PG and E and Your Trees

 Watch out. PG and E has been out and about in our neighborhoods, purportedly clearing tree limbs from power lines. Watch out they don't get too chop happy with those chain saws. Read this cautionary tale:

COLIN ATAGI

THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

 A Cloverdale woman contends Pacific, Gas & Electric, Co. crews trespassed onto her mother’s property in 2021 and cut down "scores“ of trees worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to a lawsuit filed earlier this month in Sonoma County Superior Court.

The eight-page complaint, filed June 14 by Arlene Kock, alleges PG&E workers removed 48 mature oak trees, some that were more than 100 years old, from her mother’s property along Dutcher Creek Road.

Kock, who said she had the timber appraised by an arborist, added that the trees were valued at $212,600.

Kock’s mother died in early 2022 at the age of 99.

The daughter has since taken ownership and is accusing PG&E of wrongfully removing trees that were on private property.

Besides claiming inverse condemnation, or compensation for damages to private property, which were performed for public use, Kock is also seeking damages for alleged trespassing and for interfering with the enjoyment of her property.

The home is in a rural area. Utility lines stretch along Dutcher Creek Road but crews went beyond the public right of way to remove trees, said Kock’s attorney, Elizabeth Brekhus.

“There was just a lot of trees cut on the property and they were very far from (utility) lines, so there was no justification for that,” Brekhus said.

She said PG&E has been unresponsive to her client’s concerns.

A PG&E spokesperson, Angela Lombardi, told The Press Democrat that she has not seen the lawsuit and there could not comment.

According to PG&E’s website, it is required by the state to maintain utility lines and keep them free of hazards. Under this requirement, its crews do not need property owners’ permission to prune trees.

Hazardous trees are removed if they can’t be pruned effectively and large pieces of wood are supposed to be left behind for property owners to use or throw away.

In the months after the North Bay firestorm that ravaged this region in 2017, PG&E crews began removing thousands of charred trees that threatened utility lines across its service area.

Tree and vegetation management have since been among PG&E’s key approaches to preventing wildfires and power outages. Even so, excessive tree removal has been frowned upon by residents.

Kock’s lawsuit contends crews with six large trucks parked along the property’s private roadway without permission on Oct. 22, 2021.

They left after being confronted by the plaintiff but caused damage to the roadway, according to the lawsuit.

Kock also contends the workers returned over the following week without notice or consent and “intentionally and willfully” cut down trees on the property.

Some of the logs were placed into a nearby creek bed and damaged a cement dam structure.

Kock said she contacted a PG&E contractor and agreed to allow one vehicle to access the property for brush and tree trimming near the utility lines.

In November, she found another round of tree removal had taken place and crews hauled away a “substantial portion of the cut lumber,” according to the lawsuit.

Most trees were nowhere near power lines and “exceeded any need that PG&E could have to trim and clear limbs or trees from a reasonable distance from power lines,” Kock claims in the lawsuit.

She also alleges damage to the roadway, stream bed and dam and that shade and natural environmental benefits also were lost by the tree removal.

“The loss of these trees has affected the natural beauty of plaintiffs land and deprived plaintiff of the enhanced property value derived from such trees, the lawsuit states.

More Housing Doesn't Mean More Affordable Housng

Everyone says we need more housing, right, left and center. For years now, we have talked about infill, transit oriented development, workforce housing. The idea being that more workers in essential jobs, teachers, nurses, firefighters, even store clerks and servers, would be able to live closer to where they work. Or if not closer, they can hop on the train, the bus, Bart, AC Transit or whatever mode of transportation they are living next to. This all sounds good. In reality, the housing proposals that get submitted and approved, are mostly developer driven. Every day in the local news, you see phrases like "pencil out" "financially feasible" and the like.

This means that the developers need to keep their profit margin high. This is their business after all, building things, bigger and more, and keeping the shareholders happy. So they get density bonuses, the municipalities lower the number of "affordable" units they must include in the project. The terms "market rate" and "below market" are thrown around.

