COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

DATE:

January 5, 2005

BOARD MEETING DATE:

January 25, 2005

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

Yes

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services

SUBJECT:

Consideration of Midcoast Local Coastal Program (LCP) Update Project

RECOMMENDATION

1.

Convene a study session to facilitate improved understanding of the proposal and related public concerns.

2.

Review this report, including the attached LCP policy and zoning amendments recommended by the Planning Commission.

3.

Schedule a future meeting to continue consideration and take action on this proposal.

VISION ALIGNMENT

Commitment: Redesign our urban environment to increase vitality and reduce congestion. Preserve and provide access to our natural environment.

Goals: (12) Land use decisions consider transportation, infrastructure demand and environmental impacts. (13) The boundary between open space and development is fixed to protect the quality of the natural environment.

The proposal contributes to these commitments and goals, by (1) lowering the Midcoast growth rate limit, (2) initiating comprehensive lot merger to preserve the community’s planned buildout, (3) ensuring that small houses are built on small parcels, (4) protecting neighborhood commercial opportunities, (5) promoting open space and recreation uses for an obsolete roadway alignment, and (6) strengthening water runoff limits to reduce environmental degradation.

PROPOSAL

The Planning Commission proposes a set of Local Coastal Program (LCP) and Zoning Regulations amendments affecting the unincorporated Midcoast, north of Half Moon Bay, that, in general, preserve the community’s planned buildout and development density, decrease the rate of residential development, reduce house size on nonconforming parcels, and further protect community resources.

BACKGROUND

The intent of the Midcoast LCP Update Project is to review and revise the Midcoast land use policy with the aim of averting future permit appeals and improving Coastal Act consistency. A map of the project area is included as Attachment A. Project achievements to date are summarized below:

v

New Midcoast house size limits enacted (2000)

v

Midcoast Design Review (DR) Committee established (2000)

v

Community scoping sessions held to identify project tasks (2000)

v

Alternatives Report prepared with analysis of project tasks (2001-2002)

v

Community workshops held to discuss policy proposals (2002-2003)

v

DR Committee prepared residential design review standards (2002-2003)

v

Planning Commission held 15 meetings to consider the LCP project proposals (2003-2004)

Key tasks in the project scope of study are:

$

Recalculate residential buildout

$

Evaluate the infrastructure capacity needed to serve Midcoast buildout

$

Assess the adequacy of the existing annual limit on new residential development

$

Determine the number of nonconforming parcels (substandard lots)

$

Assess the adequacy of existing nonconforming parcel development controls

$

Consider a comprehensive lot merger program for substandard lots

$

Evaluate the existing limits on residential uses in non-residential zoning districts

$

Increase commercial and employment opportunities (emphasis at Princeton)

$

Reevaluate Midcoast traffic mitigation requirements

$

Reevaluate the Airport Overlay (AO) zoning district

$

Assess zoning adequacy in Midcoast open space and rural residential areas

$

Prepare an impervious surface limit for new development

$

Protect CalTrans’ “Devil’s Slide” bypass land for low intensity uses

$

Evaluate opportunities for Highway 1 pedestrian improvements

$

Revise and update the design review standards

$

Update the definitions and mapping of sensitive habitats and wetlands

This transmittal does not include the updated Design Review standards which your Board approved in April, 2004. It also does not include changes to LCP sensitive habitats and wetlands policies. The Planning Commission postponed consideration of these changes until early 2005, to provide time for additional analysis, public input, and coordination with Coastal Commission staff.

KEY ISSUES

1.

Residential Buildout

Buildout is the planned endpoint of a community’s growth. Staff determined that there are 3,719 existing residential units, and at buildout there will be between 6,757 and 7,153 units. Thus, the Midcoast is 52-55% built out. The updated figures are based on 2001 parcel information and existing LCP land use policy, and assume that applicable substandard lots will be merged.

The Planning Commission recommends:

a.

Accept the updated data as an accurate buildout estimate based on the current available information.

b.

Direct staff to develop a program to identify the number of unpermitted Midcoast second units and facilitate their legalization.

2.

Infrastructure Demand

a.

