Video Column: Right Here In the Middle

It seems to me that Miramar has already been wrecked by the proliferation of view-blocking monster structures. The County LCP is supposed to protect public views of the ocean from Hwy 1. But obviously that didn’t happen.

Short of tearing down the offending structures, I don’t see how sitting down and talking about this “over a glass of wine” is going to reverse the damage.

County Planning is set up to exploit the Midcoast for the benefit of developers and realtors. These groups spend big money to influence the decisions of the County Board of Supervisors. That is why Miramar looks like it does today.

Whether people like the architecture of the homes in Miramar is very subjective. Obviously, the property owners who paid architects a lot of money for the plans feel quite differently.

While the County may try to preserve the views, the property owners have rights too. Its a balancing act. And quite frankly, the land owners should have a bigger say than someone who may come here a few times a year to go to the beach. Or some person who lives in a different town.

If the public is so concerned about protecting the views, there’s a very simple solution. All they have to do is stick their hand in their pocket and buy up all the available lots.

The last lot in Miramar just sold last month for $400,000. If anybody is really interested in protecting the views, please call me and I’ll be glad to start the ball rolling. And these properties can be easily financed with low down payments.

Steven Hyman

Kevin and Steve, I have to jump in here and disagree.

The County is not (in this case) catering to “developers”. I am the Developer, and I wanted to build less on the coast, not more. Bad planning caters to no one. The LCP mandates structures like this in this zoning district. I begged the County and the Coastal commission for 15 years to build something smaller. I offered to build a small cottage, and rent it out to tourists, and donate it for a number of weeks to non-profits. I offered to build picnic tables on the property and have them available to visitors, and put in outdoor showers. Provide public beach parking, etc. None of these ideas comply with the LCP, because the LCP madates built commercial space. With commercial space comes parking requirements, ADA access (to the 2nd story) commercial fire sprinkler systems, etc. The LCP does not recognize low impact uses like bike rentals, picnic tables etc. as being “commercial”.

The county won’t take on any issue (controversy) unless there is a political benefit to them, or if we on the coastside are all on the same page, which we are not. That is where the wine comes in. More wine, less structure.

Steve, there are many areas that have smaller structures, and have higher property values than the midcoast. Some areas are developed so well that people will pay anything to own a property there. A small structure in Carmel can have a much higher price tag than a large plywood box on the midcoast.

There are many ways to assure profit for a Deleloper, other than allowing huge structures. Two small structures could have much less visual impact than 1 larger structure, and still be lucrative for the developer. By streamlining the permit process (a huge cost on the coast), there could be more profit in a smaller structure. I am all for property rights (I love property) but coastal property is special, because as residents, we are guardians of the interaction of the Land and the Ocean. We can own the property, but we don’t own the coast.

Neil

Darin and Neil,

Thank you both for making this video. It is an important and timely piece.

I wish I new a “better way” - we tried coming up with community standards when the new zoning parameters and design review guidelines were adopted. We, the community, wanted enforceable standards that would result in development reflecting community character in scale and design. The County assured the community that the new standards would result in a fair result for both property developers and neighbors.

If you want to see what is being considered by the DRC on April 12 drive by the 2 sets of story poles in Montara, on Birch St., just to the north of Harte St. These 2 massive homes will tower over the exisitng houses down hill. They will dwarf the existing homes on Birch St. Eight massive, healthy cypress trees were removed without permits as part of the well drilling process. They were replaced with spindly, weak trees about the diameter of your middle finger, which appear to have died. The County sees no need to replace them.

Or, again in Montara, drive by the new home at 1050 Acacia St. and soon-to-be-developed adjacent vacant lot. The vacant lot is the subject of an appeal being heard by the Planning Commission on Wed., March 28th. The newly constructed home towers over the adjacent single story houses. Not just because it is 2 stories, but because it appears to have been built on several feet of fill. The question before the Planning Commission on Wednesday is a simple one: What is natural grade? When is it established? What should the County do if a survey is clearly defective? When does natural grade exist, if the fill is placed before or after design review? The 250 cubic yards of fill allowed to be placed without a grading permit will cover a 5,000 sq ft lot 20 inches deep.

I will note a few recent problems since the start of the DRC: -A newly constructed home in Miramar constructed neighboring with 31 windows on one side looking into the neighboring house and yard. . - A new home in El Granada that has an excavated basement, resulting in excess floor area ratio (currently under appeal). -A DRC architect saying “Change can be good.” upon approving an ultra-modern new structure against the protests to the design by the entire neighborhood

To sum up, standards are only as good as those applying them.

Residents and developers worked very hard to create a fair and balanced set of design review standards. The rights of all were recognized in the process. Now it is up to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to ensure that the application is also fair, not oly to the developer, but to the neighborhoods and the community.

Kathryn

Hi Neil,

Its really hard to know from a realtor’s point of view who are buying these lots and what their exact plans are, especially if they are not our clients.

The vast majority of lots I’ve sold recently are to individuals. Some people are single and others have large families. Their lifestyle will effect what they want to build. I’m selling a lot to a single man who wants to build a 1300-1500 sqft single story home cause that all he needs even though the house next door is over 2500 sqft.

These are very personal decisions which is why someone is willing to go through all the grief, time and costs to build a home.

Builders are basing their decisions on profit. Its possible that they will make more on larger homes than smaller ones. Also smaller homes appeal to a narrow segment of the population so you won’t see many 2 bedroom homes built here.

Steven Hyman

I don’t expect the cornucopians to understand it, but because the midcoast is already grossly overpopulated and unsustainable in terms of now-diminished resources and non-degrading infrastructure, no new residential building, anywhere in the area, should be allowed without at least the removal of existing residential buildings to compensate. Smart shrinkage down to a comfortable, sustainable human population would suggest that even greater existing residential development should be removed to allow new development—in terms of number of people housed, resources demanded by the development, and hardscaping.

In addition to “green” building and conservation measures, use of development regulations to slowly wind down the population to a sustainable level is a way to accomplish improvement of the overall picture for our communities without economic disruption. Because services to residential development usually cost local government more than the development produces in income through taxes and fees—a condition that is even more pronounced in overbuilt areas like ours where very expensive artificial means must be employed to provide resources and ecosystem services that can no longer be provided by the local environment—government might even consider a few salient purchases of residential property. This would be partially justified by the money government would lose if such property was developed.

Carl May

A limited amount of modest commercial development to serve residents might take place in the current commercial areas of the several unincorporated communities. In most locations, this can be accomplished without extending the built footprint or resource footprint—through conversion of existing residences in commercial areas, for example. In a few instances, a commercial interest might buy and remove a residence or two elsewhere in the community to free up the resources for a new establishment in a commercial district.

Any discussion of increased development beyond what already exists on the midcoast is a discussion of how to make things worse. Even people called “environmentalists” consider it a victory if they get some project to be less bad than it might be. Given all the mindless degradation that has already gone on and the planned degradation that is being created by developer/construction interests through their “paid” politicians—the county’s proposed LCP revision is a great example of this—the only discussion worth the effort of honest, clear-thinkng people should be how to make this place better rather than less worse. I know lots of people who understand this but see no opening for it through existing governmental structures or governmental decision-makers.

Carl May