But what does that mean? If market rate is X, is below market rate $1 below X? And every day you read about neighborhoods being gutted, local control being taken away, mobile home parks where poor people have lived for decades uprooted, sending more and more folks into their cars, tents or just out on the street.

And gentrification. Because people do not move into high rise buildings to have homeless encampments next door. Or corner barber shops. They want high end retail and gourmet food outlets. 

Those who get booted out are lucky to get to double or triple up with roommates in an overcrowded over priced rental. Small businesses that get the shaft have nowhere to go. Rents are high. Until there's a crash and it starts all over again.

There must be a better way. Cities, towns, counties and non-profits must step up. Say No to big developers and start working with the communities who need housing first before building high end housing. This would probably mean land purchases, land that has had its "value" inflated by constant flipping and building. We can start by only allowing truly non-profit housing groups like Habitat for Humanity and others to build. To allow co-housing so that small groups of people can live in smaller homes with communal spaces. Institute real rent control. Pressure the legislature to repeal Costa Hawkins. Protect mobile home parks. And put caps on profits of sales of land, to stop the outflow of communities of color and the gentrification that comes with development.

Next time, case studies. There are many.

Trees and Views

So, you bought you beautiful new home for the views of the City, the Bay, the hills beyond and now, a few years down the road, your neighbor has let his scraggly pines grow right into your view. What can you do? If you live in a town with a view ordinance, you may be able to do a lot. Most view ordinances allow you to retain the view you had when you moved in. Have you documented it? Photos of the view, which you must have taken when you fell in love with the property, can help immensely when proving you have a case, whether in court, mediation or in front of a "tree committee."

First, know the rules. Does your town have an ordinance? in Marin, Belvedere, Tiburon, Sausalito and Corte Madera do, these are the towns with the best views (water, bridges, city skyline mostly) and the often the highest home costs. However, even if you don't live in one of those communities, your homeowners' association may have rules for trees and views. Check your local ordinances and your CCRs (if you have them), to be sure.

Then talk to your neighbor about the issue. Will he allow you to trim for your view? If not, you may need a good land use lawyer, specializing in tree law. It is a specialty, one that depends a lot of good expert help from a consulting arborist. Make sure you use a good one if you have the situation evaluated before hiring that attorney. In any event, a good consulting arborist (not just a certified arborist), can help you decide your course of action, even if he's not allowed on the neighbor's property to assess the trees themselves. Looking at the view, the growth patters over the years (this is where the photos help), and other factors give your arborist a good method of assessing the situation to be able to help you talking to the neighbor, working with the tree committee, mediating the situation or in court if all else fails.

Time to give those trees of yours a good going over before the rainy season sets in. With a drought still on, many will be very stressed. Also, are they fire safe, limbed up, dead wood taken out? Do you have defensible space around your home? Do you know where your evacuation route are in case of fire or other disaster? Is there a rapid response warning system in place?

Know how to stay safe in your home, and keep your yard as defensible as you can.

Review information from FireSafe Marin if you are in the County. It's good information for anyone. http://www.firesafemarin.org/

Tis the Season - for Falling Trees

It's that season, late spring rains trying to catch up for lack of earlier rains. El Nino is in full swing. That means the creeks rise and the trees fall. Here's a latest story in the Press Democrat of a near miss in Guerneville. Do you know how well rooted your trees are in this weather?

Read the story by clicking here:

Falling fir tree's branches smash into 2 Guerneville homes

 

Good Call on CEQA in Noise case

This is a good case for protectors of neighborhoods' peace and quiet. Although the authoes suggest it might have been wrongly decided (They don't support strong CEQA protections it seems), we thik this is a good call. Upholds the recognition that neighbors' testimony is relevant. States that even allowed decibel levels may be too much.

