BACKGROUND

The Board has held six meetings to consider the Midcoast LCP Update Project. The project is intended to (1) update LCP baseline data, (2) update the LCP land use policy to guide future Midcoast development, and (3) avert future development permit appeals. The Midcoast project area is shown as Attachment 1. To date, the Board has taken tentative action on some policy proposals and deferred action on the others pending additional staff research .

In March, 2005, the Board began a visioning process to provide a framework for future policy changes. Supervisors Gordon and Hill were selected to coordinate this process. In June, the Board approved a set of principles which broadly state how the Midcoast will grow, how infrastructure relates to Midcoast growth, and how new Midcoast development will be sited and designed (see Attachment 2). The Board also requested that (1) staff assess the proposed policy changes for alignment with the principles, and (2) the Subcommittee recommend the changes that best align with the principles.

The balance of this report overviews the status of each project topic, and includes staff responses to the Board’s prior requests and the Subcommittee’s recommendations.

KEY ISSUES

1.

Residential Buildout Estimate

There are 3,719 existing Midcoast residential units, and at buildout, there will be between 6,757 and 7,153 units. Thus, the Midcoast is approximately half built out.

The Board tentatively accepted the updated data, and directed staff to develop a program to identify the number of un-permitted second units and to facilitate their legalization without punitive fines.

2.

Number of Substandard Lots

Between 1906 and 1910, most of the Midcoast was subdivided into residential tracts. The predominant lot size is 2,500 sq. ft. to 3,500 sq. ft., smaller than the County’s lowest minimum parcel size requirement of 5,000 sq. ft.

There are 4,899 substandard lots zoned residential in the project area; 3,294 lots are 1,604 developed parcels and 1,605 lots are 870 undeveloped parcels.

The Board tentatively accepted the number of residential zoned substandard lots.

3.

Infrastructure Demand at Buildout

a.

Background

Midcoast infrastructure demand by utility at buildout is summarized below:

(1)

Coastside County Water District

Coastside County Water District’s existing normal year water supply capability would satisfy approximately 91% of the annual average residential demand at buildout for the Midcoast area it serves.

(2)

Montara Water and Sanitary District

Montara Water and Sanitary District’s existing normal year water supply capability would satisfy approximately 64% of the annual average residential demand at buildout for the Midcoast area it serves.

(3)

Sewer Authority Midcoastside

Sewer Authority Midcoastside’s existing Midcoast treatment capacity would satisfy the Midcoast demand for wastewater treatment at buildout.

(4)

Transportation Authority/CalTrans

The projected (2010) Level of Service (LOS) measures for the most congested segments of Highways 1 and 92 during peak commute hours are shown below:

LCP Policy 2.49 recognizes Level of Service “D” as acceptable during commuter peak periods.

The Planning Commission recommends that the Board (a) accept the updated data, (b) complete hydrological studies to determine available water resources, and (c) plan growth to the level that the resources can support.

The Board has not taken tentative action on this topic.

b.

Board Request for Additional Information

The Board requested that staff contact the water supply and transportation agencies to determine their ability and plans to serve Midcoast buildout.

Staff wrote the Coastside County Water District, Montara Water and Sanitary District, and the Transportation Authority requesting this information.

The Coastside County Water District response indicates that the agency believes that it will have sufficient water to satisfy Midcoast buildout demands. Montara Water and Sanitary District indicates that it is intent on providing water to all users in its area at buildout. Both agencies provided a list of existing and future projects that would contribute to meeting this need.

The Transportation Authority (TA) identified its future road projects, including shoulder widening on Highway 92 and curve corrections and improvements at the Highway 1 and 92 intersections, both of which may occur before the end of 2008. After 2008, the TA plans unspecified improvements on Highway 1 in Half Moon Bay and the Midcoast and safety and operation improvements on Highway 92, which should result in improved Levels of Service.

c.

Subcommittee Recommendation

The Subcommittee recommends that the Board:

(1)

Tentatively accept the updated infrastructure data.

(2)

Complete the in-progress groundwater study to determine safe yield (final report is due in December, 2005), and evaluate the need for policy changes based on the report.

(3)

Support CCWD and MSWD in: (a) continuing their efforts to secure water supply sources, and (b) applying for facility expansion to serve the Midcoast at buildout, i.e. Phase 2.

(4)

Coordinate with the City of Half Moon Bay to assist the TA in specifying the post-2008 improvements on Highway 1 in Half Moon Bay and the Midcoast.

