commission granted the applicants a development area credit of 2,822 sq.
ft. based on a finding that the proposed square footage occupied less than 1% of the
overall lot area and did not substantially impact the natural features and rural character of
the land. (Planning Commission Meeting Minutes are included as Attachment 6.)
Comparison of 13480 Wildcrest Drive and 27500 La Vida Real
The two projects are similar in that both involve new residences over 6,000 sq. ft. in size,
both include the dedication of open space easements, and both include the installation of
more than 500 sq. ft. of solar panels. In addition, the average slope is approximately 26%
for each property. The following table summarizes the site data for the two projects:
Planning Commission
February 16, 2006
Page 4
Comparison of Projects
As shown above, the installation of solar panels exceeds the MDA by 1,543 sq. ft. and
2,822 sq. ft. respectively.
The proposed free-standing solar panels cover almost 2% of the property at 13480
Wildcrest compared with 1% at 27500 La Vida Real.
Neighbor Comments
Black plywood has been placed on the ground at 13480 Wildcrest Drive to represent the
proposed solar panels. As indicated in the letter provided in Attachment 7, Mr. Vaz
Babyan at 12940 Atherton Court see the proposed panels from his property and he is
concerned about their appearance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Environmental Initiatives Committee's proposed Energy Efficiency Ordinance
recommends a 500 sq. ft. development area credit, which is roughly 1% of a one -acre lot.
This is the same percentage credited in the project at 27500 La Vida Real.
For the project at 13480 Wildcrest Drive, the percentage would double to 2% if approved
as requested. The same percentage applied to 27500 La Vida Real would credit 6,926 sq.
ft. of solar panels. A one -acre lot would be entitled to a credit of 871 sq. ft. There is no
assurance that subsequent project applicants would not request even greater development
area credits for freestanding solar panels.
13480 Wildcrest
Goese
27500 La Vida Real
alavalli
Date of Approval
June 14, 2005
Dec. 8, 2005
Gross Lot Area
1.897 acres
8.03 acres
Net Lot Area
1.897 acres
(82,328 s . ft.)
8.03 acres
349,787 sq. ft.)
Open Space Easements
.57 acre 30% of site
4.75 acres (59% of site
Average Sloe
26.2%
25.8%
Lot Unit Factor
1.238
5.314
Maximum Development Area (MDA)
11,049 sq. ft.
48,224 sq. ft.
Approved MDA
10,955 sq. ft.
48,046 sq. ft.
Remaining MDA
+94 sq. ft.
+178 sq. ft.
Area of proposed solar panels
1,637 sq. ft.
1.98% of site)
3,000 sq. ft.
.86% of site
Excess development area
1,543 sq. ft.
(1.87% of site)
2,822 sq. ft.
(.81% of site
Solar panels per acre
863 sq. ft.
374 sq. ft.
As shown above, the installation of solar panels exceeds the MDA by 1,543 sq. ft. and
2,822 sq. ft. respectively.
The proposed free-standing solar panels cover almost 2% of the property at 13480
Wildcrest compared with 1% at 27500 La Vida Real.
Neighbor Comments
Black plywood has been placed on the ground at 13480 Wildcrest Drive to represent the
proposed solar panels. As indicated in the letter provided in Attachment 7, Mr. Vaz
Babyan at 12940 Atherton Court see the proposed panels from his property and he is
concerned about their appearance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Environmental Initiatives Committee's proposed Energy Efficiency Ordinance
recommends a 500 sq. ft. development area credit, which is roughly 1% of a one -acre lot.
This is the same percentage credited in the project at 27500 La Vida Real.
For the project at 13480 Wildcrest Drive, the percentage would double to 2% if approved
as requested. The same percentage applied to 27500 La Vida Real would credit 6,926 sq.
ft. of solar panels. A one -acre lot would be entitled to a credit of 871 sq. ft. There is no
assurance that subsequent project applicants would not request even greater development
area credits for freestanding solar panels.
Planning Commission
February 16, 2006
Page 5
For this request, the Planning Commission should allow free-standing solar panels a
development area credit that is proportionately consistent with development area credits
already allowed for previous solar projects. Any further development area credit beyond
1% should first be studied for its potential aesthetic impacts on the Town including
individual lots and emulative impacts. The development-afea-policy should -then Ire --
amended accordingly by the Planning Commission and the City Council so that staff has
clear direction and can apply the same uniform standards equally to all free-standing
solar panel requests.
To ensure that this type of development area credit is not misused in the future, and that
the proliferation of solar panels does not alter the rural character of the community, staff
recommends that the development area credit for free-standing solar panels be limited to
the same percentage of lot area allowed for 27500 La Vida Real (1%). For the property
at 13480 Wildcrest, 1% of the lot area is 826 sq. ft. It is possible that additional solar
panels could be installed on the roof if needed to supply additional power for the house.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended Findings of Approval
2. Recommended Conditions of Approval
3. Site Map
4. Town's Policy on Development Area and Tennis Courts, Driveways, and
Pervious Surfaces
5. City Council Meeting Minutes, October 20, 2005
6. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, December 8, 2005
7. Letter from Mr. Babayan dated February 10, 2006
8. Worksheet 42
9. Project plans and application materials
Cc: Myrna Goese
13640 Burke Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Brad Blackman
300 S. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
Planning Commission
February 16, 2006
Page 6
Attachment 1
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR SOLAR PANELS
LANDS OF GOESE; 13480 WILDCREST DRIVE
#245-05-ZP-SD - — --
1. The Town's Development Area Policy states that the purpose of limiting
development area is to protect the natural features and rural character of the
Town. Free-standing solar panels normally would be counted as development
area because they are artificially emplaced building materials similar in
appearance to paving or roofing material.