 Reprinted from http://www.martenlaw.com/updates/mitigated-negative-declaration-rejected

Fourth District Court of Appeal Rejects Use of Mitigated Negative Declaration

June 10, 2015

On May 7, 2015, California’s Fourth District Court of Appeals published an opinion rejecting the use of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for a special events permit on the basis of contrary noise and traffic impact testimony from neighbors.
The decision, Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara, construes the “fair argument” standard favorably with regard to lay testimony and underscores the risks inherent in pursuing an MND in contentious circumstances.

Lay (and Other) Testimony Under the “Fair Argument” Standard

Much of the Keep Our Mountains Quiet decision concerned the question of whether resident testimony regarding the potential noise and traffic effects of a permit for a previously unauthorized special events use (e.g., weddings) constituted substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project would result in significant impacts, thereby requiring an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) instead of an MND.

The court first held that a project’s noise effects can be significant even if they do not exceed local noise standards. The court also read the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G significance thresholds to conclude that a lead agency should consider the increase in ambient noise levels caused by a project as well as the absolute noise levels it generates.

Thus, even if the county could show the special events in question would comply with local, absolute noise standards after mitigation, an EIR could still be required if noise testimony from neighboring residents constituted substantial evidence in support of a fair argument that a significant increase in ambient noise levels may occur.

In this particular instance, the court deemed the noise testimony of a neighboring couple to be substantial evidence in support of a fair argument because they could hear “pounding music” from a wedding held before the permit was issued. The court drew a similar conclusion regarding crowd noise claims. A study indicating noise may have negative effects on wild animals in an adjacent open space preserve also constituted substantial evidence that the project might have a significant impact on biological resources when considered in conjunction with observed noise levels at the property line.

The court held that the record contained substantial evidence in support of a fair argument that the project would result in significant traffic impacts, as well. Neighbors and a hired expert observed that a road providing access to the property was in some places much narrower than normally required, lacked improved shoulders and contained more than 30 blind curves. While the road was well below capacity, the project would more than double traffic during operations. Finally, while Caltrans ultimately concluded the project would not pose a significant traffic or road safety impact, its own safety review revealed an accident history twice that of the statewide average.

Attorney Fees

The last section of the Court of Appeal’s opinion addressed the trial court’s disposition of the petitioner’s attorney fee claim. Consistent with the recent decision in SOURCE v. County of San Bernardino, the opinion further reinforces the principle that the assessment of fees by a lower court will not be overturned in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. (For a more detailed discussion of the SOURCE decision, see our April 17, 2015 CEQA Update).

Conclusion

Keep Our Mountains Quiet is generous in its interpretation of the “fair argument” standard, so much so that it raises the question of whether it would require an EIR of any construction project in the vicinity of a quiet neighborhood, regardless of whether such noise levels were allowed under local regulations.

A solution may lie in an area where the opinion is weakest, specifically, in its failure to consider what exactly may constitute a “substantial” (and therefore significant) increase in ambient noise or traffic hazards, a determination which CEQA leaves to the lead agency’s discretion when defining thresholds of significance. The opinion does not consider whether hearing “pounding music” exceeded the threshold of significance applied by the county; nor, with regard to potential noise impacts on wild animals, does it observe that the Appendix G thresholds concern special status species only, at the species level. By using their discretion to clearly define significance thresholds (rather than just relying on Appendix G), lead agencies could make it easier for the courts (and all others involved) to see whether an MND is appropriate.

That said, to the extent lead agencies do rely directly on the thresholds suggested in Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines, Keep Our Mountains Quiet correctly distinguishes between increases in ambient noise levels and compliance with local noise standards, which Appendix G calls out separately.

But perhaps all of this might have been avoided. The facts of the case raise the question of whether the court or any of the parties considered the environmental baseline, which must include unauthorized as well as authorized activities. Here, the baseline appears to have included the same unauthorized activities that the permit triggering CEQA review sought to regulate. This suggests little, if any change to the existing physical environment may have been in play, which in turn suggests an MND may not have been inappropriate after all.

