|
||
|
|
|
| ||
 |
The county's Local Coastal Program was crafted to protect these rural uses by allowing only a very limited amount of non-agricultural development, such as houses. Very low densities and requirements to locate new houses in the area of a parcel that is most protective of agriculture have until recently helped to keep land values at agricultural prices. Unfortunately, larger and larger homes have been proposed for the rural areas of San Mateo County. Mega-houses that are out of scale or out of character with the surrounding rural agricultural lands can undermine the viability of agriculture, can have negative visual impacts, and can place unanticipated burdens on limited water supplies, roads, and other services in the area. The County's current development standards are vague,
discretionary, and hard to enforce. It's time for clear limits to home
sizes that will protect our coastal resources. Recently a number of prime agricultural parcels have been for sale at prices way above agricultural values. Allowing very large houses to be built simply exacerbates this trend, and places a speculative value on agricultural land. When this happens, farmers who want to buy agricultural land are priced out of the market. This may be good for the landowner who sells at inflated prices, but in the long run, the agricultural viability of the entire area is compromised. Another serious threat to the long term viability of agriculture on the coast is the potential for new residents to complain about nearby agricultural operations. Often, owners of these luxury homes have a romanticized view of life in a working agricultural area. Once ensconced, they complain about the health effects and inconvenience of noise, dust, odors, glare, and agricultural chemical sprays. Another frequent conflict that arises when urban dwellers move into an active farm area involves the control of family pets. Livestock predation by domestic pets, especially dogs, is a documented problem on the coastside and throughout the country. Sheep, newborn calves, chickens, and other livestock are vulnerable to molestation or death by pets who are not trained to leave these animals alone. These increasing conflicts between residents with
urban expectations and the needs of agricultural operators to farm without
harassment would be reduced by discouraging mega-homes in the rural areas. In additional to agricultural conflicts, very large houses can have major visual impacts on the scenic qualities of the coastside. The rural agricultural lands consist of fertile valley "bottom lands", broad coastal terraces and open rolling hills, all highly visible from county and state scenic roads. Much of the land within view of our scenic roads is already subdivided, but not yet built upon. Even one mega-house located in the middle of a broad expanse of fields and hills can dominate and overwhelm the landscape. With the potential for over 1200 new houses to be built in the rural area, the cumulative visual effects of very large houses on the San Mateo coast would be enormous. back to top Large homes overburden infrastructure Mega-houses place additional strains on the limited coastal infrastructure of roads, water, and police and fire services. A very large house has the potential to need an array of services - and to increase the traffic from service providers - beyond the usual services associated with a more modest dwelling. Absentee owners of large homes also want on-site caretakers, which are not allowed under the Local Coastal Program. Limited ground-water supplies are further depleted by houses that are two-three, or five times larger than the traditional farmhouse. And police and fire services in the rural area are stretched thin by new demands. back to top Current standards are unclear and hard to enforce Although the County Local Coastal Program has a number of provisions that could be used to ensure that new houses are in scale with existing development, these discretionary standards are vague and difficult to enforce. Because of these vague standards, the county's development review staff are under great pressure from applicants to accommodate their desires. 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 built a house that is three, five, or even ten times larger" than the typical coastside farmhouse. As a result of a lack of clear standards for houses
built in the rural area, there are an increasing number of appeals of
large houses. The appeal process can delay the approval of a house by
two years or longer. The Coastal Commission has recently appealed several
large house projects, and required substantial changes to ensure they
are not visually intrusive. Enacting a maximum limit on house sizes would
eliminate most appeals and make the job of planning staff, and the county's
decision makers much easier. Since there are no size limits on barns,
sheds, and other farm buildings, genuine agricultural operations would
not be affected by these rules. Curb Mega-Homes now! Some recent homes proposed (and approved) for the coast exceed 5,000 square feet; the most egregious of these single-family dwellings are more than 15,000 square feet - nearly five times the size of a typical coastside dwelling. There is an urgent need to enact a maximum limit on house size in the rural areas. Establishing clear and understandable limits on new
houses 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. At their March 25, 2003 meeting, the Board of Supervisors considered three alternative proposals to limit home sizes. Realtors and development interests lobbied hard for no restrictions, and the Supervisors called for more study by County staff before making a decision. The three alternatives before them: (ALTERNATIVE 1) The County Staff proposal, which 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. (ALTERNATIVE 2) The Committee
for Green Foothills' proposal, which 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
(e.g., steep slopes, landslide susceptibility, prime soils). Each parcel
has at least one Density Credit. (ALTERNATIVE 3) The Realtors' proposal, which would allow the floor area of a house to be 50% 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 accomodate a well and septic system, this proposal would essentially have no effect on house size. We expect this issue to be back before the Board by late spring, 2003. 1. Write a letter to the Board of Supervisors. Your letters are important! As always, mailed and faxed letters are best, but emails are also helpful. President Rose
Jacobs Gibson and Limits to house size a fair compromise, Matter of Opinion, Half Moon Bay Review, April 2, 2003 Home-size limits considered: San Mateo County proposes cap for coastal farmland, San Jose Mercury News, March 26, 2003 Committee for Green Foothills' proposal to limit house sizes Mega-homes threaten coastal and agricultural lands, Green Footnotes, October 2002 Lennie Robert's Editorial, Half Moon Bay Review, June 12, 2002 Lennie Robert's Letter to the Editor, Half Moon Bay Review, July 3, 2002 3. Support Committee for Green Foothills. |
 |
|
||||||
 |
|||||||||
|
||||||
|
Volunteer with
CGF We need your help to protect our foothills and open space. Current volunteer opportunities... |
|
Glossary Just what is an "local coastal program" or a "general use permit" anyway? See our comprehensive glossary... |
|
More actions
you can take: Donate...Become
a CGF member...Get
alerts via email...Links
to other environmental organizations |
|
|
||||||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