2. The previously approved residence at 13480 Wildcrest Drive comes close to
maximizing the development area, leaving a balance of 94 sq. ft. The proposed
installation of 1,637 sq. ft. of solar panels exceeds the maximum development
area by 1,543 sq. ft. The 1,637 sq. ft. solar panels represent 2% of the 1.897 -ac.
lot.
3. The Planning Commission previously granted a development area credit for the
installation of free-standing solar panels for the new residence at 27500 La Vida
Real. In that case, the free-standing solar panels represent 1% of the 8.03 -ac. lot
area.
4. To balance the Town's goal of encouraging solar energy with its interest in
preserving the rural character of the community, development area credits for
free-standing solar panels should be limited to 1% of the lot area.
Planning Commission
February 16, 2006
Page 7
Attachment 2
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR SOLAR PANELS
LANDS OF GOESE; 13480 WILDCREST DRIVE
#245-05-ZP-SD
1. No modifications to the approved plans shall be allowed except as otherwise fust
reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission,
depending on the scope of the changes, and the Town Engineering Department.
2. Any and all areas on the project site that have the native material disturbed shall
be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted
prior to final inspection.
/TN
� & �
Aqa Em /
p I
ATTACHMENT �
DEVELOPMENT AREA AND TENNIS/SPORTS COURTS,
DRIVEWAYS, AND PERVIOUS SURFACES
Code Sections and Desim Guidelines-
Section
uidelines
Section 10-1.502(b) of the Zoning Code defines "development area" to include floor area as well
as other coverage, including parking areas, patios, decks, walkways, swimming pools, and tennis
courts, and other surfaces comprised of artificially emplaced building materials (paving, roofing,
masonry, stone or wood). Page 4 of the Design Guidelines explains the relationship of
development area to slope and defines development area as total floor area plus the amount of
other land covered by development.
Intent:
The purposes of limiting development area on a site are twofold: 1) to protect the natural
features and rural character of the Town; and 2) to minimize runoff and erosion concerns related
to construction on slopes. The City Council finds that tennis/sports courts, driveways and
parking areas appear as development regardless of the surface used, and generally require
considerable land alteration to be accommodated on a site.
Policy:
No development credit will be granted for the use of semi -permeable material(s) on
any of the following:
a. Tennis or sports courts
b. Driveways
C. Required parking areas
d. Tumarounds
e. Above -ground decks
2. In other development areas, credit for the use of semi -permeable material(s)
(grasscrete, etc.) of up to 100% may be granted depending on the permeability and
appearance of the surface.
Approved by City Council: June 21, 1995
A-2
ATTACHMENT $
Mayor Pro Tem Warshawsky suggested that the Ad -Hoc Undergrounding Committee
review the option of hiring a consultant to do the work at their next meeting and he would
report back to Council.
Council concurred.
5.3 Update on General Plan Review
Councilmember O'Malley reported that the Ad -Hoc General Plan Committee had
completed the review of the introduction and were in the process of reviewing the Land
Use Element. He advised that the Committee upon completion of the process would
provide Council with a copy of the General Plan with its original text and highlighted
recommendations.
5.4 Improvement of Cell Phone Coverage in Los Altos Hills
Planning Director Carl Cahill reported that the temporary cell tower or "Cow" had been
delivered to Town Hall and was being installed behind the Heritage House.
Council discussed the option of having a town -wide notice (post card) being sent to
residents to advise them of a general discussion regarding improving cell phone coverage
in Town at the next Council meeting and seeking their input on the issue. The discussion
would be in conjunction with the Public Hearing on the Verizon application for a cell
tower at Westwind Barn.
Council consensus was that the meeting notice would be a benefit to the residents.
Council directed staff to send out a post card notice at fust class rate advising the Town
residents of the Council's general policy discussion on cell phone towers located on
public sites at the November 3, 2005 meeting and soliciting their comments.
5.5 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Recommendations and Swimming Pool
Guidelines — Environmental Initiatives Committee
Due to a potential conflict of interest because of his consulting services with a firm
competing for a solar project in Town, Mayor Kerr recused himself from discussion of
this item and stepped down from the dais.
Councilmember Jones, Co -Council Liaison to the Environmental Initiatives Committee,
introduced this item to Council. He noted that the Committee had received input from
Council and the public during their previous presentation of the proposed Energy
Efficiency Ordinance at the September 15, 2005 Council meeting. The Committee had
refined their recommendations accordingly. Jones introduced Committee Chair Peter
Evans.
Evans presented a PowerPoint presentation to Council. He reviewed the Committee's
revised proposal for the Energy Efficiency Ordinance that would require all new homes
be EnergyStar Home certified or achieve a 15% better efficiency than basic requirements
in Title 24 simulation. Photovoltaic systems would count toward the reduction. The
City Council Meeting Agenda
October 20, 2005
proposal included a Photovoltaic (PV) incentive of one-to-one credit up to 500ft' for grid-
tied PV systems. Regarding pools, the Committee recommended solar heating or thermal
cover requirements and an incentive that 500 feet of heating-integrated hardscape be
excluded from MDA totals. The Committee did not support imposing any additional
requirements on pool pump efficiency and believed the State regulations were sufficient.
Evans explained that the revised proposal and incentives were responses to Council
direction and public input during the earlier review. Evans advised that the context for
the recommendations included the existing Title 24 regulations imposed by building
codes and required by the Town and added that Marin, San Mateo and San Diego
Counties and San Jose all had local building energy efficiency ordinances in place. The
"Whole House Energy Consumption Estimate" that was proposed at the last Council
meeting would require finther research.
Council thanked Evans for his presentation and the Committee for their efforts in
developing the framework for the Energy Efficiency Ordinance.
Councils mber Jones summarized the input that the Committee had received from
Council and their efforts to incorporate the comments. He offered that the new proposal
was reasonable, not unduly burdensome on the residents, based on a practical standard,
flexible with choices, offered incentives and would put the Town in a leadership position.
