Coastal plan upsets farmers

Half Moon Bay's dwindling farm families are upset.

"They have done nothing in my eyes to help us keep farming in Half Moon Bay," said Terry Andreotti.

Part of the massive Local Coastal Program amendment being discussed by the City Council would not allow any new buildings on urban reserve zoned property. For all practical purposes, that only applies to the five major farms remaining in the city. The hope of the city is to protect the extremely large properties from falling into the hands of developers and turning into massive housing developments.

Additionally, to also protect open space on the coast, the city is proposing any new water wells on the farm properties require a conservation easement. That means the property, regardless of owner, could not be built on.

While the agricultural land is already zoned for limited development, creating an easement would require the land to remain untouched even if the zoning is changed.

At the same time, an easement devalues the property value. Oftentimes, that is a farmer's largest and only major investment. They use the assessed land value to borrow against and use the money to purchase business materials or more land, said land use consultant Kerry Burke, a former planner for Half Moon Bay.

In Andreotti's case, she wanted to give her son a chance to try the green thumb he inherited from his grandfather who started the business in 1926. There is no way he can work the crops if he is forced to live only where he can afford a home - most likely out of the Bay Area.

Farm property owner K.C. Branscomb Kelly already has a home in nearby Woodside, but wants to build herself a modest house on her recently acquired 50 acres near Frenchman's Creek. She tends to horses on her property and said she can't manage the property while living in Woodside. Additionally, she wants to make sure employees have a place to stay.

If her barn were to burn down tomorrow, there's no guarantee she'd be able to rebuild it, she said.

Both Andreotti and Branscomb Kelly sent letters to the City Council hoping to postpone their vote scheduled for last night. Pressure from the community on a number of different issues, including water rights and property development on the beach, led the council to postpone a vote and instead take additional public comment last night.

More than 50 people - including several lawyers representing land owners - turned out to criticize the plan and ask questions of the council and staff. Few questions were answered, but the council agreed to look into all of them.

The Central Coast Water District even threatened a lawsuit for what it perceives as the city's infringement into its authority over water management in the city. The plan, according to the district, allows the city greater authority on issuing permits and where and how water travels. It's an attempt to curb development at the cost of improved infrastructure, said district Director Jim Larimer.

The city seriously refutes the allegations and said it always has and always will work with the district to provide adequate and quick approval of water permits.

Absent two members, the council chose to postpone any decision to a later meeting and agreed more discussion is needed before a vote is taken. Once the city approves the plan, it must meet the state Coastal Commission requirements and go through an extensive environmental review process.

Dana Yates can be reached by e-mail: dana@smdailyjournal.com or by phone: (650) 344-5200 ext. 106. What do you think of this story? Send a letter to the editor: letters@smdailyjournal.com