A standing-room-only crowd welcomed the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors to the Coastside Tuesday. The supervisors came to the Adcock Center in Half Moon Bay to hear testimony from Coastsiders about their proposed changes to the Local Coastal Program for the Midcoast. Nearly fifty Coastsiders asked the supervisors to reconsider their plan. Only two who didn’t have an obvious financial interest in the plan spoke in favor of it.

For those of you who haven’t been following this story, the Midcoast LCP is a critical planning document that is used by local governments and the California Coastal Commission.  The Commission gave the county $40,000 in 2000 to help pay for the process of revising its Midcoast LCP. After years of hard work and compromise, the locally-elected Midcoast Community Council (MCC) delivered a set of recommendations to the County. The MCC’s work was recommended by the county’s Planning Commission (with some refinements) for adoption by the Board of Supervisors. The Supervisors set up a subcommittee to review the recommendations and come up with its own recommended revisions to the Midcoast’s Local Coastal Program [PDF]. The Supervisors’ update departed dramatically from the Planning Commission’s in many ways.

Tuesday’s meeting was a hearing on the subcommittee’s proposed revisions.  Friday, the Coastal Commission staff had delivered a stinging assessment of the subcommittee’s work [PDF]. Tuesday, the Midcoast Community Council weighed it with its own assessment [PDF]. The Board of Supervisors will meet again next Tuesday in Redwood City no earlier than 10:30am.  Anyone who didn’t get a chance to speak today will be allowed to speak at the next meeting.  The Supervisors have not said whether they will make any decisions at that meeting.

There were roughly 47 speakers supporting the original version of the LCP update created by the MCC and the Planning Commission, 10 speakers supporting the subcommittee’s version, and 10 raising other, specialized issues.

No one at the meeting said the Supervisors’ proposal didn’t go far enough to encourage development on the Coastside.  Terry Gossett, George Muteff, and a few realtors were there telling the Supervisors how wise they were in their revision of the Local Coastal Program. As far as I can tell, Gossett was the only Midcoast resident without a financial stake in the update to speak in favor of the supervisors’ revisions.

One significant group, family members of developmentally disabled Coastsiders and one disabled student from Half Moon Bay High School, spoke movingly in favor of the Big Wave project, a live/work facility for developmentally disabled adults.  However, they didn’t make it clear why exceptions to the County’s zoning were needed to make this project a reality, nor have the supervisors.

It’s notable that a very large share of the speakers were Montara and Moss Beach residents.  We may look back on this meeting as the genesis of a new home-rule movement in these communities.

UPDATED: We’ve added a link the Midcoast Community Council’s response to the Board of Supervisors Subcommittee recommendations.

One day before the Board of Supervisors was scheduled to hold a Coastside hearing on their proposed changes to the county’s Local Coastal Program, Coastal Commission staff have sent a strong message in the form of a 11 page letter to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. The letter seriously calls into question the Board subcommittee’s vision for the county’s Local Coastal Program update. Page 1 of the Coastal Commision staff letter reminded the Supervisor’s of the definition of an LCP.

As you are aware, the LCP is the County’s local implementation of the California Coastal Act. ... Section 30108.6 of the Coastal Act defines an LCP as "a local government’s land use plans, zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and, within sensitive coastal resources areas, other implementing actions, which, when taken together, meet the requirements of, and implement the provisions and policies of [the Coastal Act] at the local level." Accordingly, any amendments to the LCP Land Use Plan must conform with and be adequate to carry out the coastal resource and public access protection policies contained in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.

The Commission staff will review any proposed LCP changes ultimately approved by the Board to determine if the changes are consistent with the provisions of the Calfornia Coastal Act. To help guide the Board in the right direction, the Coastal Comission staff had sent three earlier letters to the Supervisors. The wording of the latest letter suggests that the Supervisors apparently did not get the message contained in the three earlier letters [Download February 16, March 7, and March 28 letters from Coastsider]. The current LCP update was set into motion in 2000 when the Commission gave the county a $40,000 grant to support key elements of the process. 

