News Subscribe to Our Newsletter Sign up for Email Updates CGF In the News Press Inquiries Past Articles Calendar			The Half  Moon Bay Review April 2, 2003   Limits to house size a fair compromise A Matter of Opinion By Zoe Kersteen-Tucker Michael Murphy, in the March 26 Review, makes multiple specious statements regarding the Committee for Green Foothills' proposed limit on house size in the rural areas of the coast. Murphy claims that the future of coastal agriculture lies with wealthy people who will buy up Coastside agricultural land, build trophy homes, and run "gentleman farms." These country gentry, according to Murphy, would also willingly fix gullies and embrace organic standards. Murphy makes the further claim that these wealthy landowners would "lease land inexpensively to local farmers who can help them." One can only assume that according to Murphy's doctrine current farming families will want to sell their land to these gentry farmers and then want to become farm laborers in exchange for inexpensive leasebacks. This is nonsense. It only takes a visit to some rural areas of the state where large estate homes loom behind locked gates and imposing stone pillars to realize that the agricultural heritage of these areas is now lost. There are few, if any, agricultural crops, except perhaps vineyards - a crop not well suited to the Coastside's fog belt. Indeed, the original farming families are long gone; farmers wanting to buy land for agricultural purposes are not able to afford estate-priced land. A few pleasure horses, Alpacas and other domestic animals may roam the properties, but the agricultural vitality of these areas has been replaced with hobby farming, at best. In San Luis Obispo County, a recent Coastal Commission study of agricultural economics has concluded: "Overall, the economics of agriculture are likely to continue to make farming difficult, in part due to the speculative value of land. When land costs are based not on the agricultural use of lands, but on other potential coastal land uses, land costs become significantly inflated relative to the agricultural value of the land. This is particularly true for such trends as the development of large estate homes in rural areas, which may quickly drive up the value of agricultural lands." Murphy's self-serving sophistry is emblematic of the unbridled private property rights argument that reads something like "It's my land, so I should be able to do what I want with it." However, in a democracy like ours, private property rights must be tempered with the public's interest, hence we have zoning regulations, planning commissions, public processes and the Local Coastal Program. Currently, the San Mateo County rural coastal zone has vague discretionary policies for house size that are subject to different interpretations. Indeed, the rural areas of San Mateo County are the only zoning districts in the county where house sizes are not limited by clear standards. Lack of clarity leads to conflicts, delays and difficulties in applying the standards and policies fairly. In response to the need for new standards, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors has called for and are now considering three alternative proposals to limit house sizes on the South Coast. At the March 25 Board of Supervisor's meeting, Michael Murphy, Realtors and other development interests lobbied hard for no house-size restrictions, and the supervisors have called for more study by County staff before making a decision. The three alternatives before them are: The county staff proposal. It would place a cap of 5,000 square feet on parcels of five acres or more. This proposal is viewed as too restrictive by the Realtors, who vociferously oppose it. The Realtors' proposal. It would allow the floor area of a house to be 50 percent of the size of the parcel. This would effectively mean no controls on house size on parcels of more than about a half acre; since most rural areas require lots of at least an acre in order to accommodate a well and septic system, this proposal would essentially have no effect on house size. The Committee for Green Foothills' proposal. It would allow 5,000 square feet of house to be built for each density credit. The number of density credits on a parcel is determined by environmental conditions on the site (for example, steep slopes, landslide susceptibility, prime soils). Each parcel has at least one density credit. This alternative allows more flexibility than the staff proposal while ensuring that new houses would be reasonably in scale with existing houses in the coastal zone, and would better protect the scenic qualities of the Coastside. The compromise house-size regulations proposed by the Committee for Green Foothills would control non-agricultural structures (houses) in the rural coastal zone, yet provide more flexibility than the staff proposal, provided that the larger homes use an additional density credit. The Committee's proposal would direct the largest homes off prime soils, but would not limit agricultural structures such as barns, sheds, greenhouses, affordable housing units or farm labor housing. This proposal is not "one size fits all," as Murphy erroneously claims, but a rational step to ensure that new development is indeed compatible with agriculture and the surrounding area. The Committee for Green Foothills has worked for more than 40 years to protect open space, agricultural lands, ranchlands and the beloved scenic corridors of the San Mateo County coast. In our view, the cumulative impacts of unregulated mega-mansions will do their damage to the increasingly fragile agricultural community on the South Coast one luxury home at a time. The time for sensible planning is now, before it's too late. Zoe Kersteen-Tucker is a resident of Moss Beach  and executive director of the Committee for Green Foothills. Page last updated April 10, 2003 .