|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
San Francisco Chronicle In ancient times, potentates built their castles on hills and mountains -- the better to gaze down upon their subjects while enjoying the view. Hills were also more easily defended. Today with a price-is-no-object
attitude, hilltops and areas just below them are being viewed more than ever as prime perches for mansions occupied by masters of the Internet and commerce, men and women who have fought their way to their rightful places at the
top of the Bay Area heap. But in places like Tassajara Valley in Contra Costa County and the Stanford University lands in the foothills above the campus, environmentalists and planners are marching to the mountaintops to
do battle. Ridgetops -- hills, knolls, mountains -- will be defended, they vow, against encroachment of any kind. In the past year, voters and local agencies have had increasing success in approving tighter zoning laws,
making it more difficult than ever to build on the ridgelines. Last fall, several urban growth measures passed handily around the Bay Area were directed, in part, at protecting ridgelines, and several more measures are in the
works. Still, ridges are under assault as never before. "Probably the biggest single threat in the Bay Area now for ridges is someone who has an awful lot of money and doesn't care about the cost of getting water
or roads to the top," said John Woodbury, director of the Bay Area Open Space Council. The money now is in huge trophy homes on ridges, not tract housing, Woodbury said. It is not uncommon, he said, for someone with
deep pockets to buy huge parcels of ridgeline property, sometimes as much as 100 to 500 acres, for the sole purpose of putting up their stately pleasure dome -- surrounded by defensible space for privacy. Builders argue
that they are constructing much-needed housing and the choices in sites shrink further every year. Locating housing on land that is perfectly flat, they say, becomes more difficult every year. But for those who hate the
idea of buildings sprouting on ridgelines, it is an affront to nature, akin to cutting a full-grown redwood tree in half, or perhaps even damming a river. And for environmentalists, more often than not, what is breaking up the
beauty of the natural line is itself very ugly -- often a very large mansion, painted some "searchlight" color, like white or pink. "Look what has happened to the tops of hills in places like Los Altos Hills,
where they seem to love to build great, big excrescences, those Tudor things sticking out of the hills," said Lennie Roberts, a legislative lobbyist for the influential Committee for Green Foothills, an organization
started in the mid-1960s to save Palo Alto's foothills from development. "Houses nowadays are expressions of wealth primarily. They are not modest. So part of that thinking is the more prominent the house, the more it makes
a statement about how important the person is who lives inside." Ridgetop protectors and local governmental agencies insist that they are fighting to prevent history from repeating itself. They point to hilltops
around places like Daly City, Pacifica, Fremont, Crockett and, of course, San Francisco and San Jose, where hills seem to roll endlessly with housing tracts --and, more recently, with trophy houses exhibiting several
thousand feet of floor space. In Contra Costa's Gale Ranch, a housing development in Dougherty Valley, hundreds of very large homes are nearing completion covering the hillsides east of San Ramon. Many of these homes have
floor plans exceeding several thousand square feet, said Evelyn Stivers, East Bay representative for the Greenbelt Alliance. Just last month in northern Santa Cruz County, the California Coastal Commission approved plans
for a 15,000-square-foot Gothic Revival mansion in the hills overlooking Ano Nuevo State Reserve, subject to several conditions. These included limiting the amount of environmentally sensitive land that can be disturbed and
lowering the height of the mansion from 51 feet to about 41 feet. Seth Adams, director of the Lands Program for Save Mount Diablo, said those who insist on developing on the hills display arrogance in the face of the
common good. "The big question is: Do you provide views to everyone or to a few who can afford a big, expensive house . . . and impact everyone down below both in terms of losing the natural view and also running the risks
of landslides?" Adams' organization has worked for more than 30 years to protect ridgelines around Mount Diablo and the mountain itself and, he says, it has been largely successful. Over the past decade, protections
have been strengthened, but at the same time, enforcement has been low, largely because of local agencies, particularly at the county level. Adams said some developers have even been able to successfully argue that
ridgeline protection does not mean not building on it -- this, despite the fact that in places like Tassajara Valley in Contra Costa County, where 1,287 homes are planned, many ridgetops would be flattened or truncated to
accommodate buildings. "Ridgeline development is a sign of the times," Adams said. "Modern engineering can now develop areas that weren't developable before. A lot of hilltops that were undevelopable are because
of massive grading, and new techniques to stabilize the site with pilings." For builders, the intensified vigilence by environmentalists is nothing less than a campaign to halt development of badly needed houses --
