Coastal Commission protects agriculture, but sacrifices habitat, in monster house decision

This article is reprinted from the May 2005 issue of California Coastwatcher.

Two very large homes—more than three times the size of the average existing home—have been approved by the Coastal Commission for agricultural land on the southern San Mateo County coast. The Commission’s decision-making process regarding the two proposals was marked by aggressive concern for protection of agriculture, aggressive disregard for imposing any limits on the size of mansions and the adverse impact those monster homes have on rural agricultural land values, and a flagrant decision to allow a private driveway through ESHA that is patently illegal under the Coastal Act.

Michael and Ana Polacek want to build 6,787-sq. ft. of residential development on an 18-acre farm along Bean Hollow Road. The coastal staff report for the Polacek project is at www.coastal.ca.gov/sc/5-2005-Th13a.pdf and you can see Bean Hollow State Beach at www.cacoast.org/6281

Keith and Cindy Waddell proposed to build 7,650-sq. ft. of residential development on a 153-acre ranch along Highway #1 at Tunitas Creek. The Waddell staff report is at www.coastal.ca.gov/nca/Th13b-5-2005.pdf and a 1972 photo of the Waddell property is at www.cacoast.org/7218028

The positive step taken by the Coastal Commission to protect agricultural lands on the California coastline required the use of affirmative, permanent agricultural easements that were required to be established to insure the long-term viability of the agricultural operations on the properties. Thus, even if Polacek and Waddell do not wish to continue farming themselves, they are required now, by law, to lease their lands to other farmers to insure the agricultural lands outside the residential building area on each parcel remain actively farmed. Such requirements had never been included in a coastal development permit before.

The second important step taken by the Commission was to require that all residential development on each property be contained within a 10,000 sq. ft. "development envelope" insuring that the vast majority of each farm will remain solely for agricultural purposes. The limited residential building envelope for agricultural lands was also a precedent established by the Commission that will enhance future protection of agricultural lands throughout coastal California.

Click "Read more" to see the rest of the article.

The efforts to establish protections for agricultural operations were welcomed by most.

Commissioner Mike Reilly, a Sonoma County Supervisor, said that in Sonoma there are about one million acres of agricultural operations, and that nearly all of them in the coastal zone are in his Supervisorial District. Reilly also referenced his discussions with counterparts in Marin over the problems associated with wealthy individuals buying coastal agricultural parcels who do not wish to farm but instead desire trophy homes. “The challenge, to me, is that when people like this buy these properties, how do you continue to insure these lands are farmed. Staff has moved the ball way down the field here, in terms of affirmatively requiring future agricultural operations on the land, regardless of if the owner wants to do it or not. Second, staff’s use of the building envelope is very helpful in protecting the balance of the agricultural lands on the parcel. This will send a message to the economic marketplace that we intend to protect agricultural lands.”

Only Commissioner Dave Potter disagreed. Potter argued, “What are we doing here, requiring Mrs. Polacek to set up a roadside stand on Highway #1 and sell tomatoes and cucumbers?”

From there the Commission erred in at least two other crucial respects.

First, the Commission refused to impose any limits whatsoever on the size of the Polacek and Waddell homes, insuring that rural and agricultural areas throughout California will continue to be battered with proposals for mansions, private castles and vastly oversized trophy homes designed to impress passersby perhaps more than create functional living spaces. Despite the fact that local officials from San Mateo County admitted that they have no plans to limit the size of home proposals and that such limits are unlikely to be devised in the future, and despite the fact that it is well established that monster homes and their adverse economic impact on agricultural areas negatively affect farming values, the Commission decided to ignore their staff recommendations, farmers and environmentalists and align themselves instead with millionaires on house size. Coastal staff had recommended that the homes be allowed to be the average size of rural homes along this stretch of coast, which are 2500-sq. ft in size.

Commissioner Dan Secord, who is a Santa Barbara City Council member, argued that the Commission should never limit house size, and that house size is a matter better left to local government. Secord would have a better argument if any local government had ever adopted such a limit.

Coastal staff, and Commission General Counsel Ralph Faust, attempted to explain to Secord that both the Coastal Act and the San Mateo County LCP require and mandate that rural agricultural lands be protected, and that the pressures to convert such farms to large mansions not only eliminates the farm in question but also creates an economic dynamic which results in neighboring farms being driven from business as well.

Secord called the explanations “tangential.” Secord concluded that he could appreciate the usefulness in limiting development envelope size, but on limits on house size.