Water Supply

Midcoast water supply is provided by the Coastside County Water District and Montara Water and Sanitary District. A map of the district boundaries is included as Attachment B.

(1)

Coastside County Water District

The annual average demand at buildout for the area served by the Coastside County Water District will be 1.24 million gallons per day, while peak day demand will be 2.23 million gallons per day. The District’s water supply capacity (2003) is 1.13 million gallons per day (normal year) and 0.79 million gallons per day (drought year).

(2)

Montara Water and Sanitary District

The annual average demand at buildout for the area served by the Montara Water and Sanitary District will be 0.95 million gallons per day, while peak day demand at buildout will be 1.72 million gallons per day. The District’s water supply capacity (2003) is 0.51 million gallons per day (normal year) and 0.36 million gallons per day (drought year).

b.

Wastewater Treatment

Wastewater treatment is provided by Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside (SAM). The Midcoast demand for wastewater treatment at buildout will be 1.61 million gallons per day. SAM’s treatment capacity is 1.71 million gallons per day (2003). SAM has undertaken major tank and pump station improvements to accommodate wet weather flow.

c.

Roadways

Existing (2001) and projected (2010) Level of Service (LOS) measures for the most congested segments of Highways 1 and 92 during peak commute hours are shown below. The 2010 service levels assume completion of the Devil’s Slide tunnel and additional improvements to Highway 92.

ROADWAY SEGMENT

2001

2010

Highway 92 (1 to 280)

LOS “E”

LOS “F”

Highway 1 (Miramontes to Frenchman’s Creek)

LOS “E”

Highway 1 (Miramontes to El Granada)

LOS “F”

Highway 1 (Frenchman’s Creek to Pacifica)

LOS “E”

Highway 1 (El Granada to Montara)

LOS “E”

Highway 1 (Montara to Pacifica)

LOS “F”

Highway 1 (Pacifica to San Francisco)

LOS “E”

LOS “F”

The Planning Commission recommends:

a.

Accept the updated data as an accurate estimate of Midcoast infrastructure demand based on the current available information.

b.

Direct staff to adjust the data as necessary if more accurate data sources become available.

c.

Complete hydrological studies to determine available water resources, and plan growth to the level that the available resources can support.

3.

Annual Growth Rate Limit

The LCP limits Midcoast residential growth to 125 units per year. This is to ensure that new development occurs gradually and does not overburden infrastructure or disrupt the quality of life. Between 1981 and 2002, the number of new residential units averaged 52 per year. Half Moon Bay limits residential growth to 1% of the city’s population per year. Currently, for the Midcoast, 1% would equate to 40 units.

The following alternatives were discussed at the Planning Commission hearings:

a.

Status Quo Alternative – Maintain the existing growth rate limit (125 units per year). Midcoast buildout would not occur for at least 19 years.

b.

30-Year Buildout Alternative – Lower the growth rate limit to 80 units per year (36% decrease). This alternative would establish a 30-year buildout term for remaining residential development, i.e., equivalent to the original 1980 buildout projection. Midcoast buildout would not occur for at least 31 years.

c.

Historic Growth Rate Alternative – Lower the growth rate limit to 52 units per year (58% decrease). This alternative reflects the average annual rate of Midcoast housing development since 1981. Midcoast buildout would not occur for at least 47 years.

d.

Half Moon Bay Based Alternative – Lower the annual limit to 1% population growth each year. This would equate to 40 units for 2005 (68% decrease). Midcoast buildout would not occur for at least 63 years.

e.

ABAG Projection Alternative – Lower the annual residential growth rate limit to 30 units per year (76% decrease). This alternative reflects the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG’s) Midcoast household projections for 2000 – 2020, which indicate annual growth of 30 units per year. Midcoast buildout would not occur for at least 82 years.

Staff recommended that the growth rate limit be lowered to either 80 units per year (30-Year Buildout Alternative) or 52 units per year (Historic Growth Rate Alternative).

In recognition of the existing utility and transportation infrastructure constraints, the Planning Commission recommends:

a.

Lower the growth rate limit to 1% of the Midcoast population per year, not to exceed 52 units. Distribute the limit among the Midcoast communities according to the relative number of vacant parcels, but allow suspension of the distribution requirement when extenuating circumstances exist.

b.

