Asserting a property owner’s general right to build on his or her land, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors this week denied appeals by two homeowners in the unincorporated community of Saranap of tree removal
permits earlier granted to owners of a neighboring parcel.
Twenty-two trees, most notably two large oaks that neighbors wanted preserved for stabilizing a hillside and for their beauty, can come down, with the supervisors’ unanimous rejection on Tuesday of the appeal of the county Planning Commission’s recent approval of the tree removal permits.
The residents and their arborists and attorneys had argued that removal of the two largest trees, in particular, would damage the sloped property they’re on, cause drainage problems, hamper neighborhood views and
lower property values.
In fact, neighbors said the 2,527-square-foot house planned by Tambri Heyden and David Montalbo was too tall for this neighborhood between the cities of Walnut Creek and Lafayette.
“I have a hard time understanding how my view is going to be improved,” said West Newell Avenue resident Bronwyn Shone, who filed one of two appeals of the county Planning Commission’s earlier approval of the tree
removal permit. “How is my property value going to be improved by having an oversized house added to the area?”
Several Saranap neighbors told the supervisors they believe the proposed new house was too big, and that losing the trees — especially the two big oaks — would hamper views and affect trees on their own nearby properties.
Saranap neighbor William Schultz, who with Patricia Mcgregor co-authored the other appeal, said the new house is opposed by the Saranap Homeowners Association and the California Wildlife Foundation.
Oakland resident Mary Thiessen told the supervisors on Tuesday that Heyden and Montalbo were not good neighbors when, several years ago, they built a house above Skyline Boulevard in Oakland.
“I’m here to attest to the harassment, stress and deliberately removing protected plant species, working beyond the scope of their permits, expired permits … yet they stated many times this would be their ‘forever home,'” Thiessen said. “But they never wanted to have friends, or be friendly, with any of us. In fact, it was more like harassment and torture throughout two and a half years.”
In the new house’s defense, Heyden asserted to the supervisors that she and Montalbo installed a hydrant on their property, increasing fire safety in the entire area, and established “bioswales,” groupings of plants that slow and capture rainwater runoff.
But the supervisors ultimately said Heyden and Montalvo have the right to build on their property, and that specific requirements like how or if trees should be removed have already been vetted.
“The reality is that … even if every single issue that was stated is true, that still is not grounds for us to deny someone’s building permit,” said Supervisor Candace Andersen of Danville.
She represents the Saranap area on the board, and said Tuesday she has spent more time doing field work on this one house than on many larger housing projects.
Supervisor John Gioia of Richmond echoed the sentiment that property owners generally have the right to build, and can take reasonable measures to do so.
Gioia said that even in Kensington, the only area of Contra Costa County with a “view ordinance” that gives residents’ visual view area a degree of protection, even that ordinance preserves a landowner’s right to
build — but with consideration of their neighbors’ views.
“It’s not that the neighbors next to it have a permanent right to look out and enjoy their view, versus a right to build a home,” Gioia said. “A different example, but the same kind of situation.”
18 comments
If you want to control what changes you feel should or should not be made on a property then buy the property.
If removing the trees destabilizes the hillside, then it becomes a problem for the neighbors. This is a case of the property owners wanting to control the lives of their neighbors, not the other way around.
In the video of the supervisor meeting, the applicants are particularly hostile towards the neighborhood, threatening that a neighbor has to remove their driveway, and threatening to remove a protected public easement trail that leads up the hillside. Everything about their presentation was non-neighborly. They obviously have no plans to live in the area. They will sell the house, not tell the buyers about the unstable hillside, and move on to their next real-estate scam.
Natalie,
I’d bet money that trees had to be removed to build all the neighbors’ houses. Funny, they aren’t complaining about that.
