Supervisors tweak principles, and send LCP changes back to subcommittee

Posted by on Tue, June 7, 2005

It will be another couple of months before the county Board of Supervisors begins to consider proposed changes to the county’s Local Coastal Plan.

Today, the County Board of Supervisors took another look the principles they plan to use to evaluate changes to the LCP. They made some minor word changes and asked the subcommittee that developed the principles to use them as an organizing structure for the proposed changes.  I’ll post the revised version as soon as I get a copy.

The subcommittee is expected to report back to the Board in July and the Board will take up the LCP revisions in late July or in August.

The Examiner ran an article today on Coastside skepticism about the Board’s approach to the LCP. My favorite quote:

The webmaster of "Coastsider," Barry Parr, called the proposed principles "vague enough to encompass pretty much anything" the supervisors might ultimately decide to do.

"The supervisors appear to be defining property rights here exclusively as the right to develop," Parr said. "A wider vision would include the property rights of the community affected by a neighboring property owner’s development plans."

Meanwhile, the San Mateo County Association of Realtors says its number-one concern is keeping houses cheap. George Mozingo, government affairs director of SAMCAR is quoted in the story as saying,  "SAMCAR’s priority is to expand affordable housing opportunities. Everybody can’t live in a million-plus home and the coastside community needs more housing for its workforce."

In its letter to the Board of Supervisors, their number-one priority appeared to be building more houses, regardless of price. SAMCAR said that it opposes designating the old Caltrans freeway bypass in Montara as open space because "being adjacent to the new tunnel, these properties would be ideal sites [for homes] given their proximity to transit."

If it were left up to SAMCAR the entire San Mateo Coast would look like Daly City. I do not think their REAL priority is “Cheap” Housing. I think their priority is MORE Housing, more the better as far as they are concerned

Folks should consider that the principles mandate that water and sewere services meet the development plan and not the reverse.  This almost undoubtedly means that ratepayers will be subsidizing development, large or small, here in the midcoast.

If you think water is expensive now…  wait until the bypass is turned over to developers and the board increases the number of building permits.

Why does this seem less like a Local Coastal Protection plan and more like a Development Enabler scheme?

Do the SAMCAR greedseeds have a map? They are repeatedly quoted as saying the abandoned bypass right-of-way through the backside of Montara and Moss Beach is “adjacent to the new tunnel.” Setting aside the fact that it will be two oversized tunnels rather than the one we thought we were voting for with Measure T, the abandoned right-of-way is nowhere close to the tunnels. Miles away! Sure, this false appeal to a transit excuse the Stuporvisors are likely to embrace may work; but it has no basis in actual local geography.

Carl May

twinsdad wrote: “Why does this seem less like a Local Coastal Protection plan and more like a Development Enabler scheme?”

Uh…because it is. This whole charade is about the Board of Supervisors trying to reward their big money contributors (developers, builders, realtors) by loosening up the rules so their friends can build and sell more houses.

In reply to mal.comX:

That being the case have people on the midcoast considered incorporating?  Seems like we’re always driving hat-in-hand to Redwood City and fighting tooth and nail for a modicum of self determination; one that I think will be further compromised as the tunnel makes access to the midcoast easier. 

I’d be curious to know what people think the pros and cons are of incorporation.  I’m sure HMB can provide many clues, and admitedly I’m not as up-to-date on our neighbor’s current affairs.

For the record, I am in no way linked to the Oscar Braun effort to incorporate all the SMC open space.  Quite the opposite, I feel the clear majority of people living here would like to see planned growth more in line with the spirit of the California Coastal Act findings and declarations.  Fighting big money takes organization and sometimes local governance can be the best way to achieve that.  We certainly agreed to this with regard to our water and sanitary district.