(5)

Revise LCP Policy 2.50 to allow up to four lanes for Highway 1 within the urban Midcoast in order to achieve an acceptable Level of Service during commuter peak periods at buildout.

4.

Residential Growth Rate Limit

a.

Background

The LCP limits Midcoast residential growth to 125 units per year. This is a Midcoastwide limit, i.e. there are no sub-limits for each community. Affordable housing and second units are presently exempt from the annual limit. Limiting the growth rate allows new development to proceed in a gradual and paced manner that does not overburden infrastructure. Between 1981 and 2002, the number of new residential units averaged 52 units per year.

The Planning Commission recommends lowering the growth rate limit to 1% of the Midcoast population per year (40 units in 2005), not to exceed 52 units, and establishing sub-limits for each Midcoast community. It also recommends that the limit not apply to second units, affordable housing, and mixed-use units (CCR District) and caretaker’s quarters (W District) at Princeton. Finally, the Commission recommends that the limit apply to the number of units, not the number of building permits.

Staff recommends either reducing the limit to 52 units/year to reflect the historic growth rate, or 80 units/year to reflect a 30-year buildout period.

The Board has not taken tentative action on this topic.

b.

Board Requested Additional Information

(1)

Units vs. Building Permits

The Board requested that staff describe how the limit has historically been applied when multiple units are included on one building permit.

LCP Policy 1.22 includes the following wording “. . . require the following limitations on building permits . . . 125 per year . . .” Although this states that the number of building permits is limited, the policy intent is to limit the number of units. When multiple units are included on one building permit, the County’s policy has been to count the number of units, not the number of building permits. The Planning Commission recommends amending the policy to explicitly limit the number of units.

(2)

Exempting Units for People with Disabilities

The Board requested that staff evaluate the feasibility of exempting residential units primarily dedicated to people with disabilities from the annual limit.

A project is emerging to establish living units for developmentally disabled individuals. The LCP does not exempt units for people with disabilities from the annual residential unit limit. It does exempt affordable housing.

The Zoning Regulations allow rest homes, sanitariums, and philanthropic or charitable institutions in all districts, subject to use permit approval. Staff prepared various options that could facilitate projects for people with disabilities. The Subcommittee reviewed these options and recommends that the County interpret any project that includes residential units, common facilities, and on-site job opportunities for disabled occupants and their caretakers as a contemporary hybrid of a rest home, sanitarium and philanthropic institution. Hence, such a facility would be permitted within the framework of the existing regulations, i.e. subject to a use permit and other applicable discretionary permits.

The Subcommittee also recommends exempting residential units for disabled persons from the annual limit. This approach is consistent with General Plan housing policies that call on the County to: (1) expand housing choices for special needs groups, including the disabled, and (2) promote the development of housing for the disabled at appropriate locations.

c.

Alignment with Principles

Each of the policy options is somewhat aligned with the principles. Maintaining the 125 units/year limit most respects property rights, however it also holds a greater potential to over-burden infrastructure and disrupt the community quality of life. Conversely, lowering the limit to 40 units (2005) and distributing this limit among the Midcoast communities least respects property rights, but would also put the least demand on the infrastructure.

d.

Subcommittee Recommendation

The Subcommittee recommends that the Board:

(1)

Reduce the limit from 125 units/year to 75 units/year, i.e. 40%. At this rate, buildout would occur in approximately 33 years.

(2)

Not establish community sub-limits.

(3)

Maintain the existing exemptions for affordable housing and second units.

(4)

Add an exemption for residential units occupied by disabled persons and their caretakers.

(5)

Not add an exemption for mixed-use units (CCR District) and caretaker’s quarters (W District) at Princeton.

(6)

Apply the limit to units, not building permits.

The Subcommittee believes that this approach aligns best with the principles. It lowers the burden on infrastructure and meets the objective for gradual, paced Midcoast growth, while reasonably facilitating infill housing.

5.

Merge Residential Substandard Lots

a.

Background

A nonconforming parcel is any parcel whose area is less than the required minimum parcel size. Subdivided nonconforming parcels are often called substandard lots.

Approximately 3,294 residentially zoned substandard lots are developed parcels and 1,605 substandard lots are undeveloped parcels, as follows:

Developed Parcels

Vacant Parcels

197 lots are developed as one-lot parcels

271 lots occur as a one-lot parcel

2,262 lots are developed as two-lot parcels

944 lots occur as 472 two-lot parcels

807 lots are developed as three-lot parcels

354 lots occur as 118 three-lot parcels

28 lots are developed as four-lot parcels

36 lots occur as 9 four-lot parcels

Lot merger is a process where two or more contiguous, commonly owned lots are combined into a single parcel. Typically, the local government can require lot merger when one lot is vacant and smaller than 5,000 sq. ft. Requiring lot merger can implement the planned development density and prevent exceeding buildout when lots are “sold off” and developed individually.

