COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

DATE:

March 14, 2005

BOARD MEETING DATE:

March 29, 2005

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

10 day notice

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

Take tentative action on the LCP and zoning amendments for the topics described in this report, and as included in Attachment C.

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.

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. To date, the project has included numerous community workshops, followed by 15 Planning Commission meetings to review and refine project proposals.

On January 25, 2005, your Board approved a project review process that includes a study session followed by four public hearings. The third public hearing will occur on March 29, 2005.

On February 15, and March 8, 2005, your Board tentatively approved some of topics being considered, and deferred action on the others pending additional staff research. Staff will report on this research at a future hearing.

For the March 29, 2005, meeting, your Board will consider the following topics:

h

Annual limit on new residential development

h

Use of “Devil’s Slide” bypass land

h

Highway 1 pedestrian improvements

h

Coastal Trail policies and Midcoast trail descriptions

h

County response to LCP assigned tasks

h

Codify Coastal Act sections as LCP policy

h

LCP policy conflicts and ambiguous provisions

h

Midcoast Design Review glossary

KEY ISSUES

1.

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 residences averaged 52 units per year. Half Moon Bay limits residential growth to 1% of the city’s population per year. Currently, 1% of the Midcoast population 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 82 units per year (34% 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 30 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 82 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 that your Board:

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.

On February 15, 2005, your Board requested that staff contact the principal water supply and transportation agencies to determine their projected ability to serve the Midcoast at LCP buildout.

On February 23, 2005, staff wrote the Coastside County Water District, Montara Water and Sanitary District, and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority requesting information on their current plans to serve buildout. We will present the received responses at the March 29 meeting for your Board’s consideration of this item.

2.

Use of 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 A. 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.

The Planning Commission recommends that your Board:

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.

3.

Highway 1 Pedestrian Improvements

The unused portion of the Highway 1 right-of-way is of sufficient width for development of a pedestrian or multi-purpose trail. Major traffic congestion occurs on Highway 1 during peak commute hours, and is expected to worsen in the future. Increased congestion increases the risk of pedestrian and bicycle collisions.

The County Park and Recreation Division’s Midcoast Recreational Needs Assessment endorsed construction of seven underground pedestrian crossings at select Highway 1 locations. Preference was given to crossings that are aligned with existing stream culverts.

The development of a Highway 1 parallel trail and/or pedestrian crossings would require a lead agency as the project sponsor, as well as require the involvement and support of CalTrans.

The Planning Commission recommends that your Board:

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.

4.

Updating Coastal Trail Policies and Midcoast Trail Descriptions

The State legislature, through SB908 (2001), directed the Coastal Conservancy to study, map, report on, and coordinate the implementation of a proposed trail that would extend 1,300 miles along the California coast. This trail is known as the Coastal Trail.

For San Mateo County, the Coastal Trail is a partially completed, primarily bluff-top trail route from Daly City to Ano Nuevo. When complete, the trail would connect numerous state and county parks and beaches as a continuous path along the coast. Within the Midcoast, the Coastal Trail would connect Montara State Beach with the City of Half Moon Bay.

Historically, it has been difficult to delineate the exact Coastal Trail alignment as new segments are added on a piecemeal, or incremental basis. Also, the trail has often been thought of more as a sketchy concept than as an actual finite mapped entity. Some flexibility will always exist in delineating the exact trail alignment, as the circumstances for acquiring future segments are not always known.

Between 2002 and 2003, the Coastal Conservancy reviewed local LCPs, interviewed local agencies, and incorporated earlier published trail descriptions to delineate the trail. This effort culminated in the Coastal Conservancy’s 2003 document entitled Completing the California Coastal Trail. The report map for the Midcoast area is included as Attachment B.

The existing LCP policies list principal coastside trails. These policies have never been updated and predate the County Trails Plan. The list identifies trails by names that have changed, and does not contemplate a Devil’s Slide Bypass trail.