Developers Strike Again - Destroy Historic Oaks

This in the L.A. Times. So far, the trees have lost, once again. Neighbors rise up and take action:

Sullivan Canyon neighbors sue over hillside homes

By (L.A. Times) 

 

Sullivan Canyon homeowners are suing to prevent construction of two hillside homes on a 12-acre property.

 

Residents of bucolic Sullivan Canyon in Brentwood have filed a suit against the city of Los Angeles, contending that officials violated state and local laws in approving plans to remove dozens of protected live oak and sycamore trees and build two 15,000- square-foot houses on a 12-acre hillside property at the end of Old Ranch Road.

Sullivan Canyon has been nominated for the California Register of Historical Resources. Old Ranch Road, which winds through the canyon, is a rare equestrian pocket of Los Angeles, where corrals line the tree-shaded street and rustic wooden signs warn of "Horses & Children at Play." The area boasts several midcentury ranch homes designed by noted architect Cliff May.

Residents were unaware of the construction plans, the lawsuit alleges, until late September, when bulldozers began knocking down old oak and sycamore trees. The suit's backers — including Barbara Williams, the wife of political activist Tom Hayden, and the Sullivan Canyon Property Owners Assn. — say that the city failed to follow rules limiting hillside building, examine potentially harmful environmental effects under California law and notify neighbors about the project and its scope.
Among agencies named were the Department of City Planning, the Department of Building and Safety and the Board of Public Works, which approved the tree removal. The Los Angeles city attorney's office said it had not yet seen the complaint, which was filed Wednesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The lawsuit alleges that the project has already damaged Sullivan Canyon Creek and will require the grading and filling of 166,000 cubic yards of dirt on the surrounding hillsides — enough "to bury a football field 33 feet deep, including the end zones."

The suit asks the court to withdraw the tree removal and building permits and to require the developers to prepare an environmental impact report and comply with the city's latest rules for hillside building.

"The lawsuit is about constitutional due process rights for the community," said Sara Nichols, a plaintiff who lives on Old Ranch Road.

Fred Gaines, an attorney who represents the real estate partnerships that own the site, said he had not yet seen the lawsuit, but added: "We're confident that the permits will be upheld.... These are some of Los Angeles' wealthiest residents trying to stop someone from having a house right next door to theirs." He said he did not know who would live in the houses.

Councilman Mike Bonin said the tree removal "demonstrated a lot of holes in the city's process." He has introduced a motion to tighten rules about public notice in cases in which old-growth trees in sensitive habitat areas are at stake. "This is a significant project that has caused serious environmental impacts," he told building and safety commissioners at a recent meeting. If the project is allowed to continue, he said, it "threatens to cause additional damage to this hillside neighborhood and its residents."

martha.groves@latimes.com

Look Down before Chopping Down a Tree!

Here is an important, and in this case, costly, rule about trees in California. If the tree has any portion of the trunk on your neighbor's property, you may not remove it or damage it without permission. It is a jointly owned and you can be out a bundle for not looking DOWN as well as up to see where the trunk comes out of the ground.

Reprinted from a legal website in Los Angeles, 2012.

In a most interesting case published by the California Court of Appeal on August 29, 2012, the Court determined that a neighbor who cut down a single 70 foot tall Aleppo Pine tree straddling the boundary line between two properties was liable to the adjacent owner for $107,256.00!
The facts of the Kallis vs. Sones decision are straightforward.  Kallis bought his Los Angeles property in 1955.  His next door neighbor, Sones, purchased his lot in 1977.

The Pine tree likely started growing on one side of the line or the other, the expert witnesses believed.  Over the years, however, as the tree grew and the trunk widened, the tree’s trunk came to straddle the line.  Nothing unusual there.

What made the tree abnormal is that a few feet up from its base, the trunk split into two separate, but still large trunks.  One of those trunks grew over the Kallis property and the other grew over the Sones property.   Each trunk supported a fully developed system of branches and limbs above it.
The secondary trunks were distinct and far enough apart even at their bases to allow room for a metal property line fence to run up and through the crotch of the tree.