Property owners can also initiate lot mergers, although voluntary merger usually only occurs when there is an incentive, i.e. a benefit would result.

The existing LCP policy is to merge applicable residential substandard lots only at the time when a permit application is submitted. The requirement only applies to R-1/S-17 zoned lots that are smaller than 3,500 sq. ft.

The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the County comprehensively and proactively merge all applicable residentially zoned substandard lots up to 5,000 sq. ft. or the zoning minimum parcel size. Contiguous lots in common ownership on (1) vacant parcels, and (2) developed parcels that include vacant substandard lots would be merged first. Remaining developed parcels would be merged when a permit application is submitted.

The Board has not taken tentative action on this topic.

b.

Board Request for Additional Information

(1)

Number and Size of Undeveloped Lots

The Board requested that staff determine the relative number and size of vacant substandard lots.

Staff reviewed County parcel maps and counted individual residential zoned substandard lots according to size category. The results showed that 91% of the lots are 3,500 sq. ft. or smaller, as follows:

(2)

Number of Lots Voluntarily Merged

The Board requested that staff determine the number of vacant residential zoned substandard lots that have been merged voluntarily.

Voluntary, i.e., owner initiated merger primarily occurs at Miramar in the R-1/S-94 district where there is an incentive that benefits the landowner. Here merging lots into at least an 8,000 sq. ft. parcel provides the owner access to priority reserved water capacity. Voluntary merger also occurs to prevent being assessed for more than one water or sewer hookup.

Staff attempted to determine the extent of voluntary merger. Although the existing data does not distinguish between voluntary and mandatory lot merger, staff estimates that between 1994 and 2004, 126 residential zoned substandard lots were voluntarily merged into 42 parcels.

(3)

Incentives for Voluntary Merger

The Board requested that staff evaluate providing incentives for voluntary lot merger in lieu of required lot merger.

Staff believes that voluntary is preferable to mandatory merger. However, mandatory merger is appropriate if voluntary merger does not occur.

Staff prepared a two-phase merger proposal whereby during Phase 1, incentives are offered for voluntary lot merger. Where voluntary merger does not occur during Phase 1, the County would merge the remaining substandard lots during Phase 2. The proposal would apply to vacant parcels comprised of at least two substandard lots, and developed parcels comprised of at least three substandard lots. Two-lot developed parcels would be merged when a permit application is submitted.

Phase 1. The County would grant each property owner who requests voluntary lot merger within a set eighteen (18) month period a voucher for one of the following incentives, as selected by the owner. The voucher would be applied to a new housing unit or improvement of an existing unit on the merged parcel:

(a)

Up to 250 sq. ft. bonus floor area, or

(b)

$1500 (new unit)/$300 (existing unit) or 5% reduction in building permit fees, whichever is greater, or

(c)

Up to 1 covered space reduced parking, or

(d)

For an affordable housing unit, all of the following:

•

Up to 250 sq. ft. bonus floor area,

•

Up to 1 covered space reduced parking,

•

Ability to obtain a priority reserved water and sewer connection, and

•

Waive permit fees; expedite permit processing.

Phase 2. After the Phase 1 period, the County would initiate lot mergers and not grant a voucher for the incentives described above.

(4)

Providing Affordable Housing In-lieu of Lot Merger

The Board requested that staff evaluate the potential for substandard lots being developed as affordable housing in-lieu of lot merger.

Staff believes that any effort to foster affordable housing on substandard lots should not substitute for a lot merger policy. In other words, providing affordable housing does not conflict with merging parcels to maintain LCP buildout and density. If an affordable housing unit was built on each vacant substandard lot, LCP buildout would be exceeded by over 700 new units.

Staff further recommends that any effort to foster affordable housing on substandard lots be directed to the 271 single lot, nonconforming parcels that cannot be merged. A small house built on a substandard lot is more amenable to the income and rent controls than a house on a conforming parcel. Also, providing affordable housing on the 271 single substandard lots would result in more dispersed affordable housing. A proposal to encourage affordable housing on these lots is discussed in Key Issue 6.

c.

Alignment with Principles

Each of the policy options is somewhat aligned with the principles. Merging only at the time of development is the least likely to result in the planned buildout and density, and housing occurring on conforming size parcels. Conversely, comprehensive merger is most likely to achieve these desired outcomes. Also, the incentive merger proposal aligns well with principles by encouraging voluntary merger through incentives, while including a comprehensive merger component to preserve LCP buildout and density.

d.

