The Mercury News
March 26, 2003
 
Home-size limits considered
San Mateo County proposes cap for coastal farmland

By Marilee Enge

Concerned that historic farmhouses, barns and open vistas increasingly are giving way to monster homes on San Mateo County's rural coast, the county is proposing to cap the size of new houses there at 5,000 square feet.

A trend in building larger and larger homes on land that is designated for agriculture threatens the farming economy and the pastoral landscape that makes western San Mateo County a national treasure, argue environmentalists, who for years have pushed for size limits on the coast.

"These areas are designated for agriculture and open space," said Mark Duino, manager of long-range planning for the county. "We allowed houses out there, but we intended them to support the agriculture community. That's not what's happening."

But property owners and real estate agents say size limits are unfair to farmers hoping to sell their farmland or residential owners with plans for a spacious dream home.

Since 1993, the size of new homes on the coast has risen from an average of 2,500 square feet to 10,000 square feet, according to county records.

"We want to look at it really carefully,'' Roberts said, "to see where would they get the most benefit from undergrounding it.''

On Tuesday, the county board of supervisors considered three proposals for restricting home sizes on rural, unincorporated parcels near the coast, but delayed a decision while the planning staff conducts more research on the economics of such caps.

Supervisor Rich Gordon said he was reluctant to take any action that could harm the coast's struggling agricultural community. He said that after hearing Jack Olsen of the county farm bureau testify that farmers are concerned that size limits would make it harder to borrow against their land.

"Cash flow at this time is important for keeping agriculture viable," Olsen said.

Most of the speakers at Tuesday's public hearing, however, were not farmers but real estate agents and property rights activists.

"The people who own prime agriculture land are elderly," said Allan Bernardi, a Coastside property broker who specializes in farmland. "To limit what can be developed on the property limits its value."

Mario Pelligrini, whose 21,000-square-foot mansion in Montara is often cited as an example of monster house excess, argued that size restrictions would violate the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits taking private property for public use without just compensation.

"That's what private property is about in America,'' he said.

Conservationists worry that allowing even one or two mega-homes to be built each year could eventually alter the rural character of the coast and drive farmers off the land.

"The time to do the proper planning is before you have a crisis,'' said Lennie Roberts, legislative director of the Committee for Green Foothills. "We're seeing more people looking for places to build statement homes.''

"The coast is a beautiful place,'' she added. "We want to ensure we continue to have agricultural enterprise. When you start pricing 20-acre parcels for estate houses, agriculture isn't going to survive that.''

At Tuesday's meeting, the board of supervisors also directed county staff members to take several steps to help farmers, including:

• Developing a way to fast-track approval of winter water collection methods so farmers will have water for the summer and won't be so dependent on streams that fish need, too.
  
• Devising models of a "right to farm'' ordinance that would help ensure agriculture's future. This could entail warning potential neighbors of the dust, pesticides and other aspects of farming that would be next door. It also could include increased setbacks separating farms from non-farm properties, said Gordon.
  
• Making county staff members with graphics expertise available to work on a logo for a "San Mateo County Grown'' marketing label.