Council discussion ensued. Council expressed concern with the MDA credits being used
as incentives siting the potential misuse and effect on sloped/constrained lots. Planning
Director Cahill offered that the incentive credit could be directed toward free standing
solar arrays.
OPENDED PUBLIC COMMENT
Sandy Humphries, Fremont Road, suggested that a MFA credit be considered for
applicants using alternative building materials.
CLOSED PUBLIC COMMENT
Council consensus was to establish the following requirements for the proposed energy
ordinance: all new homes be EnergyStar Home certified or achieve 15% better efficiency
than basic requirements in Title 24 simulation; photovoltaic systems would count toward
reductions and a one-to one MDA credit with a maximum of 500 feet would be given for
grid-tiered PV systems with the portion of the PV system that was used to achieve the
15% efficiency not eligible for the MDA credit. Council agreed to defer pool
requirements for future consideration and directed the Committee to revisit the issue and
return to Council.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by O'Malley, seconded by Mordo and
passed unanimously (Mayor Kerr abstained) to direct staff to move forward with a draft
Energy Efficiency Ordinance as discussed.
Planning Director Cahill clarified that the proposal may be drafted as amendments to
several existing ordinances including building and zoning.
6
City Coancil Meeting Agenda
October 20, 2005
ATTACHMENT 'r,
Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 1/19/06
Town of Los Altos Hills
PLANNING COMMISSION
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 8,2005,7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road
cc: Cassettes ( 2 ) #1-06
1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers at Town Hall.
Present: Chairman Cottrell, Commissioners Carey, Kerns, Collins & Clow
Staff: Carl Cahill, Planning Director; Leslie Hopper, Project Planner; Debbie Pedro,
Senior Planner; Brian Froelich; Assistant Planner; Lani Smith, Planning Secretary
2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -none
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
3.1 LANDS OF MALAVALLI, 27500 La Vida Real (131-05-ZP-SD-
GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a 17,389 square
foot two-story new residence with a 5,752 square foot basement
and a new driveway, a 1,024 square foot detached accessory
building, and an 867 square foot detached garden pavilion
(maximum structure height 27 feet). Parcel size: 8 acres including
3.54 acres in conservation/open space easements (staff -Leslie
Hopper).
Planner Hopper introduced this item by reviewing the staff report, in particular, the following
items: description of the project on an 8.03 acre site; background of the project including an
aerial photo of the site; access to the property provided by two new driveways both of which
have been counted 100% in development area; the Santa Barbara Mission style architecture;
the height and visibility of the project and the lowering of the building pad as much as 8 feet
in order to restore the natural grade by removing the existing fill that was used to raise the
previous house; the visibility of the back of the house to the neighbors who live across the
canyon; lighting which includes 22 skylights; landscape and a tree inventory including trees
proposed to be removed; grading and tree protection; and connection to an existing sanitary
sewer line. She further discussed the existing conservation easements (3.50 acres) on the
property as well as the two new proposed open space easements (1.25 acres) all totaling 59%
of the property. The Pathway Committee recommended the construction of a native path.
The best route for the path would not necessarily be located within the existing easement so
the Committee recommended that the easement be adjusted as necessary to be consistent with
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/19/06
December 8, 2005
Page 2
the path. However, the applicants do not consider construction of the path to be appropriate
per a report from Michele Korpos of Live Oak Associates. They are requesting that they be
allowed to pay pathway fees in lieu of constructing the path. Staff, having hiked through the
area, agreed that the path would be difficult to construct and maintain.
She continued stating that the site plan calls for three clusters of solar panels located in the
southeast comer of the site with one of the clusters in a proposed open space easement.
Altogether, the solar panels would comprise approximately 3,000 square feet. This total has
not been included in the development area. At this point, the solar panels are conceptual only
and if they are to be installed in the proposed location it would push the project over the
maximum development area. This needs to be addressed. Another item to be addressed is
while restoring the natural grade by removing the existing fill there is a concern with the six
(6) Heritage oaks with possible roots extending into the fill. In order to protect the oaks, they
have proposed some Vee protection measures which have been incorporated into the
conditions of approval recommended by the Town consulting arborist (COA #1). Planner
Hopper concluded her presentation noting that there was a model of the project site available
for review.
Commissioner Carey clarified that during the time of reviewing the Master Path Map, the
Planning Commission recommended the removal of this pathway with the City Council
recommending the path to be kept.
Discussion ensued regarding how a driveway was counted toward development area.
Planning Director Cahill indicated that the first 100 feet from the required garage is counted.
Anything beyond the first 100 feet of the required driveway is not counted. In the case where
someone constructs accessory paving and driveway that is more for personal aesthetic
reasons, it is counted the same as a patio or any sort of hardscape surface. Commissioner
Kerns questioned the deer fence plan which appears to be for reference and will return with
the landscape screening plan. Planner Hopper indicated that the deer fencing is also shown on
the site plan and will be a part of this proposal tonight. For clarification, she indicated the
location of the proposed deer fencing noting the areas of fence within the conservation
easement which drops in height to meet the current fence ordinance.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Kartik Patel, project architect, provided a brief history of the project. He felt that everyone
would be proud of this project, not only the applicants but also the community. He discussed
green architecture, architecture that is sensitive to the environment taking into account the
topography, the neighbors and the surrounding neighborhood architecture. The project team
was present which included the landscape architect, the environmental consultants, team
arborist and also a representative from Valley Crest who will be taking care of all of the trees
that have been removed when the first home was demolished and have been cared for the past
year. Also present was their solar consultant as they want to make this house as efficient as
possible and try to conserve energy. With the aid of a visual presentation and a full scale
model of the site, Mr. Patel discussed the following: the recent lot merger; the existing and
proposed conservation areas which will total close to 60% of the property; the long narrow lot
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/19/06
December 8, 2005
Page 3
with a house placement on a flat area; the long driveway which addresses the estate type
home with a drop off point at the front door of the house; the long driveway to accommodate
any traffic on the site; the request for some credit for the driveway to accommodate the
proposed solar panels; several gardens on the site; the Santa Barbara Mission style house with
a central courtyard in the back; the proposed color palette; and the landscape design and water
features. He understood that there were two neighbors who were concerned with the view of
the tower element indicating the distances from each neighbor. In conclusion, Mr. Patel
stated that the architecture of the house was inspired by the Santa Barbara Mission style.
