Proposed restrictions on residential hillside development are
unnecessary, violate constitutional rights of landowners and
reflect fanatical environmentalism.
The recent proposal before the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors placing additional restrictions on residential hillside development in South County is not only unnecessary but reflective of an elitist point of view.
The driving force behind the latest set of hillside restrictions before county planners is fanatical diehard environmentalism. The emotional and irrational side of environmental activism has crossed the line on this issue.
The new set of zoning policies, drafted by county planners during the last year per the board of supervisors’ request to make hillside homes more cosmetically appealing, would apply to 3,300 parcels in South County. These new policies, if adopted Tuesday by the board, would insult the intelligence and integrity of those who worked hard to secure their land.
In adopting additional hillside development guidelines that attempt to control the color and the types of vegetation allowed on these properties we run the risk of over-regulating issues that don’t need additional regulating. We also open the door for extreme views that never allow for concession and almost always bring unnecessary expenses.
The proposed restrictions seem redundant in light of a controversial Nov. 7 ballot initiative that will reduce the number of homes that could be built on county hillsides from eight per 160 acres to no more than four. That measure is now being challenged in court. We believe both efforts will result in lawsuits that will burden the county’s already stressed finances for years to come.
Also, in an effort to be fair, county planners will be forced to probably hear requests by owners of hillside land, hurt by the additional “viewshed” rules, to consider drafting regulations on residential development in the valley.
We agree with Santa Clara County Supervisor Don Gage that the additional restrictions are unfair to the landowners. We also believe the regulations will make it difficult for them to build on the hillsides and make a profit if they choose to sell the land.
While we agree, to a certain extent, that regulations are necessary to protect the environment and the surrounding aesthetics, we don’t agree in overly limiting what property owners can do with their land, be it on the hillsides or on the valley floor.
We believe the current regulations are enough to control the size and types of homes and mansions built on the hillsides and that enough visibility analysis are conducted for the benefit of those down below.
County supervisors will always, we’re sure, tell developers and landowners who want to build ridiculously large homes on the hills that they need to reconsider their plans.
Many owners of viewshed land are responsible stewards of the environment. A look at homes nestled along Llagas Creek and Castle Hills show these owners are keeping their properties clean, attractive and landscaped with California native plants and being environment friendly.
The proposed restrictions on residential hillside development are unnecessary, violate constitutional rights of landowners and reflect fanatical environmentalism.