Subcommittee Recommendation

The Subcommittee recommends that the Board tentatively approve the incentive proposal, i.e. Phase 1 voluntary merger, followed by Phase 2 comprehensive merger. It believes that this approach most aligns with principles since it seeks to preserve LCP buildout and density through incentives before commencing County initiated merger. For the reasons described in Key Issue 16, lot merger would exclude applicable lots within the CalTrans’ owned Devil’s Slide bypass property.

6.

Nonconforming Parcel Development Controls

a.

Background

Controlling floor area and design on nonconforming parcels can assure that house size and scale is proportioned to parcel size and compatible with surrounding development.

The existing zoning controls for nonconforming parcels include: (1) limiting house floor area to 48% of parcel area, (2) prohibiting exceptions to the floor area limit, (3) requiring daylight plane or façade articulation features, and (4) requiring use permit and design review approval for parcels smaller than 3,500 sq. ft.

The Planning Commission recommends reducing the floor area limit according to the “Proportionality Rule.” This more restrictive method limits house size proportionate to the degree of parcel nonconformity. A more detailed description of the “Proportionality Rule” is included as Attachment 3.

Staff recommends retaining the existing zoning controls, i.e. no change.

The Board tentatively approved retaining the existing zoning controls, i.e. no change.

b.

Board Request for Additional Information

(1)

Review House Plans

The Board requested that staff review recently submitted house plans that met the existing 0.48 (parcel size) floor area limit.

Staff has identified two such Midcoast proposals that were reviewed between 2001 and 2004, as follows:

(a)

The applicant proposed to construct a new single-story 1,182 sq. ft. house on a 2,693 sq. ft. parcel, i.e. 0.42 (parcel size), on Coronado Avenue, El Granada. The house conformed with all zoning development standards and the Midcoast Community Council concluded that the house design worked well with the site. The site plan and front elevation are shown below:

(b)

The applicant proposed to construct a new two-story 1,576 sq. ft. house on a 3,417 sq. ft. parcel, i.e. 0.46 (parcel size), on Coronado Avenue, El Granada. The house conformed with all zoning development standards and the Midcoast Community Council concluded that the house design suited the site. The site plan and front elevation are shown below:

(2)

Providing Affordable Housing

The Board requested that staff evaluate the potential for residentially zoned substandard lots being developed as affordable housing.

Staff prepared the following incentive proposal for developing affordable housing on the 271 single lot, nonconforming parcels:

The County would provide all of the following incentives to any owner who voluntarily applies to construct a moderate income affordable housing unit that is located on a single substandard residentially zoned lot that cannot be merged:

•

Up to 200 sq. ft. garage floor area bonus,

•

Up to 1 covered space reduced parking,

•

Ability to obtain priority reserved water and sewer connection,

•

Waive permit fees; expedite permit processing,

•

To the extent feasible, direct access to an assembled pool of pre-qualified buyers, and

•

To the extent feasible, receive an interest free or reduced interest loan for construction costs.

The affordable housing unit would be subject to income and sale price or rent limits, and existing daylight plane, facade articulation, use permit, and design review requirements. If the owner opts to build a market rate unit, the existing zoning limits for houses on nonconforming parcels would apply.

c.

Alignment with Principles

Each of the policy options is somewhat aligned with the principles. While the “Proportionality Rule” option least respects property rights, it would result in the smallest house. The existing floor area limit is the most respectful of property rights and also would result in a house that is of compatible scale with the surrounding neighborhood. The incentive proposal encourages voluntary provision of affordable housing through incentives, while resulting in a house that is proportionately the same size as permitted for conforming parcels.

d.

Subcommittee Recommendation

For market rate units, the Subcommittee recommends that the Board keep its prior tentative approval, i.e. retain the existing zoning controls. However, to encourage affordable units, the Subcommittee recommends adding the voluntary “incentive proposal” described above.

This recommendation aligns with principles by providing incentives for dispersed affordable housing while respecting property rights and assuring appropriate new house size, scale and design.

The Subcommittee also recommends additional incentives for providing affordable housing. These are described in Key Issue 23, entitled New Midcoast Affordable Housing Policy.

7.

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

a.

Background

The C-1 district primarily provides for neighborhood serving retail businesses. It allows residential uses subject to a use permit. There is no requirement for a commercial use or that residential uses locate above the first floor. Controlling residential uses can assure that there is sufficient opportunity for commercial uses to locate in the Midcoast’s limited C-1 zoned areas.

