Coastal perspective
By John Horgan
Monday, March 19th, 2007 at 11:06 am in Uncategorized.
Let there be no doubt about the pervasive influence of the no-growth movement on the San Mateo County Coastside. Not long ago, plans were unveiled for the creation of a number of homes in Montara. The idea, among some fervent coastal protectionists, has been dubbed “a major subdivision.” Major? Precisely how many houses are we talking about here? Turns out the answer is seven. That’s right. Seven. Not 77 or 777, seven. From the tone of some of those weighing in on the matter you might get the impression that another Westlake is being proposed. Not so. However, branding a seven-structure proposal as “major” is just one more indication that population paranoia is not just alive and well on the coastal frontier, it’s practically a religion.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
March 19th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Cute observation. However, the underlying premise is seriously flawed. A “major subdivision” is not a value judgment by city planners or environmentalists. It’s not even a term of their choosing. It’s California land-use talk for any proposed division of land creating five or more parcels under Cal. Gov’t Code ยง 66426 for which a full set of tentative and final subdivision maps must be filed. Conversely, a “minor subdivision” is land-use talk for any proposed division of land creating four or fewer parcels, which is exempt from many of the map filing requirements. Thus, calling something a “major subdivision” isn’t a calculated decision to use a loaded term. Rather, it’s an indication that the project had triggered the somewhat more onerous procedures for map filing under state law. The distinction between the two categories of projects has been present in state law since, I believe, 1974. Sorry to burst your bubble.