|
Project Title: |
19 Jay Court Tree Permit Appeal |
|
County File(s): |
CDTP24-00064 |
|
Appellant: |
Robert J. Eisele |
|
Applicant Owners: |
Carlos Ramirez, ArborTech Tree Care Inc. (Applicant) Bruce & Grace Ginn (Owners) |
|
General Plan: |
Single-Family Residential-Low Density (SL) (Residential Low Density (RL)) |
|
Zoning: |
P-1, Planned Unit District |
|
Site Address/Location: |
19 Jay Court in Alamo, CA (APN: 193-670-016) |
|
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: |
Categorical Exemption - Class 3: CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303(e), new construction of an accessory structure. |
|
Project Planner: |
Nai Saephan, Planner I, (925) 655-2874 nai.saephan@dcd.cccounty.us |
|
Staff Recommendation: |
Deny the Appeal and Approve the Project (See Section II for full recommendation) |
I. PROJECT SUMMARY
This is a hearing on an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision to tentatively approve a tree permit to allow the removal of three (3) code-protected oak trees in order to install a residential ground-mounted solar/photovoltaic (PV) system.
II. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the County Planning Commission:
A. OPEN the public hearing, RECEIVE testimony, and CLOSE the public hearing;
B. DETERMINE that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA under Section 15303(e) of the CEQA Guidelines.
C. DENY the appeal by Robert Eisele
D. Approve the Tree Permit, County File #CDTP24-00064;
E. APPROVE the findings in support of the project;
F. APPROVE the project conditions of approval; and,
G. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk.
III. BACKGROUND
A tree permit application CDTP24-00064 was submitted to the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division on September 26, 2024, requesting approval of a Tree Permit to allow the removal of one (1) 14” valley oak tree, one (1) 10” blue oak tree, and one (1) 11” coast live oak tree for the installation of a residential ground-mounted solar/PV system and associated trenching for an underground conduit.
On January 7, 2025, the tree application received tentative approval by the Zoning Administrator and a Notice of Tentative Approval of a Tree Permit was mailed out to adjacent property owners advising them of the Zoning Administrator’s decision and the opportunity to file an appeal. Appeals were due no later than 4:00 P.M. on January 17, 2025.
An appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision was filed on January 15, 2025, within the 10-day appeal period by the appellant, Mr. Robert J. Eisele.
IV. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. General Plan: As of November 5, 2024, the subject property is located within a RL, Residential Low Density (RL) General Plan land use designation (County General Plan Envision 2045). At the time the application was deemed “complete” for processing (October 25, 2024), the property was located within a SL, Single-Family Residential - Low Density (SL) General Plan land use designation.
B. Zoning: The subject property is located within a P-1 Planned Unit District.
C. 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.
D. Lot Creation: The subject property is 0.99 acres and is Lot 15 of Subdivision CDSD78-05026 which was recorded on May 22, 1979.
E. Prior County Zoning Applications: No prior County Zoning applications.
V. SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION
The subject property is approximately 44,000 square feet in area and is located in the Alamo area of Contra Costa County at the foothills of Mt. Diablo. The property has a principal frontage on the east fronting Jay Court and a secondary frontage on the west fronting 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, which an approximately 26 percent slope in the western and southwestern areas of the lot.
The subject property is developed with a single-family residence and a swimming pool. 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.
A “Virginia Lane” shown on the County’s GIS maps appears to come off of Stone Valley Road and turn into and across the western area of the subject property before running somewhat parallel to Stone Valley Road to continue north across the neighboring property. Staff of the County Public Works Department advised that there is no record of a “Virginia Lane” in the subdivision map or any other records that show a road or access easement in this location of the subject property. Thus, Public Works staff indicated that although it is a visible feature on the GIS map, it has no official standing as a road or access easement.
VI. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting approval of a tree permit to remove three (3) code-protected trees: 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 for the installation of an approximately 600-square-foot ground-mounted solar/PV system (PV system) consisting of 28 solar panels rising approximately 5 feet in height above grade 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 with Stone Valley Road and approximately 17 feet from the northern property boundary. The blue oak and coast live oak trees proposed for removal are located within the proposed footprint of PV system and the valley oak is located approximately 10 feet west of the proposed PV system and in the footprint of a proposed 6-foot-tall wooden fence that would surround the PV system. The project also includes approximately 70 feet of associated trenching for a new 3/4-inch underground PVC conduit from the PV system to the residence.
