Skip to main content
Contra Costa County Header
File #: 25-4443    Version: 1 Name:
Type: Discussion Item Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 9/30/2025 In control: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
On agenda: 10/21/2025 Final action:
Title: HEARING to consider an appeal of the County Planning Commission’s approval of a tree permit to remove three code-protected oak trees to allow for the construction of a residential ground-mounted solar energy system at 19 Jay Court in the Alamo area, and to consider approving the tree permit and related actions (ArborTech Tree Care Inc., Applicant) (Bruce & Grace Ginn, Owners) (Robert Eisele, Appellant) (Judy Huggins, Heidi Welsh, and Tony Kalliaras on behalf of Bryan Ranch Homeowners, Appellants). (Jennifer Cruz, Department of Conservation and Development)
Attachments: 1. Attachment A - Findings and COA_final-modified CDTP24-00064, 2. Attachment B - Robert Eisele Appeal Letter CDTP24-00064, 3. Attachment C - Judy Huggins Appeal Letter CDTP24-00064, 4. Attachment D - Maps CDTP24-00064, 5. Attachment E - Project Plans CDTP24-00064, 6. Attachment F - Notice of Tentative Approval CDTP24-00064, 7. Attachment G - CPC Staff Report CDTP24-00064, 8. CDTP24-00064 BOS Presentation
Date Ver.Action ByActionResultTallyAction DetailsMeeting DetailsVideo
No records to display.

To:                                          Board of Supervisors

From:                                          John Kopchik, Director, Conservation and Development

Report Title:                     Appeal of the County Planning Commission’s Approval of a Tree Permit for 19 Jay Court in the Alamo Area.

Recommendation of the County Administrator Recommendation of Board Committee

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

1.                     OPEN the public hearing on an appeal of the County Planning Commission’s approval of a tree permit for 19 Jay Court in the unincorporated Alamo area; RECEIVE testimony; and CLOSE the public hearing.

 

2.                     DENY the appeals by Robert Eisele and by Judy Huggins, Heidi Welsh, and Tony Kalliaras on behalf of Bryan Ranch Homeowners.

 

3.                     DETERMINE that the proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e) [new construction of an accessory structure].

 

4.                     APPROVE the tree permit to allow the removal of three code-protected oak trees for the purpose of installing the residential ground-mounted photovoltaic system. (County File No. CDTP24-00064).

 

5.                     APPROVE the attached findings in support of the project.

 

6.                     APPROVE the attached project conditions of approval.

 

7.                     DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to file a CEQA Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk.

 

FISCAL IMPACT:

 

None. The applicant has paid the necessary application deposit and is obligated to pay supplemental fees to recover any and all additional costs associated with the application process.

 

BACKGROUND:

 

This hearing is to consider two separate appeals, one filed by Robert Eisele and one by Judy Huggins, Heidi Welsh, and Tony Kalliaras on behalf of Bryan Ranch Homeowners, of the County Planning Commission’s (CPC) May 14, 2025, decision to approve a tree permit for the removal of three protected trees to allow for the installation of a residential solar power system on the property identified as 19 Jay Court within the Bryan Ranch community in the unincorporated Alamo area. 

 

The tree permit was initially approved by the Zoning Administrator on January 7, 2025. That decision was appealed by Robert Eisele on January 15, 2024. At the County Planning Commission hearing on May 14, 2025, Commission Chair Van Buskirk opened the public hearing and accepted testimony from the applicant Bruce Ginn, the appellant Robert Eisele, and members of the public. The CPC then voted 4 to 1 to deny the appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision and approve the tree permit.

 

GENERAL INFORMATION

 

Site Description

 

The subject property is located at 19 Jay Court within the Bryan Ranch community in Alamo.  The approximately 44,000-square-foot property is developed with a single-family residence and a pool. The property has a frontage on the east along Jay Court and a frontage on the west along Stone Valley Road. The property slopes upward from west to east, rising approximately 30 feet from the property boundary at Stone Valley Road to the relatively flat residential building pad adjacent to Jay Court, with an approximately 26 percent slope in the western and southwestern areas of the lot. The property has numerous mature redwood trees primarily on the south side of the house, a variety of oak trees in the northern area of the property, a row of sycamore trees along Stone Valley Road, and other species of trees of varying sizes found throughout the property.

 

The surrounding area of Alamo is predominantly developed with single-family residences to the west, east, and south. Other land uses in the area include agricultural lands further to the east and southeast, and pockets of land maintained by the Bryan Ranch or White Gate Homeowners Associations that are designated for open space/resource conservation to the north and south.