In 2008, Sones, who became concerned that the tree could topple and cause damage, hired a worker to cut it down.  However, instead of just severing the portion of the tree on the Sones side of the property line, the laborer sawed off both of the secondary trunks, leaving just a large stump in the ground.  From that remaining stump, one could clearly see where each secondary trunk originated and how large it was at the base.  In fact, both secondary trunks measured about 23 inches in diameter.

Also, about 59% of the trunk was on the Sones’ side, whereas 41% was of the trunk was on the Kallis side.

In 2009, Kallis sued Sones for wrongful cutting and removal of the timber.

At trial, Sones admitted to cutting the tree, but argued that he should only be responsible for 41% of the total value of the tree since Sones owned the other 59%.  Perhaps that made sense, but it did not persuade the judge.

At trial, the Court found that the cost to replace the tree was $53,628.  It then doubled the amount (as allowed pursuant to California Civil Code §3346), and entered judgment against Sones for a whopping $107,256!

Sones appealed, but the Court of Appeal affirmed the Court’s ruling.  The appellate court determined that there were two alternate measures of damage that the trial court could have assessed:

•    The cost to replace the tree; and
•    The reduction in the market value of Kallis’ property after the tree was cut as compared with the value of the property before it was cut.

Because the trial judge had found that Kallis was likely to replant a tree similar in kind to the one Sones destroyed, the appellate Justices upheld the “cost of replacement” measure of damages as the proper approach.  (The diminution of the value of the real property probably would have been less than the replacement cost of the tree.  Had the property been on the market for sale, it is likely that Kallis would have only received damages equal to the reduction in the value of his property.)

What you can learn from the Kallis vs. Sones case is that before you chop down a tree (or hire someone to do it for you), be certain that it is entirely on your own property.  In that regard, it would be wise to obtain a survey plotting the location of the tree if you have any doubt as to which side of the property line the trunk is located.

Sometimes a Tree is Just a Tree

You all know the old adage, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," not a you know, another thing.

Well, the same can be true with trees. Yes, often what is going on when neighbors get into bitter battles over trees and views, or trees dropping leaves and sticks in their pool, or trees casting shadows, or just being a pain in the tuchas, they really have an ax to grind over something more than that. The neighbor's kid beat out their kid for a slot on the soccer team; their house is bigger, more expensive, better situated, or their big car sticks into the neighbor's parking space.

Sometimes, they just don't like them, period, no reason. Too loud, too fat, too untidy, etc.

Trees are substantial. Trees you can sue over. And so people often do.

But sometimes a tree is just a tree and when two neighbors get into it over the trees, they are really fighting over trees. And views. a lot of times it's the view, the one the tree is blocking. The one you used to have, or are pretty sure you used to have of the Bay, the hills, the river. But now there is nothing to see but that big ugly tree.

But stop and think. Talk to the neighbor. Go to mediation. Try to reach a compromise before a dispute over a tree turns into a whole other kind of cigar. 

Rain and wind. Watch those trees!

It's raining in Northern California. Do you know how your trees are faring? Call a consulting arborist/urban forester, preferably one certified as a tree risk assessor, today!

Don't let this be your house!

A good example of affordable housing; reclaiming for the public good

Here is a story of how land formerly in Federal hands can be used for th local public good, with a little help from our friends (From the Marin IJ):

Editorial: A rare housing opportunity for Marin

Marin Independent Journal

POSTED:   11/17/2014 02:50:32 AM PST

The county hopes to buy the Coast Guard housing site in Point Reyes, and turn it into an affordable housing complex. (Frankie Frost — Marin Independent Journal)

The opportunity to turn 36 units of surplus military housing in Point Reyes Station into publicly controlled affordable housing is one local officials should seize.

Rep. Jared Huffman, county officials, local community leaders and West Marin's Community Land Trust Association — or CLAM — are working toward that goal.