VII. APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S JANUARY 7, 2025, TENTATIVE DECISION
During the appeal period following approval by the Zoning Administrator, one appeal was received from Robert Eisele, owner of 3314 Stone Valley Road. The concerns raised in the letter of appeal are summarized as follows:
1. Summary of Appeal Point #1: The Appellant asserts that the project is a solar farm in a residential neighborhood.
Staff Response: Staff disagrees that the project is for a solar farm, which is more typical of commercial solar facilities. The proposed residential ground-mounted solar/PV system is an accessory use to an existing single-family residence and is intended to provide on-site solar energy solely for the subject property. There is no evidence that the project would result in a commercial solar energy facility, or the level of solar energy produced for supplying energy to the surrounding vicinity at a commercial level.
2. Summary of Appeal Point #2: The Appellant is concerned about the potential environmental impacts on scenic beauty, natural resources, and wildlife habitat and corridors due to the project which would remove three “landmark” trees at the entrance to the community. The appellant also indicates that the Contra Costa County General Plan’s Open Space element restricts development on open hillsides and is intended to identify which lands should be preserved for open space uses.
Staff Response: The main entrance to the Bryan Ranch community is at the intersection of Stone Valley Road and Merlin Court/Jay Lane, where there is a monument sign on a parcel owned by the Bryan Ranch Homeowners Association welcoming residents and visitors. The subject trees are located on private property located approximately 300 feet northeast of the monument sign, and is therefore not located at the entrance to the Bryan Ranch community. The project would remove three code-protected oak trees on the subject property on which several mature trees, including large redwood trees and a valley oak , and other shrubbery would remain in place. The three oak trees to be removed are not designated Heritage Trees pursuant to County Code Chapter 816-4 and therefore would not be considered landmark trees. In addition, a row of sycamore trees within the right-of-way along Stone Valley Road will partially block views of the proposed fence and PV system, which would limit the project’s impact on views of the open hills to the north and east and the scenic beauty of the neighborhood in general. Furthermore, the project is similar to a ground-mounted PV system that is also surrounded by a wooden fence, that was installed on the hillside above Stone Valley Road for the residential property directly to the north of the subject property.
The removal of three trees from the subject property is not expected to have a significant impact on wildlife habitat due to the number of large trees that will remain in the area that could be used for nesting or perching. The subject property and the properties directly north and south are developed with single-family residences. The area of land that the appellant indicates is “open space” is an approximately 30- to 70-foot-wide portion of private property adjacent to the Stone Valley Road public right-of-way. Generally, wildlife corridors are linear and/or regional habitats that connect to other natural vegetation communities and can provide avenues for animals to travel or migrate, often in areas that contain urbanized development. The proposed PV system and wooden fence surrounding it will occupy approximately 1,200 square feet of the approximately 8,400-square-foot area between the subject property’s existing fence and the property boundary adjacent to Stone Valley Road that the appellant identifies as “open space.” This would still allow the majority of the western portion of the property to remain open for use as part of a wildlife corridor in this part of the neighborhood. Regardless, there is no scenic easement or restriction on development in this area of the subject property and staff is unaware of any reason the property owner could not add a fence along the western property boundary.
The subject property is located within a Single-Family Residential-Low Density (SL) General Plan land use designation and is not located within the Open Space (OS) land use designation. In addition, there are no restricted development areas or scenic easements on the subject property. Based on all of the above, the project would remain consistent with the intent and goals of the Open Space Element of the General Plan (replaced in the November 5, 2025, General Plan update by the Conservation, Open Space, and Working Lands Element).
3. Summary of Appeal Point #3: The Appellant states that the subject trees are integral to the stability of the hill’s slope, and that their removal risks undermining the hill’s structural integrity, possibly leading to erosion or other long-term environmental issues, and indicates that County Code Section 814-2.206 (a) 5-7 requires maintaining “open hillsides and significant ridgelines in as near a natural state as is feasible as an important community value”.