 

 

General Plan 

 

The County Board of Supervisors adopted a new General Plan, Envision 2045, on November 5, 2024.  Pursuant to the new County General Plan, the subject property is located within a RL, Residential Low Density (RL) General Plan land use designation. However, at the time the application was deemed “complete” for processing (October 25, 2024), the property was located in a SL, Single-Family Residential-Low Density (SL) General Plan land use designation.  As such, staff’s General Plan analysis of the proposed project is based on the goals and policies of the County General Plan 2005-2020. Generally, the primary land uses allowed in the SL designation include single-family residences and buildings and structures accessory to residential uses on lots as large as 43,560 square feet in area. The project proposes the installation of a ground-mounted solar/photovoltaic system (PV system) for private, residential use on a lot developed with one single-family residence which is an accessory residential use. The project will not change the residential use or density of residential development for this site and is consistent with the SL General Plan land use designation.

 

 

Zoning

 

The subject property is located within the P-1 Planned Unit (P-1) and is subject to the development standards of the Bryan Ranch final development plan (County File #DP77-3011). According to the approved final development plan, the setbacks, minimum yards, and height measurements are guided by the R-15 zoning district.  Per state law, the proposed solar installation is exempt from County zoning standards since it is a private system and does not need to meet any zoning standards including setback and height standards.

 

In terms of the County Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance, the placement of the proposed solar panel installation requires the removal of three protected oak trees. According to the County’s tree ordinance, the oak trees to be removed are protected based on the fact that they are part of a stand of four or more trees and are identified in the list of indigenous trees. Therefore a tree permit is required for removal or alteration of the trees.

 

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

 

The proposed project to install a residential ground mounted solar/PV system and to construct a new, 6-foot-tall fence surrounding the PV system, which are accessory to the primary residential use of the property, is categorically exempt from CEQA under Section 15303(e) of the CEQA Guidelines related to new construction of accessory structures.

 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

 

Three code-protected oak trees are proposed to be removed for the installation of a ground-mounted PV system: a blue oak measuring 10 inches in diameter, a valley oak measuring 14 inches in diameter, and a coast live oak measuring 11 inches in diameter.  The PV system is an approximately 673-square-foot array consisting of 28 solar panels rising approximately two to five feet in height above grade and intended for private, residential use.  The PV system is proposed to be located on the northwestern side of the property, approximately 32 feet from the western property boundary at Stone Valley Road and approximately 17 feet from the northern property boundary. The project also proposes a 6-foot-tall wooden fence to surround the PV system. Approximately 70 feet of associated trenching is proposed to connect the PV system to the residence through a new 3/4-inch underground PVC conduit. The blue oak and coast live oak trees proposed for removal are located within the proposed footprint of the PV system and the valley oak is located approximately 10 feet west of the proposed PV system in the area of the proposed fence.

 

 

COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING

 

The tree permit was initially approved by the County Zoning Administrator on January 7, 2025. One letter of appeal was received on January 15, 2025, and the appeal was heard by the County Planning Commission (CPC) during a hearing on May 14, 2025.  During the public hearing, testimony by the applicant, appellant (Robert Eisele), and members of the public was accepted. After taking testimony and a presentation of project analysis by County staff the CPC in a 4 to 1 vote denied the appeal and approved the project.

 

CPC APPEAL

 

Appeals of the County Planning Commission’s approval of County File #CDTP24-00064 were filed by Robert Eisele on May 23, 2025, and by Judy Huggins, Heidi Welsh, and Tony Kalliaras on behalf of Bryan Ranch Homeowners, on May 27, 2025. The main points of the appeals are summarized below, followed by staff responses.

 

APPEAL OF ROBERT EISELE

 

1)                     The appellant states that staff failed to address and failed to provide Commissioners with the Professional Engineer’s Risk Assessment Report submitted by the appellant.

 

Staff Response: A letter prepared by Peter Geissler, Ph.D., P.E., of Geissler Engineering, dated April 4, 2025, and titled “Engineer’s Opinion Letter”, was submitted by the appellant, Robert Eisele, on April 4, 2025. Staff accepted the letter as a public comment submitted for the project. The opinion letter was included in the Public Comments attachment to the staff report for the County Planning Commission meeting.

 

2)                     The Commission ignored substantial evidence supporting all required findings.

 

Staff Response: In making their decision, the Commission considered all evidence before them, including materials provided by the applicant and the appellant as well as analysis by staff in their report to the CPC.

 

3)                     The appellant states that the dismissal of feasible roof-mounted solar alternative contradicts County policies requiring consideration of alternatives that would preserve trees.