Brian Baird of the Resources Agency, who serves on the Commission as a representative for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, also criticized the attempt of coastal staff to limit house size and said that it would establish a precedent.

Executive Director Peter Douglas then said that if the Commission did nothing to stem the proliferation of monster homes, that that too would form a precedent- a bad precedent.

The Commission’s greatest blunder, however, was reserved for the Waddell parcel. The Waddell parcel is 153-acres that includes over 88-acres of extremely rare native coastal terrace prairie (CTP) grasses. Waddell sought permission to construct a 3,000-ft long private driveway through the CTP. CTP is dense, tall grasslands comprised of California oatgrass, purple needlegrass, rattail fescue, quaking grass, tall fescue and rattlesnake grass, as well as other non-grass species such as western rush, sun cups, soap plant, annual lupine, and California poppy, among others.

California has lost more than 99% of its native grasslands, mostly due to conversion of habitat for development and agriculture. Coastal staff therefore correctly identified the CTP on the Waddell parcel as environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA), which by law is required to be protected.

Waddell’s 3,000-ft long private residential driveway across the entire parcel was proposed to go right through the middle of the CTP ESHA. Coastal staff suggested an alternate road route that would have avoided the CTP. Another possibility was that the house could have been moved closer to Highway #1.

The Commission would have none of it. Following the aggressive support and arguments in support of Waddell’s favored driveway, presented by Commissioner Dave Potter, the Commission voted to allow the road despite its adverse impacts on CTP and its designation as ESHA. The Commission’s approval of a private residential driveway through ESHA was patently illegal. Commissioner Potter argued that it was preferable to put the driveway through ESHA rather than a steeper hillside area suggested by staff, but Potter lacked any legal, planning or Coastal Act justification for his position.

On motions of approval related to the two homes, Commissioner Secord moved to eliminate the 2500-sq. ft. house size limit.

Commission Chair Meg Caldwell said that coastal staff had clearly made a connection and legal nexus between house size and assessment values, and the resulting adverse impacts on agricultural lands. Caldwell said, however, that she wasn’t sure that 2500-sq. ft. was the right number. “I would have no problem imposing the 4000-sq. ft. limit, which includes over 88% of all the houses in the region,” Caldwell concluded.

Nevertheless, the Commission voted 7-3 to abandon any size limits on monster houses, with Commissioners Secord, Iseman, Haddad, Wright, Peters, Potter and
Reilly against limits, while Commissioners Shallenberger, Caldwell and Wan would have considered limits further.

Commissioner Secord then moved on the Waddell project to reject the staff’s preferred house location in order to allow the developer to choose house site. Commissioner Iseman stated that she too supported the developer since he had “invested lots of time to choose the location.”

Commissioner Iseman’s remarks drew rebuke from Commissioner Mary Shallenberger, who reminded the Commission that it is not the mandate of the Commission to protect the owner’s favored building location. Instead, the Commission is charged with protecting coastal resources. Commissioner Sharon Wright then said that since the owners wanted to place the house in the least desirable agricultural soils that the developer’s preferred house site was best. Coastal staff then reminded the Commission that the soils analysis provided by the developer was “not compelling” and that the entire property was prime agricultural soils.

On the placement of the Waddell house, the Commission rejected their staff analysis on a 6-4 vote, with Commissioners Peters, Caldwell, Wan and
Shallenberger supporting staff and Commissioners Potter, Reilly, Secord, Iseman, Haddad and Wright supporting the developer.

Commissioner Sara Wan, not willing to let the house size limits die, then motioned for a limit of 4,000-sq. ft. on the houses. Commissioner Potter challenged Wan and Caldwell to describe how such a limit would protect agriculture. Chairwoman Caldwell stated, “I’m basing my support for reasonable limits on staff’s analysis and the concern over the ramping up of land values in the area which undermines agricultural viability.”

As to the motion to limit house size to 4,000-sq. ft., Commissioners Wan, Shallenberger and Caldwell were in support and Commissioners Reilly, Secord, Potter, Iseman, Haddad, Wright and Peters voted against, and the motion failed 7-3.

On the crucial vote to ignore the Coastal Act and allow Waddell to construct a 3,000-sq. ft. long private residential driveway through CTP ESHA, only four Commissioners sided with the Coastal Act (Reilly, Shallenberger, Wan and Caldwell) while six Commissioners voted for the road (Secord, Haddad, Wright, Iseman, Peters and Potter).