large or small -- anywhere this side of the Central Valley. "Sure, we are seeing a proliferation of protection efforts for ridgelines, but I think . . . it is an attempt to thwart housing in general," said Phil Serna,
vice president of government affairs for the Homebuilders Association of Northern California. "Anecdotally, I can tell you that a lot of builders go out of their way to work with cities to ameliorate their concerns. There
is general misconception that home builders are eager to grade anything, that they're grade-happy and want to just bring down a hill." Others suggest that ridgeline defenders may be a tad jealous. "A lot of
these groups are envious of a lot of successful people who worked hard and hit it right," said Ed Abelite, a board member of the Homebuilders Association. "Some of these successful people tend to like living up on the
hill. Some people resent that. There are groups who think all people should live on the valley floor. That's socialism, and that doesn't work." While local government planners understand well the drive behind building
high up, many worry about how it affects the bottom line, the region's economy. In Napa County, a so-called "viewshed ordinance" is expected to be considered sometime this spring. The proposed restriction would
put some limits on what can be built on the hills surrounding the wine country, and where. "It is not about not allowing buildings to be built, but how buildings should be sited and designed," said Jeffrey Redding,
Napa County's planning director, who drafted the ordinance. "People come to visit us not only because of the wine industry but because we are rural," Redding said. "We want people to be able to enjoy the ridgeline
views from the roadways and continue to spend money here. Right now, we have no regulations at all that protect views -- the evidence of that can easily be seen by anyone who comes here and looks around at the hilltops."
Environmentalists hope that the ordinance will effectively bring an end to building on nearly any ridgeline in Napa County. "Just one big, ugly home site can really obstruct an entire hillside," said John
Hoffnagle, executive director for the Land Trust of Napa County. "Most people here are strongly in favor of this new ordinance and, if it passes, we think we are pretty much done with home building in Napa County on
hilltops." At Stanford University, environmentalists and Santa Clara County planners were successful in persuading the university to keep development out of the treasured foothills west of the campus for at least the
next 25 years. In exchange for agreeing to a series of new safeguards to protect the foothills west of Junipero Serra Boulevard, the county in November gave Stanford officials the green light for a major new building boom.
At the same time, however, a Stanford development plan approved by the county Board of Supervisors kept open the university's options after 25 years to build in the nearby hills, which environmentalists have sought to maintain as
permanent open space. In Marin County, ridgelines are valued not only for aesthetic reasons but are considered part of the natural fabric of the entire region. "Our first priority is the ridgelines because they
help define towns and separate communities," said Frances Brigmann, general manager of Marin County's Open Space District and the county parks director. "Also, they have a number of natural characteristics that make them
desirable for open space, with their woodlands and oak savannahs. People like to walk on trails across ridgelines where they can see for themselves how towns are separated by these ridges." But no one believes that
the battle for ridgelines will be over anytime soon. Builders continue to covet the rolling hills south of San Jose, east of Interstate 680 and north to the Wine Country. "We will still have to develop in the outer edges of
the Bay Area, and there is going to be continuing intense pressure on local governments to find and zone and plan for housing on whatever land is vacant," said Eric Hasseltine, a consultant for developers and a former Contra
Costa supervisor. "Eventually, these hilltop areas will have to come under consideration. "People are kidding themselves if they think they can pass laws to prohibit people from coming here. You don't solve traffic
problems by prohibiting housing. Nobody is driving a house down the road." Ridgeline DevelopmentSome of the major developments taking place on ridgelines around the Bay AreaSome ridgeline controls that are being considered or have recently been approved.Contra Costa CountyGale Ranch: Hundreds of large homes are nearing completion in Dougherty Valley east of San Ramon. Tassajara Valley: Some 1,287 homes are planned..Napa CountyWine Country: A so-called ńviewshed ordinanceî is expected to be considered sometime this spring. The proposed restriction seeks to put some limits on what can be built on the hills surrounding the wine country..Santa Clara CountyStanford University: The university agreed in November to keep development out of the foothills west of campus for at least 25 years in exchange for permission to go ahead with a new building boom on campus..Santa Cruz CountyAno Reserve: A 15,000-square-foot Gothic Revival mansion, approved by the California Coastal Commission, is planned in the hills overlooking Ano Nuevo State Reserve Page last updated November 4, 2001. |
|
|
|
||||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