The housing was built by the Coast Guard for its crews working at the nearby communications center. But those military households now live elsewhere, living on military vouchers, and the Pentagon has told the Coast Guard to sell the property.

In the disposition of surplus federal property, paid for with taxpayer money, uses meeting other public needs should take top priority.

The need for affordable housing is just as pressing in West Marin as it is in the rest of the county. Home prices and rents have outpaced local paychecks, forcing more workers to commute from out of the county to area jobs.

The challenge is particularly daunting for young people as once-affordable units have given way to pricey homes or are now being offered as part of a growing vacation rental market. For many, this opportunity is about preventing local workers from being priced out of the community.
Acquisition of these units for affordable housing can take many of those workers, many of whom work on local ranches or in area stores and restaurants, out of those lengthy commutes.

Huffman's leadership in Congress will be vital to winning support for turning this opportunity into a reality.

Using this housing, built with taxpayers' money for an important public purpose, to fulfill another community-wide need makes sense and should be embraced by Congress.

Huffman is right when he says, "We do not have too many opportunities like this in Marin County."

Too big for West Marin?

This huge development (huge for a "single family" house) really needs to have environmental review. What do you think? Story from the Marin Independent Journal..

Pandora founder's Hidden Dragon estate fires up West Marin opposition

By Paul Liberatoreliberatore@marinij.com
 

A notice hangs in front of 135 Balboa Ave. in Inverness Park where Pandora founder Tim Westergren plans to build a house. (Frankie Frost — Marin Independent Journal)

Click photo to enlarge

Lisa Doron makes her opinion known by arranging... (Frankie Frost — Marin Independent Journal)

Tim Westergren, the multi-millionaire founder of Pandora, the country's top Internet radio service, has his heart set on building a new home that many believe would be the largest private residence in rural West Marin County. This has not been music to his new neighbors' ears.

The 48-year-old musician cum Internet entrepreneur, listed by Time magazine in 2010 as one of the 100 most influential people in the world, has submitted plans with the county of Marin for a two-story showplace home with a separate caretaker apartment, meditation hut, lap pool, studio and two garages on a forested ridge overlooking Tomales Bay in rural Inverness Park, an unincorporated enclave adjacent to the quiet village of Inverness, population 1,300.

In an October 2013 email addressed "Dear neighbors," Westergren introduced himself and his wife, Smita Singh, founding director of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation's Global Development Program, as the new owners of the 17-acre property at 135 Balboa Ave. For decades, it had been a Russian Orthodox monastery known as St. Eugene's Hermitage. The couple bought it in 2008.
"We wanted to check in, say hello and let you know how excited we are to begin the process of building our home in your lovely neck of the woods," they wrote. "Our program will be light on the land, and will be sustainably designed and built. We are big believers in integrating a home with its natural environment — minimizing the disturbance of both the land and the surrounding community."

They went on to say, "Realistically, our move-in date will probably be in 2016, which seems a long ways away."

Not long enough, as it turns out, for the project's many opponents, who have not been swayed by his just folks attempt to win them over.

"If you're someone who doesn't have an insane amount of money, then you build sensibly," said Nancy Stein, who has lived on Balboa Avenue for 40 years. "But because the money out there is insane, people are able to do outlandish things. I would like this place to stay open to musicians and artists, people who don't have a lot of money."

Judging from the many letters of opposition that have been sent to county planners, most residents are aghast at the size of the 8,297-square-foot project, which would have 14 bathrooms and up to 17 "functional" bedrooms, according to critics, and would be up to four times larger than the median-sized house in this community of remodeled summer homes, weekend cottages, rustic cabins and modest single-family dwellings.

Westergren says his plans call for nine bedrooms total, but the Inverness Association, an 84-year-old organization of property owners and preservationists, concludes that the second unit "functions as a six-bedroom, two bath housing unit with detached two-car garage" and the septic systems have been sized to service 11 bedrooms in the main residence and six bedrooms in the second unit.