Apply the annual limit to all residential units, except (1) second units, (2) units at designated affordable housing sites, and (3) mixed-use units and caretaker’s quarters in Princeton.

c.

Apply the limit to each residential unit, not each building permit.

d.

Delete the provision which permits raising the limit when sufficient infrastructure capacity exists.

4.

Merge Substandard Residential Lots

A nonconforming parcel is a parcel whose area is less than the zoning minimum parcel size; typically a subdivided substandard lot. Staff has determined that there are 4,899 residential zoned substandard lots; of these, 1,605 lots occur on vacant parcels, and 3,294 lots occur on developed parcels.

Merger is a process where the local government can combine adjoining lots into a single parcel. Without parcel merger, substandard lots in common ownership can be sold off and developed as separate building sites, thereby increasing residential buildout and density. Existing law allows the County to merge contiguous lots in common ownership when at least one of the lots is undeveloped, and at least one of the lots meets one of five conditions, including that it is less than 5,000 sq. ft. in area. County Counsel has advised that State merger law may be interpreted to allow applicable subdivided substandard lots to be merged in a consecutive manner up to either 5,000 sq. ft. or to the minimum parcel size for the zoning district.

The following alternatives were discussed at the Planning Commission hearings:

a.

Status Quo Alternative - Maintain the existing policy of not merging contiguous, commonly-owned substandard lots on a parcel unless a development proposal has been submitted. This approach could facilitate the “selling off” of lots in common ownership, and potentially could result in over 700 unanticipated new building sites.

b.

Lot Merger Alternative - Enact a policy to comprehensively merge residential zoned substandard lots that are contiguous and in common ownership to the extent allowed by law. This approach could prevent the potential “selling off” of over 700 substandard lots.

As proposed by staff, and in order to facilitate implementation of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program, the Planning Commission recommends:

a.

To the extent allowed by law, comprehensively merge applicable residential zoned substandard lots up to 5,000 sq. ft. or the applicable zoning district minimum parcel size.

b.

Sequence lot merger to first merge lots occurring on undeveloped parcels, including vacant land or developed land where at least one lot is vacant. Concurrently, merge lots on developed parcels when an application has been submitted to enlarge or to demolish a structure on the site. Thereafter, merge lots on developed parcels when sufficient resources are available.

5.

Nonconforming Parcel Development Controls

Development on nonconforming parcels is controlled to assure that house size is proportioned to parcel size. The existing zoning controls for nonconforming parcels: (a) limit house floor area to 48% of parcel area, (b) require daylight plane or façade articulation features, and (c) require use permit and design review approval for parcels smaller than 3,500 sq. ft.

Half Moon Bay controls nonconforming parcel house size according to what is known as the “Proportionality Rule.” This more restrictive technique limits house size proportionate to the amount of parcel nonconformity.

The following alternatives were discussed at the Planning Commission hearings:

a.

Status Quo Alternative - Maintain the existing floor area limit, i.e., 0.48 (parcel size). For a 2,500 sq. ft. parcel, a 1,200 sq. ft. house could be built with no covered parking requirement.

b.

Proportionality Rule Alternative - Limit house size proportionate to amount of parcel nonconformity. For a 2,500 sq. ft. parcel, this equates to 0.265 (parcel size), or a 663 sq. ft. house plus 200 sq. ft. for a garage.

c.

Affordable Housing Alternative - Enact a bonus floor area option for affordable housing built on nonconforming parcels. For market rate houses, the Proportionality Rule would apply; for affordable houses, the existing limit would apply. For a 2,500 sq. ft. parcel, up to a 537 sq. ft. bonus floor area would be granted.

Staff recommended maintaining the existing limit, i.e., the Status Quo Alternative.

In order to assure that house floor area was most proportionate to the size of smaller nonconforming parcels, the Planning Commission recommends:

a.

Enact the “Proportionality Rule” for nonconforming parcels in zoning districts where the minimum parcel size is 5,000 sq. ft.

b.

Enact a combination of the “Proportionality Rule” and a decreased floor area ratio for nonconforming parcels in zoning districts where the minimum parcel size is larger than 5,000 sq. ft.

c.