In seventeen numbered points, the Commission staff raised serious issues with the supervisors’ plan:

• the buildout number is a theoretical maximum that doesn’t take into account many situations that would render a lot unbuildable;

• the Midcoast has inadequate water, sewer, and highway infrastructure;

• there are problems with exempting certain types of housing from annual growth limits;

• mandatory mergers of substandard lots are needed;

• it’s necessary to keep houses in proportion to lot size; 

• it’s undesirabe to use the Princeton waterfront for residential uses;

• rezoning the Burnham Strip in El Granada to permit residential use would conflict with Coastal Act;

• there is a need for more locals-serving business zoning to reduce car trips out of the Coastside;

• there are problems with rezoning the area around the airport;

• there must be mitigation for the traffic impact of any new development, including single houses;

• the county must keep some kinds of zoning in character with the rural areas of the Midcoast;

• rezoning the Devil’s Slide Bypass as open space is desirable and easy to do;

• it’s important to keep down the amount of impervious surfaces and winter grading to improve water quality;

• the county must keep the LCP consistent with the Coastal Act;

• the county proposal "would substantially weaken the LCP visual resource protection standards" ;

• priority water connections designated for coastal-dependent and visitor-serving uses should not be used for "affordable" residential uses.

It’s clear that the much work needs to be done before the Midcoast LCP update would be in a form that is legally consistent with the California Coastal Act, a necessary condition before it can approved by the Coastal Commission itself.  However, until that time, the county’s current LCP (which many believe to be inadequate to control the rapid housing construction boom and expanding traffic problems) will remain in force. Many believe this outcome would satisfy the well-financed and well-connected development community.

This raises the bigger question of whether the residents of the Midcoast can control our own communities unless we have local government.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Committee for Green Foothills is asking people to speak up to the Board of Supervisors about their plan for the Midcoast at their upcoming meeting in Half Moon Bay on Tuesday, December 6 from 2pm to 5pm. I’m reprinting their letter here because they’ve done as good a job as I could of laying out the issues and what you need to do. 

If you can’t come to the meeting and can’t send a letter by today, please email your letters to me (or attach them as a comment on this story with your name and address). To send email, click on "Email Barry Parr" on the left-hand navigation bar. I will hand-deliver your letters to the meeting on Tuesday.

Dear Friends,
As many of you know, the state’s Coastal Act is designed to protect our coastal resources. The Act is implemented locally through Local Coastal Programs, which promote the protection of natural resources and good land use throughout the coastal zone.
The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors has proposed some updates for the Local Coastal Program (LCP) for the Midcoast (El Granada, Miramar, Moss Beach, and Montara) that would weaken environmental protections in this area and promote intensive growth.
Please help speak up for coastal protections — attend the hearing next Tuesday, December 6, or write to the Board of Supervisors by this Friday.
What’s happening

The Supervisors’ proposed plan would bring large and unsustainable growth to the Midcoast and damage our fragile coastal resources.  Water and sewer capacity in this region is already taxed.  Transportation is problematic and getting worse.
Their proposal would, among other things, allow the addition of 3000-3400 housing units to the some 3700 existing units, and set annual growth limits at 2% — double that of neighboring communities. Importantly, their plan also fails to deal with the troublesome problem of substandard lots, and proposes a 5-7 year delay in dealing with protections for the unused Devil’s Slide Bypass Right-of-Way property, a popular and heavily-used open space area.
What you can do

Instead of the Supervisors’ plan, CGF supports most of the recommendations of the County Planning Commission. For details, visit our website.

Tell the Supervisors to listen to the advice of the Planning Commission and the Midcoast Community Council — the groups that spent years hearing from citizens and making recommendations for a viable Local Coastal Program that would adequately protect coastal resources.
1. Attend the hearing
We know that the real estate and construction lobbyists will be there in force: stand up for coastal protections!
Tuesday, December 6, 2005, 2-5pm
Ted Adcock Center
535 Kelly Avenue, Half Moon Bay
2. Write to the Supervisors
Ask the San Mateo County Supervisors to ensure that the LCP is based on the Coastal Act and protects the Midcoast.
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
Board President Rich Gordon
Members Mark Church, Jerry Hill, Rose Jacobs Gibson and Adrienne Tissier
400 County Center
Redwood City, 94063
Subject: Midcoast LCP review
Fax 650-599-1027
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Time is short: please write to the Supervisors by this Friday, December 2.
Points to make before the Board or in your letter:

Ask the Supervisors to revise the LCP as recommended by the San Mateo County Planning Commission, specifically:

- Set a 1% growth rate to be consistent with that of Half Moon Bay and Pacifica

- Require the merger of substandard lots to make them compatible with the rest of the community, and to ensure that any development that occurs on them will not overtax the water, sewer, and transportation resources