Staff Response: The property owner has indicated to staff that the stumps and root systems of the subject trees will remain intact and in the ground which will provide continuing stability of the hillside. Therefore, it is not expected that there will be significant impact on the structural integrity of the sloping hillside due to erosion or other long-term environmental issues such as landslides. Regarding County Code Section 814-2.206(a), this paragraph is in the SD-1, Slope Density and Hillside Development Combining District (SD-1). The subject property is located within a P-1 Planned Unit District and is not located within a SD-1 Combining District. Therefore, the regulations of Chapter 814-2 for slope density and hillside development do not apply to the proposed project. Regardless, the approximately 8,400_square-foot area that the appellant has identified in their letter as “open space” or “hillside” is not considered a significant ridgeline. In addition, the project to install ground-mounted solar/PV panels would occupy approximately 1,200 square feet which would maintain the “open” hillside in as natural state as is feasible to provide solar power for an existing residence on the subject property.
4. Summary of Appeal Point #4: The Appellant states that the proposed project could be installed in alternative locations such as the roof of the residence that would not require the removal of the three code-protected oak trees.
Staff Response: Based on the application, site plan, and conversations with the applicant and property owner, the proposed location for the ground-mounted solar/PV system is the most suitable location. During a site visit on January 23, 2025, staff observed that the southern half of the property is mostly covered with mature trees. Thus, locating the PV system in the southern area of the property would require the alteration or removal of more than three trees. In addition, large redwood trees in or adjacent to the southern area of the property would hinder the normal operation of a ground-mount solar/PV system due to shading. The property owner and a representative for the applicant (Freedom Forever, a solar installation company), have indicated various reasons for not installing a rooftop solar/PV system, including the age of the roof and the need to make structural improvements to the residence for a solar installation and the roof design which would limit the number of panels or require panels facing different directions on more surface of the roof. In addition, several large redwood trees directly west and south of the residence would block sunlight to a rooftop installed PV system. Therefore, the proposed location for a ground-mounted solar system is the most suitable location. Finally, in tentatively approving the tree permit to allow removal of the three subject trees for the installation of the ground-mounted residential solar/PV system, the Zoning Administrator considered the factors for approval or denial of the tree permit and determined that reasonable development of the property would require the alteration or removal of the three subject trees and that the development could not be reasonably accommodated on another area of the lot.
5. Summary of appeal point #5: The appellant raises concerns about the project to install ground-mounted solar posing aesthetic impacts on the community .
Staff Response: Due to the location on the upper slope of the subject property, approximately 20 feet of elevation above Stone Valley Road, the proposed PV system would be marginally visible from the public right-of-way or from properties on the other side of Stone Valley Road. Staff visited the project site on January 23, 2025, and met with the property owner and the appellant. To address concerns about the project’s impact on aesthetic views, the property owner is proposing to install a 6-foot-tall wooden fence to enclose the PV system that would be surrounded by new red tip Photinia plants as required by their homeowner’s association (HOA) for screening. The project is similar to that of the adjacent property to the north which also has a wooden fence enclosing similar ground-mounted solar panels for their residential use. These measures, along with the existing row of sycamore trees along the Stone Valley Road right-of-way, will help reduce the project’s aesthetic impacts on the community.
6. Summary of appeal point #6: The applicant states that over 300 residents community were not given notice or the opportunity to weigh in on the project.
Staff Response: Pursuant to Section 816-6.8004 of the County’s Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance, a Notice of Tentative Approval of a Tree Permit was mailed out to adjacent property owners advising of the opportunity to file an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s tentative decision. With the receipt of an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision, a Notice of the County Planning Commission hearing has been mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property advising of the public hearing on the appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision as is required for public hearings. In addition, eleven members of the public who submitted comments after the appeal period for the Zoning Administrator’s tentative decision ended are included in the mailing list for the notice of public hearing.
