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