Supervisors deny appeals, allow three oaks to be removed for residential ground‑mounted solar in Alamo after contested public hearing

The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on Oct. 21 denied appeals to a planning commission decision and approved a tree permit that allows the removal of three county‑protected oak trees to install a 673‑square‑foot ground‑mounted residential solar array at 19 J Court in the Alamo area.

The item reached the board after two separate appeals were filed following the planning commission’s approval. Appellants raised a range of concerns, including wildfire and defensible‑space risks, the contractor’s enforcement history, slope stability where the panels would sit, visual impacts for drivers and neighbors, and whether roof‑mounted solar or alternative placements had been adequately considered. Appellants urged the supervisors to require a full environmental review rather than a ministerial building permit process.

Applicant and project team response: the homeowners and their contractor explained they had obtained approval from their homeowners association and argued ground‑mounted solar was the most cost‑effective and technically viable option on the property given shading and the condition of an existing wood‑shake roof. The applicant and his architect said they had worked with the HOA and county staff, and that mitigation measures and design adjustments would limit visual and safety impacts.

Staff and legal context: county staff explained that state law (the Solar Rights Act and related statutes) limits local zoning authority over solar installations, meaning the county’s discretion concerns removal of code‑protected trees rather than denial of a solar installation outright. The board’s action therefore focused on the narrower question of whether removal of three protected oaks was justified under the tree permit standards (necessity for installation and lack of feasible alternatives). Building permits and building‑code requirements (including fire‑safety measures) remain prerequisites for any construction work; those building and fire requirements will be enforced by the county building and fire authorities at permit review.

Public comments and technical submissions: opponents provided an engineering memo citing slope‑stability concerns, a licensed biologist’s comments about habitat and wildlife risks, and documented citations against the contractor cited in the record; proponents supplied cost comparisons showing conversion to a roof system would increase costs for the homeowner and argued the contractor’s administrative settlement with the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB) involves compliance conditions rather than a license revocation. County staff emphasized that building permits, fire code compliance and contractor licensing are handled through the building division and the CSLB.

Board action and outcome: following testimony and rebuttal, the board voted unanimously to deny the appeals and approve the tree permit to remove three oak trees to allow the ground‑mounted system, with conditions that apply at the building permit stage. The vote record indicates unanimous approval; the action does not itself permit construction until building and electrical permits — which include fire code review and site‑specific requirements (setbacks, defensible space, noncombustible bases under arrays, etc.) — are approved.

Ending: opponents said they would continue to press concerns about safety and slope stability at the building permit review and in ongoing monitoring; the homeowner may proceed with permit applications subject to the county’s building and fire requirements.