The Planning Commission and staff recommend: (1) limiting residential use to above the first floor, (2) limiting residential floor area not to exceed the commercial floor area, and (3) reducing building height limit to 28 feet.

The Board has not taken tentative action on this topic.

b.

Board Request for Additional Information

The Board requested that staff evaluate different options to less restrict the residential use above the first floor, e.g. consider allowing (1) more residential floor area, (2) additional building height, and (3) smaller setbacks.

Staff prepared a “flexibility” proposal for the residential portion of a mixed use building that would: (1) limit residential use to above the first floor, (2) not limit residential floor area, and (3) provide an option to either (a) reduce the building height limit from 36 ft. to 28 ft. and eliminate the front yard setback (20 ft.) for the residential development, or (b) reduce the building height limit from 36 ft. to 32 ft.

c.

Alignment with Principles

Each of the policy options is somewhat aligned with the principles. Continuing to allow residential use on the first floor most favors property rights, but also most reduces the potential for commercial uses in commercial districts. Requiring that residential uses locate above the ground floor respects property rights and provides opportunity for commercial uses.

d.

Subcommittee Recommendation

The Subcommittee recommends that the Board tentatively approve the “flexibility” proposal, and believes that it aligns best with the approved principles. It protects the commercial space and results in development designed in scale with the community, while allowing reasonable exercise of property rights. Eliminating the front setback will not present light, air or privacy impacts since this building side faces the street. Although the predominant Midcoast height limit is 28 ft., lowering the height limit to 32 ft. would be consistent with the zoning in certain residential zoned areas.

8.

Residential Uses in the W (Waterfront) District

a.

Background

The W district primarily provides for uses that support commercial fishing and recreational boating. The district also allows caretaker’s quarters, i.e. a unit inhabited by someone looking after the site. The number of caretaker’s quarters is limited to 20% of the developed parcels. These units cannot exceed 35% of the building floor area, up to 750 sq. ft. Limiting caretaker’s quarters can assure that residential use does not displace marine related uses at Princeton, while providing some opportunity for live-work housing.

The Planning Commission recommends: (1) increasing the permitted number of caretaker’s quarters from 20% to 27.5% of the developed parcels, (2) prohibiting such units on nonconforming parcels, and (3) maintaining the existing unit size limits.

The Board tentatively approved increasing the permitted number of caretaker’s quarters from 20% to 25% of the developed parcels; otherwise, the Planning Commission recommendation. This would permit 41 caretaker’s quarters at buildout.

b.

Subcommittee Recommendation

The Subcommittee recommends that the Board keep its prior approval as stated above.

9.

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

a.

Background

The “Burnham Strip” is an approximately 14-acre, generally open area between Highway 1 and El Granada zoned COSC. The COSC district primarily provides for low intensity development that best preserves this area’s visual openness. The district permits agriculture, nurseries, recreation uses, institutional facilities and one-story (16 ft.) single-family residences.

The Planning Commission recommends that the County prohibit single-family residences in the COSC district.

Staff recommends that the County continue to permit single-family residences in the COSC district until suitable alternative uses are proposed that would provide a reasonable economic return to landowners.

The Board has not taken tentative action on this topic.

b.

Board Request for Additional Information

The Board requested that County Counsel evaluate whether prohibiting residential use in the COSC district constitutes a “taking” of property. In particular, assess the feasibility of the other permitted uses in the district if residential use was prohibited.

In order to withstand a legal challenge, the County would need to be able to prove that the permitted uses in the COSC district other than residential use provide a reasonable economic return to property owners. County Counsel retained J. Richard Recht, an expert in economics and planning, to review the economic effect of the proposed amendment. Currently, there are eleven (11) parcels zoned COSC. Two (2) parcels are developed with a residence and a school. The remaining nine (9) parcels are undeveloped and range in size from 6,000 sq. ft. to 6.2 acres. Mr. Recht concluded that two large undeveloped parcels (2.5 acres and 6.2 acres) will have feasible uses under COSC zoning if residential use is prohibited. Three other parcels (between 0.7 and 1.0 acre) could accommodate some of the other COSC uses, but it would be difficult. Finally, four undeveloped parcels (with less than 0.5 acres) would not accommodate COSC uses other than residential.

In his analysis, Mr. Recht also raised a question whether the remaining uses in the COSC are more acceptable than residential use since many are not necessarily “low intensity uses” or uses compatible with the idea of open space. They may, in fact, be more intensive or obtrusive than residential use. For example, a nursery with buildings and sheds or a club with a clubhouse and tennis courts may be more intensive or obtrusive than a single-family home.

c.