 

Staff Response: The decision to choose a ground-mounted or roof-mounted PV system is at the sole discretion of the property owner. The project is for the removal of three code protected oak trees for the installation of a ground mounted solar installation and staff’s analysis and the Planning Commission’s decision was based on the scope of the project put before them. Nevertheless, staff and the Planning Commission considered whether the proposed residential solar project constitutes reasonable development and whether the project could be reasonably accommodated elsewhere on the lot. Given both state and County policies promoting residential solar energy systems, the proposed project constitutes reasonable development. And evidence was provided by the applicant and considered by staff and the Commission that existing improvements, topographical constraints, and large mature redwood trees in the southern area of or adjacent to the subject property precluded the reasonable accommodation of the proposed system elsewhere on the parcel. Moreover, roof-top mounting was also not a feasible or reasonable alternative due to the need for costly structural improvements to the residence.

 

4)                     The appellant states that reliance on “private property rights” in a planned unit development is inappropriate and that the applicant/property owner does not have unrestricted property rights to alter the subject property. The appellant believes that the HOA’s actions of maintaining the property means the applicant/property owner does not have full rights to develop this part of the property.

 

Staff Response: The subject property is located within the Planned Unit District (P-1) zoning district which allows for reasonable development of the property guided pursuant to development standards and requirements of the P-1 District.  A residential ground-mounted PV system is an accessory structure and use that is auxiliary to a single-family residential dwelling, which is permitted in a P-1 district and is allowed by the California Solar Rights Act.

 

5)                     The appellant states that there is a prescriptive easement on the area between the applicant’s backyard fence and Stone Valley Road held by and in favor of the Bryan Ranch HOA.

 

Staff Response: Any prescriptive easement that exists on the subject property would be under the responsibility of the holder of the easement, whether that is Bryan Ranch HOA or another entity, and would be a private, civil matter. There is no evidence in the record that an easement of any type has been established on the subject property.

 

6)                     The appellant states that the comparison to the neighboring solar equipment installation is misleading and invalid.

 

Staff Response: Staff agrees that in their staff report to the CPC, the neighboring ground-mounted solar equipment was incorrectly described as a PV system like the one being proposed for the subject property. It is a smaller system (approximately 400 square feet in area) that was installed at-grade. However, the neighboring system was similarly installed on the western-facing hillside and surrounded by a similar wooden fence as proposed to be constructed around the PV system for the subject property for screening from views from Stone Valley Road.

 

7)                     The appellant states that the Commission failed to apply the required findings under County Municipal Code 816-6.8010, which outlines the legal factors for tree removal.

 

Staff Response: The appellant argues that the permit should be denied based on the factors listed in the County’s Tree Protection Ordinance. While some of the listed factors may support a decision to deny the permit, others do not. Staff and the Commission weigh multiple factors in determining whether to issue a tree permit.

 

Here, the appellant argues that the subject trees are healthy, stable, and pose no structural or fire hazard; no arborist found the trees to be unsalvageable or unsafe; and reasonable development of the lot does not require tree removal due to the viable alternative of roof solar. Staff was not presented evidence disputing the heath of the trees proposed for removal. But the applicant did provide evidence of the reasonableness of the proposed development and other limitations on the property, such as other improvements, topography, other trees, and costs, supporting the proposed location for the residential solar system. 

 

The appellant also argued that a reasonable redesign could avoid tree removal; removal would likely adversely impact erosion, slope stability, and drainage; the roof solar alternative would eliminate the need for 120’ of trenching required in the applicant’s proposed plan; the value of the trees to the neighborhood outweighs any hardship to the applicant; and alternatives such as relocating site improvements or using alternative foundation types were ignored. Evidence presented by the applicant and considered by staff and the Commission does not support these arguments. Large mature redwoods on the project site and adjacent properties and topographical constraints limit alternative project locations and costly improvements make roof-top installation infeasible. Moreover, the removal of three trees is not likely to have a significant impact on erosion, slope stability, and drainage as there will be a number of larger mature trees that will remain on the property that will continue lessen the impact on erosion, provide slope stability, and preserve existing drainage patterns on the property. The 120’ of trenching for conduits does not impact any trees and serves an important function for the operation of the PV system. The testimony of the parties leaves unanswered whether the value of the trees to the neighborhood is greater that the hardship to the owner if not allowed to remove the three subject trees. Locating the PV system on another area of the property could possibly result in the alteration or removal of more than just three trees due to other areas of the property having more mature trees that are bigger in size than the subject trees or a more costly design of the project if the project needs to be changed to a roof-mounted PV system.