They felt strongly that given the geographic location, this style best fits the area. The projects
will implement green architecture and energy conservation.
Mr. Patel indicated that the representative from Valley Crest will be discussing the removal
and transplanting of specific oak trees. Regarding the conditions of approval, they would like
the Commission to review four items: (1) request to remove/clear poison oak from the current
and proposed conservation easements; (2) development credit for the long driveway which
will be used for the solar panels; (3) grading proposed around the oak trees asking if they
would be allowed to use very light power equipment to move the dirt in the presents of an
arborist. If there is evidence of significant roots, they would not grade in that area. (4)
opposed to the construction of a pathway. He felt there was a major safety issue with the path
as there is no good termination of the pathway once you reach Natoma Road. Natoma Road
is a very steep, windy road with a blind corner at that point. This is a very dangerous area and
not a good termination of the pathway. Also, it is an environmentally sensitive area needing
two bridges involving the Army Corp of Engineers and the Department of Fish and Game.
Also, they have not found anyone in the neighborhood who is requesting them to build the
pathway.
Commissioner Clow asked if the solar arrays were visible to any neighbors. Mr. Patel
responded not to his understanding. The way they could find out is to erect story poles. In
answering a question, he noted that the natural foot paths leading into the new conservation
would be allowed as it meets the conservation easement goals.
Mr. Malavalli, in discussing his dream house will make sure it is a quality house retaining the
nature habitat of the area. Los Altos Hills has been their home for the last 10 years indicating
it took that long to find the ideal area for their house. He does want to keep his neighbors
happy. He appreciates Los Altos Hills' environmental restrictions as they want to maintain
the natural environment.
Dale with Valley Crest stated the company has been moving trees for the last 50 years in
California. They have already moved many trees on site and have maintained them for the last
year. They are all doing great. There is thought of moving two additional trees on the site
which are larger than the ones already moved. It should be a successful move (the company
is in the high 90% success rate). Care of a tree after it is moved is important so they maintain
the trees after they are moved which could last for years.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/19/06
December 8, 2005
Page 4
Mr. Patel would like to try to save the existing oak trees #130 and #132 slotted for removal.
Even though the approval package shows them to be eliminated they have requested that they
try to save them and maintain them throughout construction and review their conditions at the
end of the construction period.
David Bulfer, Lucero Lane, looks down on the two properties that have been merged and has
had the pleasure of meeting the applicants who care about the environment. He felt the
improvements will make the site more rural. He walks every morning with his wife and he
felt the proposed path was too dangerous to use. His biggest concern was the process of the
construction and felt the applicants will consider the neighbors in the entire process. He
voiced support of the project.
De Gheest, 12133 Foothill Lane, property located across the canyon. She provided a photo of
the property site as viewed from her kitchen. She explained that she will not only see the top
of the roof but also a part of the walls. There will be a significant view of this property from
her house as well as being an eye sore with the proposed removal of trees. She asked that if
the two oak trees are removed they be replaced three to one to provide privacy to the people
across the canyon. She noted that they asked for the same thing when the two lots were
merged. She would also hope that the construction site would not be too visible by using a
dark color fence instead of an orange fence. She also noted that the tower was very visible
and one of the trees behind it is slated to be removed. Regarding the proposed solar panels,
she requested that they erect orange poles prior to approval to view the full impact.
Brian Macknick, 27608 Vogue Court, resident for over 22 years, spoke against the off road
pathway through Deer Creek wildlife corridor as proposed due to environmental and
ecological issues. He referred to the letter from Live Oak Associates regarding their findings
and the value of preserving this wildlife corridor in its natural state. He also supports the
efforts of the wildlife survey recently mailed out by the Town. Maintaining natural corridors
will keep animals healthy and wild and minimize contact with humans allowing them to
continue living in as natural state as possible. He further discussed safety, ingress and egress
on this pathway which includes crossing over Natoma Road with a very narrow and tight
turning road with no shoulder. He felt it was a foreseeable event that horses or people could
be injured by having this path exit right onto and then cross over Natoma Road to the other
path on a blind curve as presently proposed. The Town's Master Pathway Plan was just
reviewed last March when the Planning Commission recommendation regarding B3.22 or
Deer Creek was not to retain MPP due to erosion issues on steep ravines and redundancy to
existing off road paths from Black Mountain Road.
John Spar, 12121 Foothill Lane, as a new owner, he has not had time to digest the proposed
application.
Mark Vernon, 12119 Foothill Lane, echoed comments made by resident at 12133 Foothill
Lane as he was very concerned with the removal of trees which currently helps screen the site.
He felt any new plantings would not screen anything unless they were of significant height
and span like the trees presently on site. He felt he needed more information regarding the
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/19/06
December 8, 2005
Page 5
trees slated to be removed. He stated he was not strong on the pathway issue. The letter from
the Town's consulting arborist had requested more information regarding the trees to be
removed.