Continue to require (1) daylight plane and facade articulation features, (2) use permit and design review, and (3) no exceptions to house floor area and height limits.

The following shows the implication of the Planning Commission’s recommendation for development on a 3,000 sq. ft. parcel where covered parking is not required:

Maximum Permitted House Size

Existing

Proposed

1,440 sq. ft.

954 sq. ft.

6.

Residential Uses in the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) District

The C-1 district is intended to provide for neighborhood serving retail businesses. It allows residential uses subject to a use permit. There is no requirement that a commercial use be located on the parcel or that the residential uses be located above the first floor. The C-1 district height limit is 36 feet. The main issue is assuring an opportunity for commercial uses to locate in the Midcoast.

As proposed by staff, and in order to preserve the limited supply of commercial land, the Planning Commission recommends:

a.

Limit residential use to above the first floor. Residential floor area shall not exceed the commercial floor area. Prohibit reestablishing ground floor residential development after its removal.

b.

Reduce the building height limit to 28 feet, consistent with surrounding residential zoning.

7.

Residential Uses in the W (Waterfront) District

The W district, located in Princeton, is intended primarily to provide for service and industrial uses that support commercial fishing and recreational boating. The district also permits caretaker’s quarters, i.e. a residential unit inhabited by someone looking after the site. The number of caretaker’s quarters is limited to 20% of the developed parcels in the district. The unit must be located within the same building as the primary use and not exceed 35% of the building floor area, up to 750 sq. ft. Issues include compatibility of residential development in an industrial area, eventual loss of preferred waterfront uses, and providing opportunity for live-work housing.

The following alternatives were discussed at the Planning Commission hearings:

a.

Status Quo Alternative – Maintain existing limits on number of units (20% of developed parcels) and unit size (35% of building floor area, not to exceed 750 sq. ft.).

b.

Increase Upper Limit Alternative – Increase limit on number of units to 35% of developed parcels. Otherwise, same as the Status Quo Alternative.

c.

No Upper Limit Alternative – No limit on the number of caretaker’s quarters. Increase unit size limit to 1,000 sq. ft. and require a use permit.

d.

Prohibit Caretaker’s Quarters Alternative – Prohibit new caretaker’s quarters, i.e., eliminate caretaker’s quarters as a permitted use in the W district.

Staff recommended that the limit on number of caretaker’s quarters be marginally increased from 20%, not to exceed 35% of developed parcels. Otherwise, retain the status quo.

The Planning Commission recommends:

a.

Increase the permitted number of caretaker’s quarters to 27.5% of the developed parcels.

b.

Prohibit caretaker’s quarters on nonconforming parcels.

c.

Continue to limit the size of caretaker’s quarters at 35% of building floor area, not to exceed 750 sq. ft.

Staff estimates that the Planning Commission’s recommendation would result in an increase from 33 to 45 caretaker’s quarters at buildout.

8.

Residential Uses in the COSC (Coastside Open Space Conservation) District

The COSC district, located in El Granada near Highway 1, is intended to provide for low intensity development that best preserves the area’s visual openness. The district permits agriculture, nurseries, public and commercial recreation, institutional facilities and single-family residences. The main issues involve residential compatibility with open space objectives, and the ability for landowners to obtain a reasonable economic use of their property.

Staff recommended that single-family residences continue to be permitted in the COSC district until alternative land uses are identified that would provide a reasonable economic return to landowners.

The Planning Commission recommends prohibiting single-family residences in the COSC District.

9.

Increasing Commercial and Employment Opportunities

The Midcoast is primarily a residential community with more housing than jobs. This contributes to traffic congestion during commute hours. Increased commerce and local job creation can reduce traffic congestion and generate local tax revenue.

Potential areas for additional employment sites include Princeton and on or near Half Moon Bay Airport. The purpose of Princeton’s existing Waterfront (W) district is to provide service and industrial uses that support commercial fishing and recreational boating.

The following alternatives were discussed at the Planning Commission hearings:

a.

Status Quo Alternative – Maintain existing permitted land uses which emphasize marine-related industries.

b.