- Move forward now with the surplus Devil’s Slide Bypass Right-of-Way property to ensure the future use of this land (once destined to be a freeway) as a recreational trail.
Please send a copy of your message to CGF so we can track our efforts on this issue: fax 650-968-8431 or email: [email protected]
For background and more information on the update of the Midcoast LCP, to read CGF’s letters to the County on this issue, and to learn more about Local Coastal Programs, visit our website: http://www.greenfoothills.org/LCP
Please speak up to preserve our coastal resources.  Your voice does make a difference!
Many thanks,
The folks at Committee for Green Foothills

Kevin J. Lansing is a planning commissioner for the City of Half Moon Bay. The views presented in this article represent his concerns as an individual Coastside resident. The Board of Supervisors is set to resume public hearings on the Midcoast Local Coastal Program (LCP) update on Tuesday, December 6 from 2pm to 5pm at a Coastside location to be announced. Coastsider encourages you to attend this meeting and tell the supervisors what you think. The real estate and construction industries are expected to be there in full force.

UPDATED: Coastsider now has updated PDF’s of all three letters from the Coastal Commission to the Board of Supervisors.

Imagine the Midcoast (El Granada, Miramar, Moss Beach, and Montara) with 3400 additional houses—-a figure that would just about double the number of housing units that exist today. Figuring at least two cars per household (a conservative estimate), now try to imagine a 4-lane version of Highway 1 (think Pacifica) running past Surfer’s Beach in El Granada, with daily bumper-to-bumper traffic during commuting hours (again, think Pacifica). This is the future envisioned by San Mateo County Supervisors Richard Gordon and Jerry Hill, who comprise a special subcommittee making planning recommendations to the full Board of Supervisors.

After a 6-month hiatus, the Board of Supervisors is set to resume public hearings on the Midcoast Local Coastal Program (LCP) update. The next hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 6 from 2pm to 5pm at a Coastside location to be announced. Residents can provide comments to the Board either in writing or in person. You can download the staff report and subcommittee recommendations that will be discussed at this meeting from Coastsider.
Covering 23 Key Issues involving residential buildout numbers, annual growth limits, and infrastructure expansion plans, the subcommittee’s recommendations include the following:

• Allow an additional 3000-3400 housing units beyond the approximately 3700 units that exist today.

 

• Establish an annual residential growth rate of 1.9%, or about 75 new units per year. This figure is lower than the currently-allowed rate of 125 units per year, but substantially higher than the historical average rate of 52 units per year.

 

• Encourage the construction of "affordable housing" on hundreds of nonconforming, substandard lots by: (1) providing a bonus floor area ratio, (2) reducing the requirements for providing off-street parking, (3) waiving permit fees and expediting processing, (4) allowing access to priority water and sewer connections, and (5) pre-approving a set of standard house designs.

 

• Exempt new affordable housing, second-units, and caretaker’s quarters when figuring the annual growth limit.

 

• Widen Highway 1 to four lanes "within the urban Midcoast" to accommodate peak commuter traffic.

 

• Expand the water supply system to "Phase 2" to accommodate the Midcoast buildout vision.

The above recommendations, if adopted and carried out, would dramatically accelerate the loss of the unique rural and agricultural character of the Coastside. Many of the subcommittee’s recommendations appear to have little or nothing to do with the balanced principles set forth in the California Coastal Act, but rather are designed to help the County meet its objectives for providing new housing in the Bay Area over the next several decades. Policies for encouraging new housing belong in the Housing Element of the County’s General Plan, not in the Midcoast LCP (which is the local implementation of the California Coastal Act).

The idea of exempting several categories of new housing units from a higher-than-historical growth limit subverts the whole purpose of a limit; it would allow construction of an unlimited number of exempt housing units that impose just as much stress on Coastside infrastructure (roads, schools, water, and sewer) as any other type of residential housing unit. It’s also worth noting that the proposed growth limit applies only to residential units; it does not in any way restrain the rate of commercial development that can also impose great demands on the infrastructure. A perfect example is the "Harbor Village" project now under construction in Princeton, which will accommodate up to 450 cars.

While it is true that an annual residential growth limit provides some relief to the overburdened infrastructure, any proposed growth rate that leaves the final buildout numbers unchanged will only serve to postpone the day of reckoning when gridlock sets in for the Midcoast. Good planning for the future requires that decisions about infrastructure expansion be closely integrated with decisions about land use and development. No such integration is apparent in the subcommittee’s infrastructure recommendations. Instead, they appear to be saying "If we build it, they will come."