Ginger Summit, 13310 Lennox Way, Chairperson of the Pathway Committee, spoke to the
proposed path which is potentially a very beautiful path. She felt it was important to maintain
the existing paths and increase them whenever possible. The easement exists, only requiring
construction. When the Committee walked the path there was some question as to where the
boundaries actually exist. She believed that the applicants were going to have the area re-
surveyed to clarify the boundaries. The proposed native easement is for 5 feet however, it
could be less. She did not feel it was infringing on anyone's privacy. She further discussed
the flexibility where the path would exit onto Natoma Road. Discussion ensued regarding
culverts and/or retaining walls made of natural material (not concrete). It would be the
Committee's preference not to have the path cross the creek but to stay on one side of the
creek by modifying the easements appropriately so they would not have to construct bridges.
The Committee would work with the property owners and their landscape person to make it as
financially reasonable as possible.
Dot Schreiner, Saddle Mountain Drive, quoted from the General Plan Pathway Element
adopted in 1996 staring that "the pathways system serves three basic and important function;
circulation, recreation, and preservation of the open character of the Town". "Off-road paths,
which connect to roadside paths or open space lands, are generally located on dedicated
easements on private property (usually along property lines), through public lands, or through
privately owned conservation/open space easements". She further referred to B3, off-road
paths. She felt this was a very important path in Town and has been on the Master Pathway
Plan forever. She hoped that the Commission would honor the commitment of all the work
that has been done in the past and the decision by the Town Council that this is a path that
should be in this Town.
Bob Stutz, Elena Road, walked the area in the 70's. He noted that if you come in contact with
poison oak you use a Borax solution for relief.
Steve Kellenberger, Vogue Court, supports the pathway system but not in this case as the
grade and terrain are steep. The existing easement 20 feet from the center line of the creek
would put the potential path mid -way up the grade fall line. There is a severe problem with
erosion with any path that is built. Privacy is also an issue. He did not feel the pathway
would be used as much as those pathways already existing.
Scott Vanderlip, Fremont Pines Lane, supported the path. If a bridge is built, it could service
another trail connecting to Taaffe.
Denise Williams, Corbetta Lane, voiced support of the path
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/19/06
December 8, 2005
Page 6
Roger Spreen, Chairman of the Open Space Committee, was very thankful for the
conservation easements on the site, thanking staff and the applicants. In general, the
committee would prefer to leave an open space easement in a natural state but it is not against
the terms of an open space easement to remove poison oak.
Kristin Emery, 12121 Foothill Lane, new owner, asked that the trees be preserved for
screening purposes.
David Bulfur, Lucero Lane, asked that trees #130, 132,147 and 150 not be removed
Resident at 12845 La Vida Real, has small children and takes them onto Natoma Road
everyday. It is his experience that it is very dangerous on that road. Unlike other neighbors,
if some trees are removed it will improve the views he use to enjoy.
Mr. Patel addressed comments regarding the trees scheduled to be removed: #150, a large
eucalyptus; #147, 24" box oak tree to be relocated; #130 and #132 deemed structurally
unstable. These are the two trees that they would like to save. Most of the trees proposed are
going to be significant in size (15'x15'x10' in height), approximately 40 specimens.
Commissioner Kerns questioned tree #147 as it provides screening of the bell tower which
some residents voiced concerns. He asked Mr. Patel if he was willing to keep #147 in its
current location along with #130 and #132.
Mr. Patel responded yes. He indicated that he had walked the site with both Bob Stutz and
Les Earnest. He stated that the property line is the center line of the creek. They staked this
property several times, even the 20 foot easement. It is clear that when you take the 20 feet to
the center line of the creek it is impossible to build. It is clear that they will need to cross the
creek in two places; bridges will need to be built. They have never been under the impression
that the path would be a 2 foot trail (native path). They have been told that the Committee
had the authority to go beyond the 20 foot easement but there seems to be an issue regarding
the removal of poison oak within the conservation easement. There is a real conflict of basic
principles of what they are trying to achieve as a community.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Disclosures: Chairman Cottrell, Commissioners Carey and Collins walked the site in the
company of the architect. Commissioner Clow walked the site with the architect and met
with two of the neighbors. Commissioner Kerns walked the site and spoke to the architect by
phone.
Commissioner Clow suggested separating the application and the pathway. He felt the project
is beautiful. The applicants are spending approximately one million dollars moving and
preserving trees which is an outstanding contribution to the community. They have areal
commitment to energy efficiency with the plans for solar power. He would like to find a way
to support the proposed solar power perhaps with an exception in development area. Planner
Cahill suggested only counting the actual footprint of the free standing solar. Commissioner
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/19/06
December 8, 2005
Page 7
Clow could support this suggestion. He did not feel that they would find oak tree roots in the
fill area and he could support removing that fill using light machinery. The architect had
indicated that tree #147 would be moved but he felt it was not intended to be removed. The
residents across the valley have a real interest in keeping a tree that would shield the house
from their views. He would support retaining tree #147. He does not support retaining the
Eucalyptus tree. He would recommend approval of the project. Regarding the pathway, he
felt that they needed to honor the process. They went through a process as a Town to create a
path map. As a Commissioner he had voted against this path segment as did the other
Commissioners. However, the Council voted for it. He would honor a type of path
appropriate for that valley. The Gintzen path in Byrne Preserve is a good example of an
appropriate path (more like a two foot wide path). Any retaining walls would be 2' x 1'0 with
stake into the hillside (no concrete retaining walls). There may be a need for bridges. The
idea of having a path going into the conservation easement going away from the creek where
needed to make a comfortable path makes sense. He would not expect any large trees to be
cut down to create this path.
Commissioner Collins discussed the four points presented by Mr. Patel: (1) poison oak
removal in the conservation easement (supports); (2) credit for the driveway (does not
support); (3) grading, agrees to save tree #147. She thought he had it in his heart to save the
other two trees. They should be able to use light equipment if they do not discover roots. (4)
Pathway, the pathway was already decided upon during the Master Pathway process (honor
the map).