Alignment with Principles

Each of the policy options is somewhat in alignment with the principles. Continuing to allow residential use favors property rights, while prohibiting residential use is less respectful of property rights. Each of the options allow one-story buildings that could result in limited view disruption.

d.

Subcommittee Recommendation

The Subcommittee recommends that the Board:

(1)

Rezone approximately 5.25 acres (9 parcels) from COSC to RM/CZ (Resource Management/Coastal Zone), and revise the RM/CZ regulations to limit building height for these parcels at 16 ft.

(2)

Enact a new El Granada Gateway (EG) zoning district that prohibits residential uses, and allows feasible low impact uses. Recommended permitted uses include:

•

Temporary Outdoor Sales, e.g. farmers and flea markets

•

Temporary Showgrounds and Exhibition Facilities

•

Outdoor Performing Arts Centers

•

Outdoor Sports Facilities

•

Driving Ranges and Miniature Golf Courses

•

Cemeteries (no structures)

(3)

Rezone approximately 8.7 acres (2 parcels) from COSC to EG.

About 62% of the “Burnham Strip” would be zoned EG and residential development would be prohibited. This area fronts El Granada’s “downtown” core, and the parcel sizes are 2.5 and 4.35 acres, i.e. large enough to accommodate the uses proposed for the EG district.

About 38% of the “Burnham Strip,” located farther from El Granada’s “downtown” core, would be zoned RM/CZ and a one-story house would be allowed. The existing average parcel size here is 25,380 sq. ft., which would not be large enough to accommodate most of the uses proposed for the EG district. An existing residence and private school are located in this area, and could continue since the proposal permits both uses.

The Subcommittee believes that this approach aligns best with the approved principles. All development would be designed to protect views. Exclusively non-residential development would be permitted on parcels that are large enough to accommodate it, hence reasonably maintaining a property’s land use potential. Likewise, residential development would be permitted on parcels that are not large enough to facilitate most non-residential uses.

10.

Increasing Commercial and Employment Opportunities

a.

Background

The Midcoast is primarily a residential community with more housing than jobs. This contributes to traffic congestion during commute hours. Increasing commercial opportunities can create local jobs, reduce the jobs-housing imbalance and associated traffic congestion, and increase the local tax base.

Staff proposed allowing retail and office uses with limits on floor area per establishment, and construction, trades and maintenance businesses in the W district (inland area) at Princeton. Staff also proposed permitting general commercial and office uses at two Half Moon Bay Airport sites that Airport management has determined as not necessary for Airport-related activities, as shown in Attachment 4.

The Planning Commission recommends deferring consideration of new permitted uses until the Half Moon Bay Airport Master Plan and Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) aircraft safety zone evaluation are complete.

The Board tentatively approved deferring consideration of permitted uses at Princeton and Half Moon Bay Airport until the “Airport Layout Plan” portion of the Master Plan and ALUC evaluation are complete.

b.

Subcommittee Recommendation

The Subcommittee recommends that the Board:

(1)

Tentatively approve revising the Waterfront “W” district regulations (Inland Area only) at Princeton to add employment generating commercial uses as permitted uses. The uses would include:

•

Research and Development Facilities (up to 10,000 sq. ft. floor area per establishment)

•

Indoor and Outdoor Wholesale Establishments (up to 10,000 sq. ft. indoor floor area per establishment)

•

Administrative, Professional and Business Offices (up to 5,000 sq. ft. floor area per establishment)

•

Indoor Retail Sales, Rental or Repair Establishments (up to 3,000 sq. ft. floor area per establishment, except for goods made on-site)

•

Construction and Maintenance Trades and Service Establishments

•

Artist’s Studios

(2)

Tentatively approve enacting a new Airport Commercial (AC) zoning district that would permit a full range of employment generating commercial uses for two sites at Half Moon Bay Airport. The uses would include:

•

Indoor and Outdoor Retail Sales, Rental or Repair Establishments

•

Outdoor Retail Sales, Rental or Repair Establishments

•

Food and Beverage Stores

•

Personal Convenience Service Establishments

•

Restaurants

•

Food Establishments Specializing in Carry-Out or Delivery Service

•

Administrative, Professional and Business Offices

•

Financial Institutions

•

Medical and Dental Offices

(3)

Tentatively approve rezoning the following two sites at Half Moon Bay Airport from M-1 to AC:

(a)

23 acres fronting Highway 1 in the northeast Airport area.