Increase Uses at Princeton Alternative – Permit three additional uses in the W district “Inland Area”:

(1)

Limited business offices (<5,000 sq. ft. per establishment).

(2)

Limited retail (≤3,000 sq. ft. per establishment, except for goods made on-site).

(3)

Construction and maintenance firms (trades businesses).

In addition, permit in the W district “Shoreline Area”: limited restaurants (≤3,000 sq. ft. in floor area).

c.

Increase Uses at Half Moon Bay Airport Alternative – Permit commercial and office uses at two Half Moon Bay Airport sites that have been deemed as not necessary for Airport-related activities.

Staff recommended that both of the alternatives which increase the permitted uses at Princeton and Half Moon Bay Airport be approved.

In order to better protect against any future aircraft accident hazards, the Planning Commission recommends against changing the permitted uses at Princeton and Half Moon Bay Airport until the Half Moon Bay Airport Master Plan is complete, and the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has evaluated whether any aircraft safety protection zones need to be revised.

10.

Development Controls in the AO (Airport Overlay) District

To reduce safety risks from aircraft near Half Moon Bay Airport, the AO district regulations control the size and intensity of development otherwise permitted by zoning. The AO regulations prohibit residential development, and limit site intensity to three persons per parcel. Approximately 3/4 of the AO district is also subject to federal (FAA) and regional (ALUC) protection zones.

The following alternatives were discussed at the Planning Commission hearings:

a.

Status Quo Alternative – Maintain existing AO zone configuration and use limitations.

b.

Reduce AO Zone Alternative – Reduce the size of the AO zone ~1/4 to correspond with the current FAA and ALUC protection zones.

c.

Revise Site Intensity Alternative – Revise AO district regulations to permit more than three persons per parcel.

The Planning Commission recommends:

a.

Rezone approximately 1/4 of the AO district to a new overlay district limiting site intensity to one person per 1,667 sq. ft. of parcel area, i.e. that area is furthest from the runway and not subject to FAA and ALUC protection zones.

b.

Do not otherwise change the AO district until the Airport Master Plan is complete, and the ALUC has evaluated whether any aircraft safety protection zones need to be revised.

11.

Traffic Mitigation Requirements

The County requires mitigation fees from new development for local road/drainage improvements. In addition, the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) requires local jurisdictions to mitigate traffic impacts on designated roads resulting from large-scale development (generating more than 100 peak hour trips). Mitigation can involve requiring fees or Transportation Demand Measures (TDMs). Typical TDMs include establishing a shuttle service, subsidizing transit for employees, charging for parking, or establishing a carpool/vanpooling program or having a compressed work week. The main issue involves averting increased traffic congestion as Midcoast development proceeds.

As proposed by staff, the Planning Commission recommends:

a.

Continue to require local road mitigation fees from new development.

b.

Continue to apply C/CAG requirements to projects generating more than 100 peak hour trips.

c.

Require TDMs for projects that generate less than 100 peak hour trips and are not exempt from CEQA.

d.

Study expanding shuttle service between the Midcoast and Bayside.

12.

Development Controls in RM-CZ and PAD Districts

The Midcoast includes properties that are zoned RM-CZ (Resource Management-Coastal Zone) or PAD (Planned Agricultural), and intended for very low density development. Subdivision potential is limited to one unit per 40-160 acres. The permitted land uses include those typically found in the rural area. Height is limited to 36 feet. Staff concluded that the existing regulations effectively protect Midcoast visual and natural resources. However, changes to permitted uses and house size would improve community compatibility.

As proposed by staff, and in order to improve Midcoast land use compatibility, the Planning Commission recommends:

a.

Amend the PAD and RM-CZ district regulations for the project area to:

(1)

Delete timber harvesting, surface mining, oil and gas exploration and solid waste facilities as permitted uses. Permit selective tree removal or thinning for resource management purposes.

(2)

Reduce the height limit for single-family residences to 28 feet.

(3)

Limit the floor area of single-family residences to that required by the R-1/S-17 zoning district.

b.

Rezone the PAD and RM-CZ zoned properties in the project area to the Design Review (DR) overlay district. Require Design Review Committee review for residential development.

13.