Commissioner Kerns voiced support of the application with the use of the energy efficiency
(solar panels throughout the project). He also agreed that he would rather not give credit for
the driveway but instead allow the construction of the solar panels. He felt trees #130, 132 &
147 should remain and shown as not being removed, making every effort to keep those trees.
He also supports the use of light machinery if they determine that the roots are not substantial
in that area as well as the poison oak removal. He has not been a strong advocate of off-road
pathways in areas where the neighbors do not support them. He felt there was a parallel
pathway on Black Mountain that essentially connects the same areas. He was very concerned
with the wildlife corridor and when they had this discussion at the Planning Commission
during the review of the Master Path Map it was unanimous that they did not support this
pathway.
Commissioner Carey supported the removal of poison oak from the conservation easement.
He would allow more credit for the driveway as it is a required element for the house giving,
credit for the first 100 feet and the like credit for the smaller driveway, using the available
development area for the solar panels only. Regarding the grading around the oak trees, he
would allow grading to be done in that area with light machinery whether or not there are
roots in the fill. Grading in the area is preferable to retaining walls. He supports the retention
of trees #130, 132 and 147 rather than removing those trees. Regarding the pathway, he
agreed with Commissioners Clow and Collins by supporting the Master Pathway Plan.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/19/06
December 8, 2005
Page 8
Chairman Cottrell stated to all of the neighbors present how fortunate they were to have an
applicant who cares about them and the environment and who has brought in a plan of this
kind. He supports the removal of poison oak, using light equipment for the grading and trying
to save trees #130, 132 and 147 and any others except the Eucalyptus tree. He also voted
against the pathway last March but they do need to support the City Council. The pathway
should be a nature type pathway. If there are issues when it comes time to lay it out, he
suggested going back to the Pathway Committee so you end up with a path that has some
common sense to it. He also supports the solar panels.
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by
Commissioner Carey recommending that the pathway be built with the guidance that it be
more of a 2 foot wide pathway rather than a 5 foot pathway something similar to the Gintzon
trail in Byrne Preserve. Concrete retaining walls or large tree removal is not recommended.
Two bridges may be necessary. At the applicant's discretion, they could widen the pathway
easement to allow the pathway to go further away from the property line to better stay with
the terrain. The actual layout of the pathway is at the applicant's discretion (construct a native
path) with any needed assistance from the Pathway Committee, Lands of Malavalli, 27500 La
Vida Real.
AYES: Chairman Cottrell, Commissioners Collins, Carey & Clow
NOES: Commissioner Kerns
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by
Commission Kerns to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence with partial
basement, indoor swimming pool, and three detached accessory structures, Lands of
Malavalli, 27500 La Vida Real, with the following additions/changes to the conditions of
approval: add to the conservation easement description that the applicants are allowed to
remove poison oak; exempt the solar panels from development area except for the footing
area; allow light equipment for the removal of the 611; the applicants will try to save trees
#130 & 132; tree #147 shall not be removed; tree #150 (Eucalyptus tree) can be removed;
remove. Delete#1 (5); change #1 (6) as follows: Grading will be allowed to occur by hand,
with the use of shovels, hand mattocks, hand trowels and light equipment.
AYES: Chairman Cottrell, Commissioners Carey. Collins, Clow & Kerns
NOES: None
This approval is subject to a 23 day appeal period.
Brief break at 9:30 p.m.
3.2 LANDS OF FERRELL, 26300 Silent Hills Lane (165-05-ZP); A request for an
exception to Section 10-1.507(c)(5) of the Municipal Code for a six foot (6')
tall brown vinyl coated chain link fence along the Silent Hills Lane frontage.
The Code requires four and a half feet (4.5') tall as the maximum height
permitted. The request for the exception is pursuant to Section 10-1.507(d)
(staff -Brian Froelich).
ATTACHMENT
Date: February 10, 2006
RE: Solar Installation
From:
Vazgen Babayan
12940 Atherton Court
Los Altos Fulls, CA 94022
(650) 948-7981
To: Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Comission,
The proposed 1637 foot solar installation for property owners located at 13480 Wildcrest
will impacts my property based on unsightly placed solar panels.
These panels can be seen from my driveway, front door entrance, deck, pool area and one
of the bedrooms. I have great concern regarding the views from these areas and am not
sure the panels will enhance what I deem as existing scenic country views.
Please take into consideration my point of view and in all farness the quality of my
surroundings which will be affected.
Sincerely,
c abay�� y� RECEIVED
Vazge
FEB 9 9 2005
-OWN Of LOS ALTOS HILLS
fOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILL— ATTACHMENT g
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
26379 Fremont Road • Los Altos Hills, California 94022 • (650) 941-7222 • FAX (650) 941-3160
WORKSHEET #2
EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA
• TURN IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME
PROPERTY ADDRESS Z t VY.0
CALCULATED BY ecl KlDATE
1. DEVELOPMENT AREA
(SQUARE FOOTAGE)
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
House and Garage (from Part 3. A.)
Decking
Drivewa and Parking
Existing
tnv�v i.lrahv�r
Y
(Measured 100' along centerline) I�1�^y
�
Patios and Walkways '!p7�1721.
Tennis Court -t'l
Pool and Decking
Accessory Buildings (from Part B)
Any other coverage
0L..t7, S
TOTALS
Proposed Total
(AddifinnsfDaetioos)
a3 !/
Maximum Development Area Allowed - MDA (from Worksheet #1) 1
2. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE Existing Proposed Total
(SQUARE FOOTAGE)
TOTALS
3. FLOOR AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE) Existing Proposed Total
(Addi¢ons/Deletions)
A. House and Garage
a.
1st Floor
b.
2nd Floor
c.
Attic and Basement
d.
Garage
B. Accessory Buildings
a.
1st Floor
b.
