We learned a great deal about how the Coastal Commission appeal process works, but only part of it, since most of the commissioners never got to speak or vote. At a key point in the hearing, Gale's representative lost the right to postpone the hearing due to a procedural error. A postponement would have given the Gales a chance to work out a compromise with Coastal Commission staff. Believing that the cards were stacked against them and they were headed toward denial, the representative withdrew the application.
The central issue here is whether the Gale's project meets legal criteria in our Local Coastal Program (zoning code) that would allow development within a wetland buffer zone. Development is allowed in a buffer zone if there is no feasible alternative outside of the buffer. The buffer zone covers about half of the lot, and the remainder of the lot is the shape of the state of Idaho with about 4,400 total square feet.
 Tom Roman |
The starting point is the Coastal Act's definition of "feasible" which says: "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." Using "social factors" as success criteria, an argument was made that in addition to the home itself, a project has a number of different types of "development" that should be taken into account, including things like landscaping, patios, decks, fencing, etc. It was also argued that an active backyard is a reasonable expectation for a feasible single-family home based on its importance to family social functions. This family with two small children no doubt looks forward to using a backyard for birthday parties, family get-togethers, barbecues and graduation parties like most of us do.
I would consider an active, usable backyard to be a basic, fundamental objective for a detached single-family home, rather than a luxury or extravagance. I've never seen a detached single-family home that didn't have a backyard, but if one exists it would certainly be the exception, not the rule.
So what about the wetland? There is a 400-square-foot strip of land uphill and 40 feet away from the Gale property that is seasonally wet and supports certain plants associated with wetlands. All biologists who visited the site, including one from the California Department of Fish and Game, agreed that the Gale's project would have a minimal impact to this environment.
So, far from violating our zoning code, this is about the use of reasonable discretion when applying law that is clearly open to subjective interpretation. It's about using that discretion to balance the needs of humans and the environment. At the end of the day, Coastal Commission staff took a very narrow position that feasibility is based only on a building footprint of a proposed home and whether it fits into the Idaho-shaped remaining lot. Their view is that back yards, front and side yards, and everything that goes with them, are not part of feasibility.
Unfortunately, it is likely that there is a bigger picture at work here; that is, the fact that the wetland behind the Gale's property is the subject of litigation. If so, then politics trumped logical reasoning. Since this is beyond the scope of things the city's Planning Commission normally considers, we will need better communication channels with the Coastal Commission staff on similar future permits in order to understand its real concerns.
•
Tom Roman is a Half Moon Bay resident and a member of the city's Planning Commission.
w