VIII. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
After the noticing period for the Notice of Tentative Approval for this application ended, e-mail messages in support of the application were received from Mindy Cheng, who resides at 367 Bryan Drive, and from Marnie Collier, Executive Vice President of Common Interest Management Services for the Bryan Ranch HOA Board of Directors. In addition, e-mail messages in opposition to the application were received from Bob Oxenburgh who resides at 322 Golden Meadow Place, Larry Jacob who resides at 107 Golden Ridge Road, Sharon Gonsalves who resides at 138 Golden Ridge Road, Dana Weiler who resides at 1533 Emmons Canyon Drive, Daniel M. Gautsch who resides at 1821 Piedras Circle, Bruce Licht who resides at 511 Carleton Way, Joseph & Cathy Murphy who reside at 1349 Virginia Street, and Tony Kalliaras who resides at 1316 Virginia Street, all located in Alamo. Please refer to the attached correspondence for the details of their comments. Staff was also made aware of an online petition started in opposition to the project. Please refer to the attached copy of the online petition summary for details.
IX. STAFF ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION
A. 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. The SL land use designation allows between 1.0 and 2.9 single-family units per net acre on sites as large as 43,560 square feet in area. Generally, the primary land uses allowed in the SL designation include single-family residences and buildings and structures accessory to residential uses. The project proposes the installation of a ground-mounted solar/PV system for private, residential use on a lot developed with one single-family residence. Therefore, the solar/PV system will be an accessory use to the existing single-family residence on the property and is consistent with the SL General Plan land use designation.
B. Zoning: The subject property is located within a P-1 Planned Unit (P-1) District which is intended to allow for a diversification of uses, buildings, structures, lot sizes, and open space that is substantially consistent with the General Plan. All yard and height measurements on single-family residential lots within the subject P-1 zoning district are guided by standards of the R-15 zoning district pursuant to Condition of Approval #7 of Final Development Plan CDDP77-03011. Based on the R-15 zoning district standards, the P-1 requires a minimum 10-foot side yard width, a minimum 25-foot aggregate side yard width, a minimum 15-foot rear yard, a principal 25-foot front setback, and a secondary 15-foot front setback for corner lots of those with two frontages. The maximum allowed height limit for accessory buildings or structures is 15 feet. However, there is no maximum height limit for ground-mounted PV systems which require a minimum of five feet for the side and rear yards. Additionally, the subject property is not subject to a rear yard requirement due to having two street frontages. Regardless, the proposed ground-mounted PV system is designed to have an approximately 16-foot side yard from the northern property line, an approximately 93-foot side yard from the southwestern property line, and an approximately 32-foot secondary front setback from Stone Valley Road. Furthermore, the PV system ranges in height up to five feet above natural grade. There is no grading proposed that would additionally raise the height of the structure. Therefore, the proposed ground-mounted PV system more than meets the requirements for minimum side yard, aggregate side yard width, and front setback requirements.
If granted, the proposed tree permit would allow for the removal of a 10-inch blue oak tree, an 11-inch coast live oak tree, and a 14-inch valley oak tree from the subject property in order to install and operate the proposed ground-mounted solar/PV system for the residence. The County’s Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance (County Code Chapter 816-6) is intended to provide for the protection of trees on private property through restitution for tree removal while allowing for reasonable enjoyment of private property rights and development. The reasonable development of the subject property with a residential PV system requires the removal of the three subject trees. Therefore, staff believes the required findings exist to allow the proposed removal of the trees and, as conditioned, the proposed project is consistent with the County’s Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance.
C. Appropriateness of Use: The subject property is located within an established neighborhood that is primarily residential in use. The proposed improvements are residential in nature, and consistent with an accessory use on the property which has been established since 1979 and on other residential properties in the area. Since no element of the project changes the residential use of the site, it is an appropriate use for the property.
X. CONCLUSION
The proposed project to install a new ground-mounted solar/PV system for residential use is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan including the intent and purpose of the Single-Family Residential-Low Density (SL) General Plan land use designation. 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 County Planning Commission deny the appeal and approve County File #CDTP24-00064, based on the attached findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval.
Attachments:
A. Findings and Conditions of Approval
B. Appeal Letter
C. Public Comments
D. Maps (Assessor’s Parcel Map, General Plan, Zoning, Aerial)
E. Project Plans
F. Presentation Slides