2nd Floor
c.
Attic and Basement
�7; Z
TOTALS i
Maximum Floor Area Allowed -MFA (from Worksheet #1)
TOWNUSEONLY CHECKEDBY DATE
Rev. 3120102 Page 1 of I Tovm of Los Altos Hills
To: TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DEBBIE PEDRO
ASSOCIATE PLANNER
RECEIVED
DEC 2 2 2005
December 21, 2005
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REQUEST FOR A SOLAR PANEL ARRAY
LANDS OF GOESE; 13480 WILDCREST DRIVE
FROM: Brad Blackman- Owner Representative
Custom Dreams
REQUEST:
Site Development Permit for approval of a new solar panel array system. The 1,637 sq ft
Photovoltaic area would exceed the permitted maximum MDA for the site by 953 sq ft
(including the 500 sf MDA policy allowance to encourage the use of solar energy).
The PV array will be configured roughly as a 40' x 40' square. We are respectively
requesting that the solar array be excluded from the MDA calculation for the property under
the Town "Pervious Surface Policy Guidelines" cited below.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is a 1.89 acre parcel located at the hilltop terminus of Wildcrest Drive.
Surrounding uses include single-family homes on adjacent parcels to the northeast, south
and west. The applicant is currently constructing a recently approved two-story residence
with a basement, swimming pool and spa.
The proposed Photovoltaic array is proposed to be installed in the Southwest corner of the
property, outside the conservation easement and outside the setback areas just below the
previously approved pool equipment structure in a very low visibility location.
Town policy allows exemption of the first 500 square feet of solar panel requirements to
encourage the production of solar energy thereby reducing the exemption request to 953
square feet.
The total proposed MDA (including house, pool, spa, hardscape, driveway, pool equipment
enclosure as well as the proposed solar array) for the entire site is only 15.1 % of the total
land area
Approximately 85% of this site will be open space easement, native vegetation, and
landscaped areas.
2
TOWN POLICY - Development area. tennis/sports courts. driveways and oervious surfaces
Code section 10.1.502 (b) of the Zoning code defines "development area" to include floor area
as well as other coverage, including parking areas, patios, decks, walkways, swimming pools, tennis
courts, and other surfaces comprised of artificially emplaced building materials (paving, roofing,
masonry, stone, or wood).
Intent
The purposes of limiting development area on a site are twofold: 1) to protect natural features and
the rural character of the Town: and 2) to minimize run off and erosion concerns related to
construction on slopes.
Policy:
1. No development credit will be granted for the use of semi -permeable material(s) on any of
the following:
a. Tennis or sports courts
b. Driveways
c. Required parking areas
d. Turnarounds'
e. Above ground decks
2. In other development areas, partial credit for use of semi -permeable material(s) may be
granted depending on the permeability and appearance of the surface.
Site Data: APN: 175-36-005
Gross Lot Area:
1.897 acres
Net Lot Area:
1.897 acres
Average Slope:
26.2
Lot Unit Factor:
1.238
Lot Area SF:
82,642.64
Floor Area and Development Area
Area (sq. 0.)
Maximum
Under
Proposed Decrease/Increase Remaining
•(inc.500s(
construction
solarpolicyl
Development
11,549'
10,✓3[f5
12,502 953 increase n/a
/6,414
Floor
6,425
n/a n/a 11
Site
The applicant is requesting approval of a Site Development Permit to construct a
Photovoltaic array to supply 100% of the residence's electrical power usage. This request is
consistent with a recent PV array application approved by the Planning Commission finding
that the 2,882 SF of the PV array was exempt from MDA under Section #2 of the Town's
pervious surface policy cited above.
The proposed array will be installed in a very low visibility location on the site and will be
elevated off the ground to avoid erosion control problems and ensure habitat compatibility.
Landscape screening and erosion control
A landscape screening and erosion control plan will be submitted after final framing of the
new residence. Any landscaping required for screening or erosion control measures to
accommodate the proposed solar array will be planted or installed prior to final inspection.
Open Space Easment
In accordance with the Town General Plan the applicant completed the deed conveyance
of an Open Space Easement for vast majority of the sloped area (24,978.68 SF) of the site in
excess of 30% upon commencement of construction of the new improvements.
The Open Easement encompasses 30.2% of the lot area. The proposed PV array will not
be located in the Open Space easement area.
Summary
• PV array will cover only 1.9% of the lot area
• The PV is located in a very low visibility area and will not be visible to immediately
surrounding neighbors.
• Applicant plans to be 100% self sufficient for electricity
• The PV array is not in the Open Space easement or setback areas
• The PV array will be parallel to the ground and very low in height (2-4 ft.)
• The PV array will utilize highly stylized, aesthetically pleasing Sharp solar panels
• The panels have an anti -reflection coating.
Attachments
1. Application and Check
2. Site plan
3. Summary of proposed Photovoltaic array
4. Sharp Brochures of the proposed panels
§¥/0
/
\)
°'!®�
7
-
w
2a
;;
.|:
}\
\
\0|
!!
mr
g�§
| �2
E
\\
.
\t
�
±
k!�
WR§�§
Nm.
E
.
)(Ho
22§60
.
]
W
U
LUQ
J
I
v
c
N
E
H
T
N
c
U
o
C
p
U
O
N
a
O
Y
m
Y
t6
Q
N
�
CL
E
e
x
W
m
U
.�
F-
ƒ >/
ak
. ■
to
U) � §�
w e 2 )fes
M
o§ ° d Z ) CL m
u J 0 \ § U) 0 }
k 7U.
9 2 i %
t
■
k ■ d ƒ / �e 2 �E;
I k k) f
LL 5 -
%
2 2 3 :3 3 U)m
■ ■ ■ ■ z u ■ .
■ ■ ■
a.+
2
C
/0
AMA
G
O
w
C
4...