(b)

9 acres fronting Capistrano Road in the southeast Airport area.

(4)

Defer final approval of the above amendments until the “Airport Layout Plan” portion of the Half Moon Bay Master Plan, and the ALUC safety zone evaluation to reduce aircraft accident risk are complete

The Subcommittee believes that this approach aligns best with the principles, in that it will provide increased opportunities for commercial land uses that can create local jobs, while still assuring that new development will be sited so as not to conflict with the principle of avoiding hazard risk.

11.

Development Controls in the AO (Airport Overlay) District

a.

Background

The Airport Overlay (AO) zone was established to reduce safety risks from aircraft near Half Moon Bay Airport. The AO district 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.

Staff proposed reducing the size of the AO zone approximately 1/4 to omit the area that is not subject to FAA and ALUC protection zones. This area is shown in Attachment 5.

The Planning Commission recommends revising the site intensity limit for the area not subject to FAA/ALUC protection zones from three persons per parcel to one person per 1,667 sq. ft. This equates to three persons per 5,000 sq. ft. (W district minimum parcel size). Otherwise, defer consideration of changing the AO zone until the Half Moon Bay Airport Master Plan and ALUC safety evaluation are complete.

The Board tentatively approved deferring consideration of changes to the AO district until the “Airport Layout Plan” portion of the Master Plan and ALUC evaluation are complete.

b.

Subcommittee Recommendation

The Subcommittee recommends that the Board:

(1)

Tentatively approve revising AO district boundary to align with the FAA and ALUC protection zone boundaries.

(2)

Tentatively approve rezoning the area outside revised AO district boundary from W/AO to W.

(3)

Tentatively approve amending the site intensity limit for the area inside the revised AO district boundary from three persons per parcel to one person per 1,667 sq. ft.

(4)

Defer final approval of the above amendments until the “Airport Layout Plan” of the Half Moon Bay Airport Master Plan is complete and ALUC staff has identified the FAA and ALUC protection zone boundaries based on the Master Plan.

The Subcommittee believes that this approach aligns best with the principles in that it effectively balances the need to reduce hazard risk for development while not unreasonably downgrading a property’s land use potential.

12.

Midcoast Traffic Mitigation Requirements

a.

Background

Requiring traffic mitigation measures assures that new development contributes to the cost of local road improvements and does not further degrade the existing and projected unacceptable Levels of Service on Highway 1.

The County requires mitigation fees from new development for local road/

drainage improvements. The City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) requires local jurisdictions to mitigate traffic impacts on designated roads resulting from large-scale development (>100 peak hour trips). This can involve requiring fees or Transportation Demand Measures (TDMs), e.g. shuttle service, subsidizing transit for employees, charging for parking, etc.

The Planning Commission and staff recommend (1) retaining local road mitigation fee requirements, (2) retaining TDM requirements for projects generating more than 100 peak hour trips, (3) adding TDM requirements for projects that generate less than 100 peak hour trips and are not exempt from CEQA, and (4) studying expanding shuttle service.

The Board has not taken tentative action on this topic.

b.

Board Request for Additional Information

The Board requested that staff review the correspondence received from the Transportation Authority related to that agency’s plans to serve Midcoast buildout.

The Transportation Authority submitted a letter that identified shoulder widening and curve correction projects for Highway 92, and unspecified improvements on Highway 1 in Half Moon Bay and the unincorporated Midcoast.

c.

Alignment with Principles

Each of the policy options is in alignment with the principles. Roadway improvements and existing mitigation programs together with new TDM requirements and expanded shuttle service would improve, and not further degrade traffic flow on primary roads, particularly Highway 1 where the existing and projected Levels of Service are below the LCP standard.

d.

Subcommittee Recommendation

The Subcommittee recommends that the Board establish LCP policy to require TDM’s for projects that generate 50 or more peak hour trips; otherwise, the Planning Commission recommendation. As earlier indicated, the Subcommittee also recommends (1) assisting the TA in specifying the Highway 1 improvements, and (2) revising LCP Policy 2.50 to allow up to four lanes for Highway 1 within the urban Midcoast. All of these changes are intended to achieve an acceptable Level of Service on Highway 1 at buildout.

13.

Development Controls in Midcoast RM-CZ and PAD Districts

a.

Background

The Midcoast includes lands zoned RM-CZ (Resource Management/Coastal Zone) or PAD (Planned Agricultural District) that are 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 and height is limited to 36 feet. Limiting land uses and building height on these unsubdivided, generally open lands can assure compatibility with the largely residential, more dense surrounding community.