A rendering shows the front elevation of the proposed residence at 135 Balboa in Inverness. (Courtesy Chris Stanton — Inverness Construction Management)

 

"It's outrageous," said longtime Inverness resident Inez Storer. "It's a huge deal. The rumor is that it will be a boutique hotel. Why else would you have 14 bathrooms?"

In its report to the county's Community Development Agency, the Inverness Association notes that Westergren's "unusual application has generated unprecedented local interest and comment from residents in both the immediate neighborhood and the wider Inverness area."

In other words, the Point Reyes Peninsula is buzzing over the high-powered celebrity couple and the gated family compound they hope to build on land where humble monks used to pray in the solitude of their monastery.

The plans were filed by a limited liability company named Hidden Dragon. And, in an email to neighbors in September, the Internet entrepreneur tried to allay suspicions among locals that Hidden Dragon has a hidden agenda.

"In the short-term, our small family intends to use the property as a weekend and vacation retreat, with a long-term intention of retiring here," he wrote. "We can imagine having family and friends as guests, and perhaps annually hosting both our extended families for several weeks or more."
He explained that they needed that many bedrooms and bathrooms "so we can gather both our extended families on occasion on this beautiful property. Needless to say, this is very important to us."

This appeal resonated with Ivan and Sarah Diamond, who live on nearby Drakes Summit Road.
"Thank you and well done!!" they replied to Westergren's email. "We are completely supportive of your project."

But few are so unequivocal, and most are not buying much of what Westergren is selling. In addition to its alarm over the estate's size, the Inverness Association's report to county planners expressed concern over the development's impact on water resources (the property relies on a single well), the legality of the second unit, potential future use of the property and the 31 "heritage trees" that Westergren plans to cut down to carve out enough space for his family compound in the mature Douglas fir forest that covers the ridge. The land borders the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, which makes it a rare and valuable piece of real estate that locals would like to see remain as unspoiled as possible. For generations, urban dwellers have escaped to Inverness for the joy of simple solace in its cool, coastal forests.

"I don't think you should purchase a forest, move in and cut it down," said musician Tim Weed, who lives across the street from the Hidden Dragon property.

Aside from the potential harm to the environment, locals are worried that Westergren will be the harbinger of an invasion by other wealthy property owners with similar designs on living in super-size houses that fly in the face of West Marin's earthy, unpretentious heritage.

"It's putting a toe in the water for McMansions in this area," said Ellen Shehadeh, a writer and editor for the weekly West Marin Citizen. "I feel like it could be a precedent, the beginning of something that we would not want here. The next person with a lot of money could do the same thing."
In her letter to county planners, Amy Trainer, executive director of the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, said she could foresee the Hidden Dragon complex paving the way for other large homes that would replace already scarce affordable housing.

"This would fundamentally, and forever, alter the character of the neighborhood," she wrote.
After graduating from Stanford, Westergren started Pandora in 1999 with two partners. The Oakland company went public in 2011, raking in a reported $138 million that year. The website Success Stories listed him as one of the "top 10 people who got filthy rich in 2011."

He has hired Olson Kundig Architects, a noted Seattle firm, to design his modern concrete, wood and glass house. Among its projects, Olson Kundig designed the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Visitors Center, the Microsoft Envisioning Center as well as a number of private homes, including a glass farmhouse in northeast Oregon.

County planner Heidi Scoble said she expects the Hidden Dragon project to have a public hearing before the Planning Commission in January. As opponents prepare to challenge the project in the halls of county government, Westergren has indicated he's willing to at least consider the reasons for his new neighbors' opposition to a baronial estate they find offensive to their sensibilities and to the natural environment.

In an email response to an Independent Journal request for comment on the controversy, Westergren wrote, "Inverness is a special place and protecting the environment there is extremely important to me personally. I look forward to a collaborative and constructive dialogue with the community as I look to build a home for my family."

This story has been modified since initial publication.