 

Thus, pursuant to County Code Section 816-6.8000, the Zoning Administrator considered the factors for approval or denial of the tree permit and found that reasonable development of the property would require the alteration or removal of the subject trees and that this project could not be reasonably accommodated on another area of the lot. The Commission considered the same factors and approved the tree permit.

 

APPEAL OF JUDY HUGGINS, HEIDI WELSH, AND TONY KALLIARAS ON BEHALF OF BRYAN RANCH HOMEOWNERS

 

1)                     The appellants state that the project is not categorically exempt under CEQA Section 15303(e) as exemptions depend on the project characteristics, such as size, location, and environmental impact and asserts that the project size is 2,100 square feet exceeding CEQA’s small structure threshold.

 

Staff Response: CEQA Guidelines do not specify size limits or location requirements for accessory structures and neither the County Zoning Ordinance nor State Law place size restrictions or location requirements on solar projects for residential use. Based on the site plan dimensions and staff’s measurements, the approximate size of the PV system is 673 square feet and the approximate size of the area surrounded by the proposed fencing is 1,315 square feet. In addition to asserting that the project size is 2,100 square feet, the appellant also provides examples of an average sized garage of 308 square feet, a swimming pool with an average size of 600 square feet, and a larger sized garage at 1,200 square feet. All of these varying sizes of accessory structures would still be exempt under CEQA Guidelines. Thus, the proposed project to install a residential ground-mounted PV system and to construct a new, 6-foot-tall fence surrounding the PV system, which are accessory to the primary residential use of the property, is categorically exempt from CEQA under Section 15303(e) of the CEQA Guidelines related to new construction of accessory structures, which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment.

 

2)                     The appellant states that the site plan submitted by the Contractor and relied upon in the staff report inaccurately depicts the location and size of the solar array. The appellant further states that the solar array is consistently drawn on the site plans as 8 feet wide and 22 feet long based on the scale provided on each plan and that the location of the valley oak 10 feet west of the proposed PV system is inaccurate based on the 19-foot distance between the existing fence and the valley oak.  The appellant is concerned that these inaccuracies depict a far less intrusive project onto the hillslope.

 

Staff Response: The plans provided by the applicant are scaled drawings. As part of staff’s review of the plans, staff verified the measurements provided on the plans using the scale provided. Staff measured the length of the array at approximately 40 feet in length and 13 feet in width.  The dimensions provided on the structural drawing of the array are 39’-9” in length and either 15’ or 17’ in width depending on whether or not extensions/overhangs are measured.  Furthermore, the distance between the existing fence and the valley oak is measured to be approximately 28 feet, the distance between the PV system and the valley oak to be approximately 10 feet, and the distance between the PV system and the property line fronting Stoney Valley Road to be approximately 32 feet, more than sufficient to meet the 15-foot minimum setback required for this side of the property.  With staff verifying the accuracy of the dimensions and location of the PV system, it is unlikely that the depiction of the visual impact of the project is misrepresented on the plans.

 

3)                     The appellant states that the sloped hillside at issue for the project installation meets the four elements (“Open and Notorious” “Continuous” “Hostile and Adverse” and “Duration”) required to qualify as a Prescriptive Easement.

 

Staff Response: See above response to Mr. Eisele’s comment #5.

 

4)                     The appellant is concerned that the staff report to the CPC contains multiple factual errors, due to lack of accurate, consistent information provided by the applicant, homeowner, or the HOA property management.

 

Staff Response: The majority of the issues identified as errors in the staff report have been addressed above. However, Ms. Huggins’ additional concerns are summarized below:

 

                     The appellant states that the staff report to the CPC contains errors related to the visual impact on the neighbors and community, and on the entrance to Bryan Ranch.

 

Staff Response: Staff agrees that the project will have some visual impact. However, based on information received from the Byran Ranch HOA, their approval includes a condition that requires the property owner to minimize visual impacts by installing a wooden fence around the PV system and planting photinia around the fencing.

 

                     The appellant states that the staff report contains errors related to the historical use of the area as Association open space. The appellant further states that the hillside slope is currently maintained and landscaped as open space by the HOA with the planting of a continuous row of 25 sycamore trees and maintaining an open grass hillside continuously along Stone Valley Road all the way to the next privately owned property at Virginia Lane.