O
N
d
Oo
Z=
d p
=W
IO O
�Z
41 1
M.
J oc
0 IA
Z C
N �U)
WW
■
■
y
c
ai
m
C
c
m
r
c
12
d
0
U)
is
as
4!
d
t6
Q
t
c
R
0
O
F-
7
■
■
ME
m
W
L
O
L
U.
r
d
A
cn
a
w
M
O
O
d
�
3
to
d
'a
i
L
V
to
w
C
Nf?
(n
d
C
L
n
�
L
c
lE
W
II
3
i
�
+•
rn
O
.a
a
�
w
Y
U
c
2
0
V
co
W
K
R
co
N
R
N
m
Y
10
L
Ln
M
U
co
m
a
y
W
H
O
fR
c
d
=
u
Y
eY
N
n
N
r
H0
w
N
q
fA
11
N
VN
co
R
N
Ed
G
0
E
m
Cl
�
ems+
O
Ey
c
y
=
+
O
y
r
•_
LO
�
Z
k
m
CO
Il
CO
■
E
X
W
L
0
L.
LL
cm
E
N
ca
a
w
N
d
b
d
IL
d
v
C
N
O
�'
d
1x6
0
04
tm
N
n
N
i
�
C
1M6
W
II
T
3
>
CO
O
.
a
L
Y
Y
W
of
o
Q
_
x
6i
Q
m
`°
H
if
4)
W)
m
a
°
IU
E
w
co
LL
N
U
O
rn
`.
c
o
u
Y
a
1n
Lo
w
N
N
=
a+
"
N
N
64
N
co
N
U)
C.
3
V
II
>N
E
N
E
d
0
0
E
3
�.
CD
16
V
"
tV
O
o
N
M
++
Q
N
>%
0
z
>%
m
n
=
■
V
�C
ry
T
0 N
Ua �
'p Of a0+ N
` m c
W L =
> � �► o w V
C. Q ow O
N L H
ILO
w
V p fA J £ 1
y
O O N d! M
d
Q O J L O W-4 H
H o L c �> Q" +�
E y •g cd of H
a 'o = v
>+ O H` IL yQ w
H Z O _ E N r G!
a0 c Ov L
O
a. �� 3 CO'i W o u? N V
0 ' N NQ Q ry 'c V
O 00 E Al D Qt 'a +' m 10
= v CLW
LO O O d= d J
O Ew c E
.N O F a L �� �= E o •__
c M2 m QC. H� Oo �2
C
W U60 J 2Q Lcoo o -i Ot O w>
U
SHARP
170 WATT
HIGH-POWERED MODULE. SUPERIOR
POLY -CRYSTALLINE SILICON PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULE
WITH 170W MAXIMUM POWER
Sharps NE-170Ul photovoltaic modules offer high-powered performance
and industry-leading durability for large electrical power requirements.
Using breakthrough technology perfected by Sharps 45 years of research
and development, these modules incorporate an advanced surface
texturing process to increase light absorption and improve efficiency.
Common applications include office buildings, houses, cabins, solar power
stations, solar villages and traffic lights. Ideal for grid -connected systems and
designed to withstand rigorous operating conditions, Sharp's NE-170Ul
modules are the perfect combination of technology and reliability.
y.;a.1111f^Nys 111111 n. _�x�,�,�mn_w,no.e maawe,ena
FEATURES
MULTI-PURPOSE MODULE
ELECTRICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Cell
: Poly-arRtznmr enlmo
Ad of Cells add Connect...
11n xenee
Open Circuit Voltz, Wall
m.]V
Maximum Power Voltage(Vpm)
! 349V
Short Circuit Current(lu)
S.aiA
Maximum Power Current(ipm)
49A
Mau mum Power (Pmax)1
.w "IT, 1-5x)
Module Efficiency, firm)
13 10%
Maximum System Voltage
60OVDC
Series Fuse Rating
aoA
Type, of Output Terminal
,roe VA"wan me cenmr)nr
.Cl Standard Tex] Contlltions: 2SC t kW/m', PM IS
IV CURVES
Ceu Trmpemwr: 25'C
6
5
4
a
=3
2
0
180
150
6o
30
0
o 10 ID 30 40 50
VolUp N]
Cprrenlvs. Pongee
— Power w, Vollaee
l—al, Power vxwinner Chnanx is
170 WATT
MECHANICAL CHARACTERISTICS
oimensiana(A x B x C Wow)
bml'•yIs' x1. -
Us, xe3Mm a06mm
Weight
374e5fte/1] all
Packing Configuration
z pct cer neon
Size of Carton
66.93'r la. lff r1 lY
I'll— .9]omm v fl.
Loading Capacity (20 ft COnta ner)
1. A. 180 mrronsl
Loading Capacity (48 it container)
Ina ors(zz4 larrom)
Loading Capacity (53 it contained
1tv vc, lag carom)
ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM RATINGS
Operatin9Temperature nd..1P4F/i01o.90C
Storage Temperature ao m l 1v4 11-4.4. Io wo'C
DIMENSIONS
6AER �a>d
D E F O
30934]¢5.5mm )31.a1mm 30.0]'OAmm J54'w1un m
geslgn and specifications are subject to change without notice.
In the absence of mnfirmation by ndun manual, Sharp takes no responsibility for any defects that may Dram In equipment using any Sharp devices.
(miscl Sharp to obtain the latest product manuals before using any Sharp device.
SHARP,
�J Sharp Electronics Corporation • 5901 Bolsa Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Tel:1-800-SOLAR-O6•Email: shamsolar@shaMusa.com- vmw.sharpusx.coMsolar
Cnverphoto:Solarinstallstion be Fabs, Power Management, Aabmn(A SSD 170 02005 Sharp Electronics Corporation printed in the OSA