The LCP policies that describe the role of public agencies in providing coastside trails have also not been updated. These policies predate the National Park Service (GGNRA) expansion into San Mateo County and Coastal Conservancy’s charge to map and coordinate development of the Coastal Trail. They also do not acknowledge the Harbor District’s efforts to develop shoreline access trails.

The Planning Commission recommends that your Board:

a.

Revise LCP policy to support and facilitate the State Coastal Conservancy’s efforts coordinating delineation and development of the Coastal Trail.

b.

Revise LCP policy to update trails policies, particularly trail names and the role of trail providing agencies.

c.

Revise LCP policy such that in-lieu park development fees are directed to the appropriate County fund, including the Parks and Recreation Parks Development Fund, rather than the General Fund.

5.

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.

However, the Planning Commission and staff acknowledge that the County has partially met several tasks assigned by the LCP. These include policies calling for the County to: (a) record a Notice of Violation for illegal parcels, (b) reestablish a coastal access fund, and (c) review planned public works projects.

The Planning Commission recommends that your Board direct staff to complete in a timely manner all partially completed responsibilities assigned by existing LCP policies. These are:

a.

Notices of Violation

Staff shall promptly record a Notice of Violation for any newly created illegal parcel, in accordance with Government Code Section 66499.

b.

Review of Public Works Projects

Staff shall require public agencies to (a) submit a list of the proposed public works projects recommended for construction during the ensuing fiscal year, for Planning Commission review, and (b) prepare 5-year capital improvement plans for Planning Commission review.

c.

Increased Commuter Transit Use

Staff shall collaborate with SamTrans in planning the development of a park and ride facility near the intersection of Highways 1 and 92 which could be used as a bus loading zone for Bayside commuters.

d.

Alternative Housing Techniques

Staff shall continue evaluating methods to provide affordable housing in the Midcoast, including incentives for dispersed affordable units on non-conforming parcels/substandard lots.

e.

Coastal Access Acquisition and Development Fund

Staff shall reestablish the Coastal Access Acquisition and Development Fund.

6.

Codify Coastal Act Sections as LCP Policy

In 1976, the State legislature adopted the Coastal Act as California’s primary coastal planning policy document. The Coastal Act designates the Coastal Zone boundary and establishes Statewide coastal land use policy, which places highest priority on protecting wetland and marine habitats, and preserving prime agricultural land.

The Coastal Act authorizes coastal counties to prepare a Local Coastal Program (or LCP), which is the local equivalent of the Act. It also requires that the Coastal Commission certify that a County’s LCP incorporates or adapts all relevant Coastal Act provisions for local application. In 1980, the Coastal Commission certified the County LCP as conforming with the Coastal Act. As such, LCP policies are the standard of review for proposed development in the unincorporated Coastal Zone.

Coastal Act Sections 30210-30265.5 establish statewide land use policy and development review criteria for the Coastal Zone. An element of the Midcoast LCP Update Project is to evaluate whether to include and codify Coastal Act Sections 30210-30265.5 as LCP policy.

Key Coastal Act requirements found in Sections 30250-30254 are:

•

Development shall not interfere with the public’s right of shoreline access.

•

Provide public access from nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast.

•

Locate new development close to existing developed areas.

•

When not in existing developed areas, locate visitor-serving facilities in existing isolated developments or at selected visitor attraction points.

•

Site and design development to (1) protect ocean and scenic coastal views, (2) minimize alteration of natural landforms, (3) be visually compatible with surrounding areas, and (4) be subordinate to the character of its setting in highly scenic areas.

•

Minimize risks in high geologic, flood, and fire hazard areas, (2) avoid significant erosion, and (3) require protective devices near bluffs and cliffs.

•

Protect special communities and neighborhoods, which are popular visitor destination points.

•

Limit public works facilities to accommodate needs generated by permitted development.

•

Coastal dependent uses have priority over other development, except in a wetland.