 

Staff Response: The entire project area would occupy approximately 1,315 square feet area on the northwestern portion of the subject property.  The subject property is 44,000 square feet (1.01 acres) in area and the entirety of the PV system and fencing would cover approximately 0.03 percent of the property. Therefore, the majority of the area on the western side of the subject property will remain undeveloped. The row of sycamore trees located within the right-of-way along Stone Valley Road will not be impacted.

 

                     The appellant states the inclusion of inaccurate information by a representative of Common Interest Management Services is another error in the staff report as they did not have approval of the HOA Board to submit a position on its behalf.

 

Staff Response: Public comments provided by a representative of Common Interest Management Services to the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division, were received prior to scheduling the hearing before the CPC. Thus, their comments were included as an attachment to the staff report.

 

                     The appellant states that the staff report erroneously identifies the neighboring solar pool heater panel array as a ground-mounted PV system which the appellant claims was installed without the appropriate approvals. The appellant is also concerned that the proposed PV system on the subject property may cause safety hazards for drivers, and the additional fencing will contribute to an uneven and disconnected area of fencing along the hillside.

 

Staff Response: Although staff incorrectly described the neighboring ground-mounted solar equipment as a PV system in their staff report to the CPC as discussed in the response to appellant Mr. Eisele (above), the neighboring system was similarly installed on the western-facing hillside and surrounded by a similar wooden fence as proposed for the subject property for screening from views from Stone Valley Road. The proposed PV system on the subject property will be partially screened from view by the wooden fence, and as proposed by the applicant, the wooden fence will be partially screened with photinia plants.  Additionally, the panels will be partially shielded from view from the Stone Valley right-of-way by the row of sycamore trees along Stone Valley Road. Finally, the PV system would be installed at an elevation approximately 20 feet above the roadway, further reducing their visibility from the right-of-way. Thus, the potential for safety hazards for drivers is minimized. The existing trees and new plantings by the property owner will reduce the appearance of an uneven and disconnected area of fencing along the hillside.

 

5)                     The appellant states that by permitting a highly visible, ground-mounted solar installation of this size on a small, prominent hillside risks establishing a dangerous precedent that could alter Bryan Ranch’s cohesive aesthetic as well as aesthetics in other Contra Costa County neighborhoods may set a precent for other homeowners to install a similar ground-mounted PV array adjacent to the street, in their front yard, on their back fence, or in the driveway.

 

Staff Response: Solar projects are regulated by the State of California under the California Solar Rights Act, California Civil Code Section 714, which does not specify size requirements for solar projects.  Throughout the unincorporated areas of the County, there are solar projects on residential properties that vary in size and placement.  These solar projects are still subject to minimum setback requirements which will prevent future ground-mounted solar projects from being installed adjacent to streets, in front yards, on back fences, or in the driveway if they would also be in the required setbacks or yards. Therefore, this project to install a residential ground-mounted PV system will not set a dangerous precedent.

 

6)                     Engineering report not addressed.

 

Staff Response: See above response to Mr. Eisele’s comment #1.

 

7)                     The appellant states that the removal of three native oak trees is not only environmentally detrimental but also unnecessary and that the preliminary Tree Planting Plan provided by the property owner shows that the replacement trees are non-native and invasive species.

 

Staff Response: The three subject trees will need to be removed for the PV system to be installed and operate normally, and the removal of three trees is not expected to have a significant impact on the environment. The subject property has multiple mature trees of different sizes and species, including redwoods and other oak trees, that will be preserved. To ensure that the replacement trees are native and non-invasive, staff has modified the tree restitution condition of approval to require that the replacement trees be drought-tolerant and native to the region.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The proposed project to install a new ground-mounted solar installation for residential use is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the Single-Family Residential-Low Density (SL) General Plan land use designation in which the property was previously located. According to all of the information available for this application and based on the attached findings, the project is consistent with the intent and purpose of the P-1 zoning district and applicable R-15 development standards for the subject P-1 district.  Given the topographical constraints of the property, the proposed installation of the ground-mounted residential solar/PV system is a reasonable development of the property that would require the removal of three code-protected oak trees.  Therefore, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors deny the appeal and approve County File #CDTP24-00064, based on the attached findings and subject to the attached modified conditions of approval.

 

CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT

 

None. This project is a proposal for the installation of a residential ground-mounted solar/PV system that requires the removal of three code-protected oak trees on the subject property.

 

CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:

 

In the event that the Board of Supervisors grants the appeals, the applicant will not obtain the required tree permit needed to allow the removal of the three subject trees for the installation of a residential ground-mounted solar/PV system. The applicant, ArborTech Tree Care Inc., and the owners, Bruce & Grace Ginn, would be unable to move forward with the project as proposed.