Regrettably, the subcommittee’s recommendations mostly ignore the detailed input provided by the California Coastal Commission staff in three lengthy letters [Download February 16, March 7, and March 28 letters from Coastsider] sent earlier this year to the Board of Supervisors. Some relevant quotes from those letters include:

 

• "[W]e do not agree that affordable housing units and second units should not be counted under the annual growth rate limit."

 

• "[W]e recommend that the LCP language clarify that the buildout estimates are the planned theoretical maximum buildout of the community, assuming consistency with all other LCP policies. In other words, the LCP should acknowledge that the buildout estimates…are therefore not an entitlement to a particular density or intensity of development."

 

• "Plans for expanding the capacity of public works such as sewer and water that can be potentially growth inducing and lead to greater traffic should only proceed after roadways capacity has been increased sufficiently. However, we realize that the potential to significantly improve Highway 1 and 92 are extremely limited, therefore, the more realistic solution for easing traffic congestion in the area is to reduce total demand on the roadways. Policies should prohibit potentially growth inducing public works projects and reduce the amount of available opportunities for new development."

 

• "Prohibit new subdivisions until such time as there is adequate infrastructure capacity to support such development."

Before becoming part of the Midcoast LCP, the subcommittee’s recommendations must first be approved by the full Board of Supervisors and then ultimately certified by the California Coastal Commission. Citizens who are concerned about the future of the Coastside have the opportunity (and perhaps the obligation) to participate fully in each phase of the approval process.

The Examiner looks at the December 6 county Board of Supervisors meeting to discuss proposed revisions to the Local Coastal Program (LCP)for the unincorporated Midcoast (Montara, Moss Beach, El Granada). The proposal will reduce the number of new houses that can be built each year from five percent to three percent of total homes.  Over the course of thirty-three years, the number of houses will increase from 3,700 to about 7,000. Both of the Midcoast’s two water systems are already at full capacity.

The Examiner talks to Montara Water and Sanitary District directors Scott Boyd and Kathryn Slater-Carter. Both say that Montara and Moss Beach have already reached the limits of the their water supply.

Boyd, who can remember the area’s former water utility having to truck in water a little more than a decade ago, said the proposal is unrealistic. Much of the water and sewer system currently in place — including many privately owned lines — are so old and dilapidated they can hardly handle the current demand, Boyd said.

“I guess I’m disappointed,” said Kathryn Slater-Carter, vice-chairwoman of the Midcoast Community Council and director of the Montara Water and Sanitary District, of the proposal. “They’re making decisions on buildout numbers and groundwater capacity before they even have their groundwater report.” The county’s groundwater report is due in December, but officials couldn’t say Tuesday if it will be complete by Dec. 6.

Meanwhile, the more growth-oriented Coastside County Water District, which serves El Granada, says, "Bring it on."

“The district believes that as the community’s future need for water supply is identified, it will be able to satisfy the requirement of all applicable regulatory agencies,” Schmidt said. “The current CCWD Board of directors is committed to providing a safe and reliable supply of water to meet the communities’ future needs as identified by the County of San Mateo and the city of Half Moon Bay.”

As long as it can make more improvements to its infrastructure, of course. CCWD already buys 70% its water from San Francisco.

Neither MSWD or CCWD has new connections to sell.  New homes in MWSD must use wells.  New home builders in CCWD must either dig wells or buy connections on the open market, which currently sell for about $35,000.

Two upcoming meetings, one Wednesday and one on December 6, will determine development on the unincorporated Midcoast for the foreseeable future.

The County has released the preliminary staff report on the proposed Midcoast Local Coastal Program (LCP) update.  This is a crucial process in determining the future of development on the unincorporated Midcoast (Montara, Moss Beach, and El Granada). The LCP is used by county and the Coastal Commission in evaluating development decisions.

The original proposed update was written by the Midcoast Community Council (MCC), which was elected by the residents of the Midcoast.

The County Board of Supervisors has been reviewing the proposal and created a subcommittee to write a set of guiding principles to be used in evaluating it. The subcommittee has met five times and made some recommendations to the full Board, and the Board has taken tentative action on some recommendations and asked for additional staff research on others.

The original proposal, background, staff responses and recommendations are all reviewed in a staff report released November 9. You can download the 50-page report from Coastsider [PDF].