Rural Residential Designation

The rural residential area is a 233-acre region adjoining Montara that is largely subdivided into small lots. This area, located on the rural side of the urban-rural boundary, is designated Very Low Density Residential (one dwelling unit per 5 acres) and zoned RM-CZ. The LCP defines the rural residential area as including sites that are served by utility lines. Although this area is within the Montara Water and Sanitary District service area, portions lack public water supply, and the entire area lacks sewer lines.

As proposed by the Midcoast Community Council at the Planning Commission meetings and supported by staff, the Planning Commission recommends redesignating the two areas not currently served by water distribution lines from Rural Residential to Rural, as shown on the map included as Attachment C.

The implication of the Planning Commission’s recommendation is that LCP policy would preclude future extension of utility distribution lines into these areas.

14.

Merger of Rural Parcels

The planned density for the rural residential area is one dwelling unit per five acres. For other Midcoast rural areas, the planned density is lower. Much of the rural residential area is comprised of small subdivided lots, typically less than 5,000 sq. ft. Among the prerequisites for merger are that an applicable lot or parcel is less than 5,000 sq. ft. in area or does not meet current standards for water supply or sewage disposal.

As proposed by members of public at the Planning Commission meetings and supported by staff, the Planning Commission recommends:

a.

To the extent allowed by law, comprehensively merge applicable lots/parcels in the project area designated Rural Residential or Open Space, with the goal of aggregating parcels up to at least five acres.

b.

Sequence the merger as described in 5, above.

15.

Impervious Surface Limit/Winter Grading

Surface water runoff can result in flooding, soil erosion, and depositing contaminants in coastal waters. Impervious surfaces, e.g. pavement and patios, and unchecked winter grading can accelerate surface runoff, whereas pervious surfaces and contained grading sites can reduce runoff and its consequences. San Mateo County complies with federal and State stormwater pollution requirements through C/CAG’s Countywide Stormwater Pollution Program (STOPPP).

As proposed by staff, the Planning Commission recommends:

a.

Maintain the existing STOPPP, including future program improvements.

b.

Limit the amount of parcel area covered by pavement and ground level impervious surfaces at 10% (parcel size), not to exceed 1,170 sq. ft. Allow a limited exception, providing that the project runoff does not exceed the equivalent of the 10% parcel size limit.

c.

Prohibit winter grading unless it is shown that rigorous site containment will occur to prevent erosion and sedimentation.

16.

CalTrans’ Devil’s Slide Bypass Property

Prior to the Highway 1 tunnel proposal, CalTrans purchased a corridor of land crossing Montara as a possible roadway alignment that bypasses landslide prone Devil’s Slide. The “bypass” property owned by CalTrans within the project area is largely comprised of small subdivided lots, and includes portions designated Medium Density Residential and zoned R-1/S-17 (5,000 sq. ft. minimum parcel size), as shown in Attachment D. There is pending federal legislation to include the bypass property within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) boundary. The Planning Commission evaluated opportunities to protect the bypass property for very low intensity land uses, e.g. open space and recreation.

As proposed by staff, the Planning Commission recommends:

a.

Revise LCP policy to: (1) support existing efforts to add the Devil’s Slide bypass property to adjoining park units, including the GGNRA; and (2) promote future use of the property for low intensity recreation.

b.

Redesignate and rezone those portions of the Devil’s Slide bypass property designated for residential use and zoned R-1/S-17 or RM-CZ to Open Space and COSC, respectively.

c.

Revise LCP policy to identify a trail on the Devil’s Slide bypass property.

d.

Encourage CalTrans to: (1) voluntarily merge or “revert to acreage” the lots in the Devil’s Slide bypass property, and (2) convey or sell the land to a public agency at a price no greater than the original cost.

17.

Highway 1 Pedestrian Improvements

The unused portions of the Highway 1 right-of-way are of sufficient width for development of a pedestrian or multi-purpose trail. In addition, the Park and Recreation Division’s Midcoast Recreational Needs Assessment endorsed construction of underground pedestrian crossings at select Highway 1 locations. The development of a Highway 1 parallel trail and/or pedestrian crossings would require the involvement and support of CalTrans.

As proposed by staff, the Planning Commission recommends:

a.