•

Encourage the location and expansion of coastal dependent industrial facilities. Permit oil and gas development in accordance with specific conditions.

Previous Planning staff analysis concluded that the existing LCP policies effectively conform to the provisions of Coastal Act Sections 30210-30265.5. Adding these sections to the LCP would create redundancy, which is typically undesirable. Also, two similar sets of criteria worded differently could create difficulties when reviewing development proposals. Since the LCP operates as the local implementation of the Coastal Act, there also could be conflicts relating to local and State oil and gas policy. Finally, Coastal Act consistency was required for the Coastal Commission to certify the existing LCP.

While reviewing this topic, the Planning Commission recognized that there is one Coastal Act policy that, if added, would improve LCP administration. This is Coastal Act Section 30007.5, which provides guidance to the Coastal Commission when resolving matters where there are competing objectives. In such cases, conflicts may be resolved in a manner which on balance is most protective of significant coastal resources.

The existing LCP does not formally include a similar guidance provision, although it has been County practice to resolve conflicts in a manner that most protects coastal resources.

The Planning Commission recommends that your Board:

a.

Not codify the Coastal Act Sections 30210-30265.5 as LCP policy.

b.

Enact a new LCP policy to assure that resolution of LCP policy conflicts occur in a manner most protective of significant coastal resources.

7.

LCP Policy Conflicts and Ambiguous Provisions

The Midcoast LCP Update Project has identified conflicts, inconsistencies and ambiguities which hinder effective policy administration. The key conflicts and corrections are as follows:

a.

Least Visible Site. Clarify that LCP Policy 8.5, requiring that development be located at the least visible site from a scenic road, applies to development on rural lands and only urban parcels larger than 20,000 sq. ft.

b.

Rural Residential Area Map/Policy Consistency. Correct the inconsistency between LCP Policy 1.14 and Map 1.1 in which the Rural Residential Area is described differently. The Proposed correction is to revise the policy to be consistent with the map.

c.

Agriculture Area Map/Policy Consistency. Correct the inconsistency between LCP Policies 5.2 and 5.4 and the LCP Land Use Plan Map in which the policies omit urban areas designated Agriculture and the map includes these areas. The proposed correction is to revise the policies to conform with the map, hence maintain existing urban areas designated Agriculture on the Land Use Plan Map.

d.

Other Corrections/Clarifications. Other issues involve: (1) clarifying the types of permitted affordable housing, (2) improving the wording of farm labor housing site policies/map, (3) standardizing policy references to the LCP Land Use Plan Map, (4) revising select policies to include a reference to LCP Land Use Plan Map, (5) precluding oil and gas well drilling on Midcoast RM-CZ and PAD zoned land, (6) correcting riparian corridor policy to eliminate an erroneous reference to wetlands, (7) removing ambiguities in biological report requirements, (8) adding scientific names for plant and animal species, and (9) standardizing references to Sensitive Habitats Component policies.

The Planning Commission is recommending that your Board revise LCP policies to correct errors, resolve conflicts and clarify ambiguous provisions, as shown in Attachment C.

8.

Midcoast Design Review Glossary

In April, 2004, your Board approved a set of design standards for residential development in the Midcoast. The standards assure that house design is compatible with the neighborhood and respects the natural setting.

In September, 2004, staff and the Coastside Design Review Committee collaborated on a glossary to facilitate effective administration of the new standards. The glossary, included in Attachment C, provides the definitions of relevant and specialized terms used in the standards.

The Planning Commission recommends that your Board adopt the proposed glossary to the Midcoast Design Review Standards.

9.

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.

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

FISCAL IMPACTS

Reducing the residential growth rate limit could reduce annual building and planning permit revenues. Otherwise, there would be no additional cost to the County to implement the proposals discussed in this report.

ATTACHMENTS

A.

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

B.

Map of Coastal Trail

C.

LCP Policy and Zoning Amendments recommended by the Planning Commission