|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Half Moon Bay Review Dear Editor: Michael Murphy, in letters to the editor, June 26, persists in mischaracterizing the proposed limits on mega-houses in the
rural areas of the coast. First he says that giving a bonus to people who build basements would "require farmers to sleep, eat, and live in their basements." He conveniently omits the point that there
would be more than 5,000 square feet of above-ground living space under this proposal, which is more than twice the size of most houses found on the Coastside. Murphy objects to the terms "hobby farm"
and "ranchette." But if land is subdivided into parcels too small to maintain commercial agriculture that is what results. Ranchettes are the most wasteful land use, as they are much larger than
necessary for residential purposes, but are also too small for productive sustainable agricultural use. Building a large mansion on 40 acres undermines the viability of agricultural uses in the area, due to conflicts of
land uses. Hobby farms are just that, a hobby, not a sustainable long-term proposition. While it is possible for some small parcels to support commercial agriculture, there are limited areas of the coast
where this is possible. These parcels generally consist entirely of prime soils, which are found in the narrow alluvial valleys of the coast and have an adequate water source for intensive row cropping. Ray
Chiesa's farm stand on Highway 92 is a great example of a highly productive small farm that has supported two generations of local family. The fact is, more than 90 percent of San Mateo coastal land is non-prime soils
on hillsides, with limited or no water. Testimony from members of the county Agricultural Advisory Committee in the past has indicated that for these areas, it takes 500 acres or more to have a viable dry crop or
live stock operation. The high-value/high-investment crops suggested by Murphy would likely need water. With coastal streams already in serious decline, developing new off-stream water sources is the biggest
challenge for such endeavors. As for vineyards, as yourself why vineyards proliferate in other areas of the state, but not along the fog-bound San Mateo coast. The only example Murphy gives in San Mateo County
(Fogarty) is along Skyline Boulevard some 10 miles and several micro-climates away from the coastal zone. There are many positive things that can and should be done to support San Mateo County's agricultural
enterprise. First is a strong Local Coastal Program that says: "This area is for agriculture." Keeping land from being subdivided in to nonvialble sizes, and restricting nonagricultural development
(mega-homes) to prevent these parcels from becoming second, third, or even fourth homes for wealthy absentee owners, will also help. A strong marketing program for coastal fresh produce, as has been developed in
Marin and Sonoma Counties, would benefit every farmer. Murphy suggests that only those people who live on the coast should have a voice in what happens here. Since the coast is a resource enjoyed by all the people of
San Mateo County and beyond, I disagree. Indeed, the voters of San Mateo County overwhelmingly (by a 64 percent vote) approved Measure A in 1986, which requires preservation of the Coasatside's agricultural,
scenic, and natural resources. Controlling the size of houses will further ensure that the Coastsides's natural beauty and working landscape are preserved Lennie Roberts |
|
|
|
||||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