Revise LCP policy to promote coordination with CalTrans in developing (1) a pedestrian/multi-purpose trail parallel to Highway 1, and (2) above or below ground pedestrian crossings at locations along Highway 1.

b.

Revise LCP policy to require that CalTrans’ Highway 1 improvement projects be conditioned to require development of adjacent pedestrian access, and/or grade separated pedestrian crossings.

18.

LCP Tasks Assigned to the County

The LCP includes policies directing the County to perform specific tasks unrelated to development review. These policies typically involve follow-up measures such as monitoring or reporting on LCP implementation. Staff believes that the County has effectively met most of the tasks assigned to it, including (a) merging lots in Seal Cove and Miramar, (b) requesting LAFCo to assign sphere-of-influence lines consistent with the urban-rural boundary, (c) monitoring the number of new residential units, and (d) establishing a trails program and designating community parkland. Staff also acknowledges that the County has only partially met several tasks assigned by the LCP. These include: (a) promptly recording a Notice of Violation for illegal parcels, (b) reestablishing the Coastal Access Acquisition and Development Fund, and (c) reviewing planned public works projects.

The Planning Commission recommends directing staff to complete in a timely manner all partially completed responsibilities assigned by LCP policies.

19.

Other Project Tasks

The remaining project tasks considered by the Planning Commission involved:

a.

Updating Coastal Trail policies, trail descriptions and the role of trail providing agencies.

b.

Adding a glossary to the Midcoast Design Review standards.

c.

Whether to directly include, i.e. codify, select Coastal Act sections as LCP policy.

d.

Resolving identified LCP policy conflicts and clarify ambiguous provisions.

The Planning Commission recommends:

a.

Revise LCP policy to: (1) support and facilitate the State Coastal Conservancy’s efforts coordinating delineation and development of the Coastal Trail, and (2) update trails policies, particularly trail names and the role of trail providing agencies.

b.

Adopt a glossary for the Midcoast design review standards.

c.

Do not codify the Coastal Act sections as LCP policy, but enact a new LCP policy calling for resolution of LCP policy conflicts in a manner most protective of significant coastal resources.

d.

Revise LCP policies to correct errors, resolve conflicts and clarify ambiguous provisions.

20.

Grandfathering Provision

When approving planning amendments, your Board typically adopts a “grandfathering” provision, which specifies that development proposals being reviewed by the County are exempt from the amendments. The proposal includes a provision that would exempt development for which a permit application has been submitted to the County Planning and Building Division, and the associated fee has been paid.

21.

Next Steps

All LCP amendments proposed by the Board of Supervisors will be transmitted to the California Coastal Commission for certification of consistency with the Coastal Act.

In early 2005, the Planning Commission will complete its consideration of remaining project tasks. These are:

a.

Update of sensitive habitats definition, Midcoast sensitive habitats map, and related LCP policies.

b.

Update of wetlands definition and related LCP policies.

c.

Evaluation of techniques to facilitate Midcoast affordable housing, including reallocation of reserved water and sewer capacity from development on the designated affordable housing sites only to affordable housing on any residential zoned site.

d.

Adding a recommended tree list to the Midcoast design review standards.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The proposed LCP amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State Public Resources Code Sections 21080.5 and 21080.9, and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15250, 15251(f), and 15265. Collectively, these provisions: (1) deem the Coastal Commission LCP certification process as ”functionally equivalent” to the CEQA process, and (2) exempt the preparation and approval of LCP amendments from the requirements for preparation of an initial study.

REVIEWING AGENCIES

County Counsel

Department of Public Works

FISCAL IMPACTS

Reducing the residential growth rate limit could reduce annual building and planning permit revenues. Comprehensively merging applicable lots may require additional staff resources for a limited time. Otherwise, there would be no additional cost to the County to implement the proposal.

ATTACHMENTS

A.

Map of project area

B.

Map of water and sewer district boundaries

C.

Map of area proposed to be redesignated from Rural Residential to Rural

D.

Map of area proposed to be redesignated on the Devil’s Slide bypass property

E.

Resolution approving LCP policy amendments and policy directives

F.

Ordinances approving LCP zoning amendments