Chicken Little,
The difference is that the older homes weren’t on a slope. You can look on Google maps. The land in question is on substantially different terrain that the homes leading up to it. The neighbors are concerned that taking out the trees on the slope will destabilize the hill. For the homes closest to the hillside, there are trees in the backyards and on the hillside further up. The other homes were integrated into the landscape and the surrounding environment. This new project would alter the landscape more drastically that the other homes did. The other houses are also normal sized houses, not massive mansions that take up the entire lot, so they could integrate trees into the landscaping.
maybe the board of supervisors needs to be changed
If it is within the law, the supes have no power to reverse the decision.
So, if change is the key, and it is, it is not the sues, but the laws… Those need up dating.
Take em to court. Get a real attorney. And not one of those periwinkle fiends.
The trees give fresh air and protection from UV and excessive solar radiation. You can always build on any parcel fit for use. Let alone the wind protection provided which is invaluable as well. They calm the world and provide peace and serenity. Trees filter the polluted atmosphere, provide necessary shade in a ruthless hostile climate, providing a comfortable ambience. And of course the excessive noise pollution PROBLEM is hindered as well.
WC Resident you are clueless on the meaning of the term Good Neighbor!
And of course Obviously the Supervisors themselves lack Supervision and accountability. The end.
Hopefully the coalition will get a lawyer and stop the development.
I don’t understand people who move into a wooded area, then the first thing they do is remove the woods. If I had the money for a property like that, I’d build a tiny simple cabin and live in peace with the trees and the birds. These people have no intentions of being Good Neighbors.
WC Resident wasn’t attempting to define good neighbor. And I’m pretty sure that meeting your definition of being a good neighbor isn’t a prerequisite for ownership of property.
And Natalie, if that was your property, you would be able to build your tiny simple cabin and live as you please.
Right of Ownership and the ability to encumber an entire neighborhood are completely different.
Even more so if you are not a resident.
Most government organizations classify large oaks
like those mentioned as Heritage Trees. Good luck
getting a permit to cut one down if you have one
growing on the property where you live.
Sorry to see the Heritage Oaks cut down, but the fine is just over one thousand dollars. No but deal when you are building million dollar houses. Just look at the Crystal Ranch Tree Killers, dozens were bulldozed the night of the fourth of July and there was very little uproar.
Sometimes it is easier and cheaper to simply pay the fee/fine. I never understood than until you get to California.
Same with trash, couldn’t figure out why so much is on the side of the road here, until you see that it costs money (and a lot of money) to take it to the dump. That was a rude awakening if you have a mattress. Now I understand why.
Property rights have legal status over nimby whining. While oak trees are pretty they are also dangerous, they are known as widow makers. If the neighbors/neighborhood wanted to preserve the trees they should have purchased the property and made it a private park. They could maintain it and pay the taxes on it.
There are a few facts that the journalist got wrong here but the one that jumps out to me the most is the size of the proposed build. It’s not 2,527 sq ft, it’s 3,493. That’s 46% larger than the largest home on West Newell Ave, and 50% larger than the average home size. The applicants argued that there is a larger home on West Newell Ave but that house has its own long private driveway and is set far back from the street. It is also screened by trees.
The points about property value going down were in response to Planning Staff’s defense of upholding the approval to cut down the trees by arguing that a new build usually increases property value for the neighbors.
ON DA –
The entire BOS (board of supes) needs to be overhauled! For goodness sakes…when are folks going to get serious about new candidates? Fresh blood, perspective and intelligent voices need to consider getting involved in our local politics. Our communities need to be better represented for our current residents, concerns and the future of our county. Even for one round!
(and yes, I’m considering throwing my hat in the ring as well…not what I want to be doing in life, however I intend to stay in this county and would like a better representation of our needs than what I have seen/experienced over the last 10 years)
No they are fine and work within the parameters.
The True Homeowner’s and Association will simply have to start the process again. Even file an Injunction in District Court to halt the Tree Murderers. And they will have to again start the relative process again at a future date in another appropriate venue where the systematic torcher fiends have their day corrected date in Court. .Last I heard torcher IS against the Law.
Comments are closed.