|
|
Click to download a PDF of the 58-page staff report on the county's LCP udpate.
|
The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors will once again take up the update to the county’s Local Coastal Program, the master document that is the template for development and preservation on the unincorporated Coastside.
The supervisors will be taking public testimony on the limited set of issues that they are considering Tuesday. Here is the list of topics with explanations in some cases. Please read them carefully, because they’re kind of confusing. You can download a PDF of the staff report from Coastsider.
- Improving level of service on Hwy 1: The current proposed update recommends expanding Highway 1 to four lanes. County staff is proposing “wider shoulders to allow passage for emergency vehicles, signals at major intersections, acceleration/deceleration lanes and turn pockets. Expansion of highway capacity through adding travel lanes should only be considered after basic local, commuter and recreational transit service levels have been met.”
- Reserving water capacity for failed residential wells: This would set aside some of our water capacity speicifically for the purpose of serving homeowners whose wells have failed.
- Eliminating the provision authorizing an increase in the annual limit on residential units to 200 units per year: This would keep the limit where it is now.
- Establishing a cap to the proposed exemption to the annual limit for units occupied by disabled person. This would add another 50 units to those that could be built out in under the annual limit, potentially increasing the number of units built in a given year. This would not help the Big Wave project, which will require a separate LCP amendment.
- Revising the process for merging Midcoast substandard lots. Merging substandard lots will reduce the number of developable lots and increase the size of lots that new houses occupy.
- Establishing new development controls for the Burnham Strip.
- Postponing deletion of timber harvesting, surface mining, oil and gas exploration and solid waste facilities as permitted uses.
- Forming a Midcoast Storm and Drainage Committee.
- Eliminating the proposal that second units be established only as affordable housing.
What happens at this meeting will affect the Coastside forever. It’s important for Coastsiders to show up and voice their opinions.
The new recommendations for the Board of Supervisors ignore all of the detailed input provided by the California Coastal Commission staff in its most recent letter dated December 2, 2005. http://coastsider.com/comments/1060010C/
Rather than adhering to the principles set forth in the California Coastal Act, the Supervisors are pushing ahead with their own vision for the the Midcoast. That vision involves a doubling of the number of housing units from the current level of around 3700 units to somewhere between 6700 and 7200 units (plus an untold number of un-permitted second units that will surely be built over time). http://coastsider.com/comments/1038010C/
There is no possible way that the Coastside infrastructure (schools/water/roads/sewer) can support anywhere near a doubling of the number of housing units in the Midcoast.
In a letter to the Board of Supervisors dated December 12, 2005, Cabrillo Unified School District Superintendent John Bayless wrote: “As presently configured, the District can support limited growth, but not a doubling in population…The District’s options for future [school] development are becoming increasing limited. Many elementary-age student in Half Moon Bay are already bussed to schools in neighboring areas…”
The latest Board of Supervisors’ recommendations do not even mention the impact of the proposed buildout scenario on Coastside schools.
The recommendations do admit, however, that the CCWD water system is about 10 percent short of the capacity needed for buildout, while the MWSD water system is nearly 40 percent short of the needed capacity.
Here’s the table that shows the existing (2005) Level-of-Service (LOS) on Coastside roadways
Highway 92 (1 to 280) LOS “E” Highway 1 (Miramontes to Frenchman’s Creek) LOS “E” Highway 1 (Frenchman’s Creek to Pacifica) LOS “D” Highway 1 (Pacifica to San Francisco) LOS “F”
Here’s the Table that shows the projected (2010) Level of Service on Coastside roadways (that’s less than 5 years from today).
Highway 92 (1 to 280) LOS “F” Highway 1 (Miramontes to El Granada) LOS “F” Highway 1 (El Granada to Montara) LOS “E” Highway 1 (Montara to Pacifica) LOS “F” Highway 1 (Pacifica to San Francisco) LOS “F”
Here’s what the Coastal Commission staff recently said about Coastside roadways:
The existing extreme traffic congestion on Highways 1 and 92, which operate at a level of service F during peak commute and recreation periods, significantly interferes with the public’s ability to access the Mid-Coast’s public beaches and other visitor serving coastal resources;
The most recent Countywide Transportation Plan predicts far greater congestion on the Highway 1 and Highway 92 corridors by 2010, even with planned highway improvements;
There continues to be a significant imbalance between housing supply and jobs throughout the Mid-Coast region of San Mateo County, with a shortage of jobs along the coast that forces residents to commute over Highways 1 and 92 to inland jobs;
There are more than three thousand existing undeveloped parcels in the unincorporated Mid-Coast region (and additional undeveloped parcels in the City of Half Moon Bay), each of which could be developed with a future residential use, further compounding traffic congestion;