The MCC will discuss the report on Wednesday, November 16 at 7:30 PM at the 3-0 Café at the HMB Airport.

The Board of Supervisors will meet on the Coastside at a location to be chosen on Tuesday, December 6 from 2pm to 5pm.

Local Coastal Programs (LCPs)  are the basic planning tools used by the Coastal Commission and coastal communities.  According to the Coastal Commission:

LCPs identify the location, type,  densities and other ground-rules for future development in the coastal zone portions of the 73 cities and counties along the coast. Each LCP includes a land-use plan and its implementing measures (e.g., zoning ordinances). Prepared by local government, these programs govern decisions that determine the short- and long-term conservation and use of coastal resources.

After an LCP has been finally approved, the Commission’s coastal permitting authority over most new development is transferred to the local government. The Commission retains permanent coastal permit jurisdiction over development proposed on the immediate shoreline (tidelands, submerged lands, and public trust lands).

Please review the report and attend the meeting on Wednesday.  Let’s discuss the LCP revision here, and let’s work to get a big turnout for the Board of Supervisors Coastside meeting on December 6.

Folks in Mendocino County are trying to keep Caltrans from turning a scenic bridge into a "a high-speed urban overpass." The proposal includes eliminating a sidewalk and using railings that obstruct the view of the Ten-Mile Estuary.

They’re looking for people to write to the Coastal Commission before Tuesday, November 8.

Click "read more" to see their letter.  Visit their site for more detailed information, including an intensive history of their victory with the Noyo Bridge.

Hikers, dogwalkers, and neighbors in Montara have been watching a mysterious construction site take shape in the open space near Highway 1 on the northern edge of town. This week in particular, the activity has increased with a gravel road and chain-link fencing.

All that earth-moving equipment is actually building wetlands.  As mitigation for taking about an acre of wetlands in the building of the Devil’s Slide Tunnel, Caltrans is replacing and restoring four acres of wetlands in Montara on the Rancho Corral de Tierra land owned owned by the Peninsula Open Space Trust [Google satellite picture].

Much of the area nearby is already wetlands, covered with wetlands vegetation. The project will create seasonal wetlands that will flood in the rainy season, mimicking a natural cycle, except that it will be drained by a culvert under the highway.

According to Jeff Weiss with Caltrans, "We’re removing all the existing vegetation and replacing it with native wetlands vegetation."

Weiss said that the $1.3 million wetlands project has been passed by the San Mateo County Mosquito Abatement District.

The Half Moon Bay City Council unanimously approved a resolution of support for Cabrillo Unified School District’s plan to build a new middle school at Tuesday’s meeting, regardless of the location chosen by the school board.

The city is considering expediting the construction by such measures as hiring additional temporary staff in its planning department, as it did to expedite the rebuilding of Cunha’s Market. Other recommendations from City Manager Debra Ryan were to assign a project team to the rebuilding right away, and to use traffic estimates from the city’s Local Coastal Program.

Approval of the resolution followed presentations by school board members Roy Salume and John Moseley, who have been meeting in a joint subcommittee with City Council members Jim Grady and Mike Ferreira. Salume and Moseley didn’t speak on behalf of the school board, and didn’t shed any light on whether the school board could actually make a decision at its next meeting. Salume expressed an interest in formalizing the board’s relationship with the city regarding the middle school, possibly with a contract.

CORRECTION: This story originally said that the resolution was changed to support the middle school regardless of location. That was how the resolution was originally written.

Although removing the middle school from Wavecrest would free up some space in the development, it may not result in any additional houses.

In Thursday’s Half Moon Bay City Council meeting, Wavecrest’s developers discussed how the plan for the development could change if the middle school is no longer part of the plan.  Both the developers and the City Council seemed eager to demonstrate their good working relationship in discussing the plans in the wake of their settlement.

Wavecrest executive Bill Barrett described a plan that would use half the additional space for open space and half to increase the size of some lots in the development. Barrett made it clear that this plan was for discussion purposes only and was not a formal proposal of any kind.

The open space would include increased setbacks from drainage ditches in the northwest corner of the site, moving the entire development to the east, but not all the way to Highway 1. The southern border of the developed site would also move north, to increase the southern buffer space. The developers are also considering adding more small public parks to the development.

Lots that are currently planned to be smaller than "typical" Coastside lots (Barrett wouldn’t say "substandard") would be increased in size.  Also, streets would be made narrower, to decrease the amount of impermeable surface and increase the buildable space.