Californians for Property Rights

This is a letter from CPR in response to the Vision and Principles for Midcoast Growth recently released by Supervisors Gordon and Hill of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors.

Some folks on the Midcoast appear to be upset by this statement of Principles. Why not take a few minutes to see how CPR feels about it?

April 26, 2005 

SAN MATEO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Hall of Justice and Records
400 County Center
Redwood City, CA 94063 

SUBJECT: STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE MIDCOAST GROWTH 

Honorable Supervisors: 

Californians for Property Rights (CPR) endorses, with the provisos offered below, the Supervisors’ ‘vision’ for future MidCoast growth and development as expressed in your “Statement of Principles” draft document. The Statement is for the most part supportable because it is generally moderate and balanced, occupying a middle ground between two prevalent MidCoast political extremes: the ‘no-growth’ and ‘pro-growth’ positions, neither of which is sufficiently reasonable or realistic. MidCoast land use advocacy has long been polarized into the two factional extremes, and the Supervisors are to be applauded for your understanding that sound policy lies in the political center. It is CPR’s hope that advocates from the two opposing factions will come to share your understanding, and lend support to the Supervisors’ more moderate perspectives on updating LCP Policies.

CPR offers the following recommendations concerning three draft principles: 

1. ADDRESS THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS BY ENCOURAGING DEVELOPMENT OF URBAN SUBSTANDARD LOTS 

On the subject of substandard lots, your Statement principle reads: 

“Methods will be used to prevent development on parcels that are too small, including reducing the number of substandard lots.” 

Two positions can be inferred from this sentence: first, that there is a parcel size below which residential development should be prevented; and second, that the County plans to force mergers of contiguous substandard lots under common ownership.

Concerning the first position, CPR recommends that any lot 2500 square feet or larger remain buildable according to the current development standards. The second position, forced lot mergers, is especially problematic because it contradicts the Statement’s affordable housing and ‘role of regulation’ principles: 

“The LCP will provide increased opportunities for affordable housing at designated affordable housing sites or as dispersed infill housing.    

Methods will be used to facilitate affordable housing, including incentives, bonuses and streamlining provisions.” (emphasis added) 

“Effective incentives and voluntary measures will be considered before mandated regulatory measures.”

The lack of affordable housing is one of the most serious (and steadily worsening) socioeconomic crises the MidCoast will ever face. Houses built on the smaller infill lots are one of the few remaining opportunities to create less expensive housing. For that reason, construction on smaller lots should be encouraged, not discouraged or prevented.

Reducing the number of substandard lots through forced lot mergers would only exacerbate the affordable housing crisis. Rather than forcing lot mergers, the County should do precisely the opposite, discouraging property owners from merging lots. Undeniably, it is a more socially progressive land use to have two smaller (more affordable) houses, than one larger (less affordable) house. CPR therefore recommends that your Statement principle be revised along the following lines:

“To increase affordable housing, methods will be used to encourage development of smaller infill parcels, and to discourage their merger.”

2. ACKNOWLEDGE THAT RURAL RESIDENTIAL AREAS PROPOSED FOR REDESIGNATION ARE NOT SERVED BY WATER LINES SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE UTILITY’S HISTORIC NEGLIGENCE IN PROVIDING WATER SUPPLY. ACCORDINGLY, DO NOT CHANGE THE UTILITY’S SERVICE AREA.

Your Statement’s principle pertaining to this subject reads:

“New development will be directed to existing subdivided areas that are designated for the use and are served by water and sewer districts, i. e., infill growth.”

The 1980 LCP included all rural residential lands in the sewer and water utilities’ service areas. However, from the 1970’s to the present day, a moratorium on new water connections has remained in effect, because of an alleged water shortage. Yet, as the Half Moon Bay Review reports and the water district confirms, two newly-drilled exploratory wells can pump at a combined rate of 450 gallons per minute, more than the entire current capacity of the water district. The two wells by themselves are able to produce enough water to supply all contemplated future buildout in the utility’s service area. Of course, the additional water is not newly arrived on the MidCoast. It has been in the aquifers for the 30-year period the moratorium has been in effect. The new wells’ locations are not remote, nor was the drilling and extraction unusually difficult. This ‘discovery’ could have occurred any time during the last thirty years, if the utility had practiced due diligence. The conclusion is inescapable: sufficient water has not been made available to the community solely because the water utility was demonstrably negligent in providing supply.

The only rationale offered by the Planning Commission and Staff for excluding some rural residential areas from utility service is because they are not currently served by the utility, a state of affairs caused by the water utility’s damaging unwillingness to provide supply. The misguided policy under consideration would punish a long-suffering public for the negligence of a public utility.

There are other equally serious reasons for rejecting the rural residential redesignation:

• Prohibiting future utility connections in the rural residential areas would render unbuildable any vacant parcel under one acre that could not support its own well and septic system. These regulatory takings would be based on an ill-conceived policy that reinforces, and in effect endorses, a water utility’s demonstrable negligence.

• Owners of unbuildable vacant parcels in the rural residential would presumably continue to owe the bond tax that finances purchase of the water utility. Not only were the owners of vacant rural residential property unable to vote on the bond, they would be excluded in perpetuity from using the utility the bond tax finances. This practice would contradict LCP Policy 2.37c(5):

“The County will relieve, where legally feasible, property owners within the rural zone who are not connected to the water system of indebtedness and transfer the debt to the urban zone and property owners provided with water service in the rural zone.”

Accordingly, CPR proposes the following alternative language for the principle in question:

“New development will be directed to existing subdivided urban areas and partially developed rural residential areas that are designated for the use, i. e., infill growth.”

3. DO NOT PROHIBIT NEW URBAN WELLS UNTIL WATER UTILITIES CAN PROVIDE NEW WATER CONNECTIONS

Your Statement has two related principles on this subject:

“New MidCoast urban development will be served by water and sewer districts rather than individual wells and septic systems.”

“The Coastside County Water District and Montara Water and Sanitary District will increase their water supply capacity and expand their facilities up to, and not beyond, that level necessary to accommodate MidCoast growth.”

The problem here is that the first of these principles can be enforced immediately, the second principle only over time. If urban wells and septic systems are prohibited upon Policy enactment, the utility districts will not necessarily have had time to increase their supply and expand their facilities to serve demand. A period of time would result where urban property owners could neither construct on-site utilities nor purchase hookups from a utility district. And because some water utility directors are politically opposed to expanding their facilities, that period of time could continue indefinitely. In practice, enactment of the first policy (prohibition against urban wells and septic systems) would motivate recalcitrant utility directors to obstruct enacting the second (expansion of utility facilities). To safeguard against footdragging, CPR recommends re-phrasing the first principle in the following manner:

“When water and sewer connections are available, new MidCoast urban development will be served by water and sewer districts rather than individual wells and septic systems.”

SUMMARY

THE SUPERVISORS DESERVE BROAD PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR CHARTING A MODERATE COURSE TOWARD UPDATING THE LCP. IF THE CPR PROPOSALS FOR DRAFT LANGUAGE CHANGES ARE INCORPORATED INTO THE “STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES,” THE SUPERVISORS WILL HAVE MARKEDLY IMPROVED A BALANCED ‘VISION’ DOCUMENT FOR THE MIDCOAST’S FUTURE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT.

Thank you for your careful consideration of the CPR recommendations. This paper includes an appendix that examines previous MidCoast ‘vision’ documents, especially as they compare to the differing policy perspectives of ‘no-growth’ MidCoast elected officials and CPR.

Respectfully submitted, 

Terrence D. Gossett for Californians for Property Rights