News Subscribe to Our Newsletter Sign up for Email Updates CGF In the News Press Inquiries Past Articles Calendar			Half Moon Bay Review June 12, 2002  Matter of  Opinion: It's time to curb Mega Homes! Michael Murphy, Chair  of the Rural Coast Open Space Trust (RCOST), makes multiple bizarre statements  in the Matter of Opinion column of the May 29 Review regarding the proposed  house size limit in the rural areas of the coast. Murphy claims that the future of coastal agriculture  is with wealthy people who will build trophy homes on agricultural land,  and install "gentleman farms" featuring crops with high capitalization  costs. These country gentry, according to Murphy, would eagerly embrace  roadside stands or U-Pick operations on their property, or take their  produce to farmer's markets. This is nonsense. It only takes a quick visit to  other rural areas of the state where large estate homes loom behind imposing  stone pillars and locked gates, to realize that the agricultural heritage  of these areas has been lost. There are no roadside stands, and few, if  any, agricultural crops, except perhaps vineyards, a crop not well suited  to the Coastside's fog belt. Some ranchettes may pasture a few pleasure  horses and other domestic animals, but the agricultural vitality of these  areas has been replaced with hobby farming, hardly a formula for sustainable  agriculture. Often, owners of these luxury homes have a romanticized  view of living in a working agricultural area. Once ensconced, they then  complain about the inconvenience and health effects of noise, dust, odors,  and agricultural chemical sprays. An ironic example of this conflict between agricultural  uses and wealthy newcomers is Murphy's cohort at the RCOST, Oscar Braun,  who filed a complaint against a neighboring farmer, Wayne Pastorino, for  storing hay in a barn as part of a commercial operation. Pastorino decided  it wasn't worth the harassment and abandoned his hay business on this  property. Interestingly, Murphy himself has said, "Pretty  soon, all you're going to have out here is rich people with weekend houses"  (San Jose Mercury, 3/22/99). The San Mateo County Local Coastal Program was devised  to foster and encourage agriculture, and to preserve the maximum amount  of agricultural land as an important coastal resource. Development in  the rural area is strictly limited so land prices are kept near agricultural,  not speculative, values. Once agricultural land becomes overpriced (which  invariably happens when mega homes are built), these dynamics change.  Pressure to abandon existing agricultural operations intensifies as land  speculation increases, and tenant farmers who have never owned their land  will surely never have the opportunity to do so. Murphy makes numerous other false assertions. For example, he attacks  the staff proposal to allow an even larger house if part of the structure  is a basement. He leaps to the erroneous conclusion that people would  be required to "live underground like gophers". Basements are  used all over the country to increase the usable space of a house, and  have never been considered as the living area. His mischaracterization of the goal of environmentalists  as being antithetical to the future viability of agriculture is simply  sophistry. The Committee for Green Foothills has consistently fought inappropriate  development and urban sprawl which threatens to gobble up agricultural  land, while working for positive measures to foster the continuation of  production agriculture on the coast. The rural areas of San Mateo County are the only zoning districts where  house sizes are not limited by clear measurable standards. Instead, there  are numerous discretionary policies which are open to broad interpretation  such as requiring new homes to fit the area's character, be as unobtrusive  as possible, and not detract from the area's natural and visual qualities. It is no surprise that some county planners have  had difficulty in applying these discretionary standards when faced with  applicants who ask, "show me where it says I can't build a house  that is three, five, or even ten times larger" than the typical Coastside  farmhouse. Establishing maximum house size limits will help everyone understand  what is allowable, and thus will reduce conflict and delay. Throughout the Peninsula, new stricter zoning standards  are being enacted, in response to complaints that mega homes are "ruining  the neighborhood." Without house size limits on the large rural parcels,  standard zoning tools such as setbacks, height limits, lot coverage and  floor area limits, are irrelevant. For example, applying typical urban  zoning standards to a 100 acre rural parcel would allow a 50 acre house  to be built - a ridiculous result. The Planning Department, in response to direction  from the Board of Supervisors, is proposing a cap on house size of 5,000  square feet, with possible bonuses if certain criteria are met. This is  a generous increase over a typical coastal farmhouse of 1,500 to 3,000  square feet. Since there are no size limits on barns, sheds and other  farm buildings, genuine agricultural operations would not be affected  by these rules. Establishing clear and understandable limits on house size in the rural  areas is not a draconian measure, but a rational step to ensure that new  houses are compatible with agriculture and the scenic character of this  special place. The County Planning Commission will be considering  the proposed limits on rural house size on June 26. The Committee for  Green Foothills encourages Coastside residents to write the Commissioners:  Chairman Bill Kennedy, and Commissioners David Bomberger, Carl Goff, Ralph  Nobles, and Jon Silver, 455 County Center, Second Floor, Redwood City,  CA 94063. Lennie Roberts Legislative Advocate, Committee for Green Foothills   Page last updated September 20, 2002 .