The Planning Commission and staff recommend (1) deleting timber harvesting, surface mining, oil and gas exploration and solid waste facilities as permitted uses, (2) reducing the house height limit to 28 feet, and (3) limiting house floor area to that required by the R-1/S-17 zoning district, i.e. 0.53 (parcel size), and requiring Design Review Committee review for residential development on Midcoast RM/CZ and PAD zoned land.

The Board tentatively approved the changes to permitted uses, house height, floor area and design review applicable to Midcoast RM/CZ and PAD zoned land, as recommended by the Planning Commission.

b.

Alignment with Principles

Either policy option is somewhat in alignment with the principles. While the existing regulations increase a property’s land use potential, continuing to allow timber harvesting, surface mining, oil exploration and waste facilities is incompatible with the Midcoast’s community setting. The proposal to delete these uses and lower the house height and floor area is more aligned with the principles.

d.

Subcommittee Recommendation

The Subcommittee recommends that the Board keep its prior approval.

14.

Rural Residential Designation

a.

Background

The 233-acre rural residential area adjoining Montara is located on the rural side of the urban-rural boundary and partially subdivided into small substandard lots. This area is designated Very Low Density Residential (one dwelling unit per 5 acres) and zoned RM-CZ.

The rural residential area includes parcels that are served by public water utility lines. Although LCP policy prohibits extension of utility lines across the urban-rural boundary, the rural residential area was established to authorize continued utility service here.

The Planning Commission recommends redesignating two sub-areas that are not currently served by water lines from Rural Residential to Rural. LCP policy would then preclude extension of future water and sewer service to these parcels.

The Board has not taken tentative action on this topic.

b.

Board Request for Additional Information

(1)

Number and Size of Affected Parcels

The Board requested that staff determine the number and size of the affected parcels.

Staff has determined that 41 parcels owned by 30 owners would be affected by the proposed redesignation from Rural Residential to Rural. Many of the parcels are aggregations of numerous small substandard lots. The 30 separately owned properties range in size from 3,888 sq. ft. to 5 acres. Fourteen of the 30 properties are smaller than 1 acre, of which three are 5,000 sq. ft. or smaller.

(2)

Legal Constraints

The Board requested that County Counsel evaluate whether redesignating from Rural Residential to Rural constitutes a taking of property, particularly since LCP policy would prohibit utility extension.

County Counsel asked Mr. Recht to review the potential economic effects of the proposal. There are two (2) areas of the Rural Residential affected by the proposal. The southern portion of the affected area is currently subdivided into small parcels, but, in reality, most of the area is built out, using multiple small parcels to support one dwelling unit on a well and septic system. It is estimated that a home on a well and septic system would require approximately one (1) acre of land. Mr. Recht advised that if the parcels are kept in this development pattern, the proposal would not affect feasible economic use. However, issues could arise if parcels are sold off individually or in small amounts that would not support development based on wells and septic systems. A redesignation to Rural would also create potential risk because, the current existing development would be legally prevented from using public utilities if a well or septic system failed since public services cannot extend to rural lands.

The northern portion of the Rural Residential area is about 69 acres, most of which is undeveloped. Two (2) parcels are less than one acre, one of which has a home on it. The remaining parcels are about 0.17 acre. It appears that the parcels are owned by thirteen (13) owners. Six (6) owners hold multiple parcels which, in aggregate, average over an acre each. Seven owners hold 0.6 acres or less. It was Mr. Recht’s conclusion that housing is the only really feasible use for these parcels, particularly for those parcels in combined ownership with less than 0.6 acres.

c.

Alignment with Principles

Either policy option is somewhat aligned with the principles. The status quo, i.e. maintaining the existing Rural Residential boundary (1) provides for “infill” development on existing parcels that are within water and sewer districts, and (2) is more respectful of property rights. Conversely, redesignating some of the parcels from Rural Residential to Rural would be viewed as unreasonably downgrading property’s land use potential since LCP policy prohibits future water and sewer utility service.

d.

Subcommittee Recommendation

The Subcommittee recommends that the Board maintain the status quo, i.e. no change to the Rural Residential boundary. It believes that this approach aligns best with the principles, in that (1) some infill development would result, (2) all of the parcels are located within (and assessed fees by) a utility district, and (3) the land use potential of these parcels would be preserved.

15.

Lot Merger in Rural Midcoast Areas

a.

Background

The planned density for the Midcoast rural area is one dwelling unit per five acres or lower. Much of the area is comprised of subdivided “substandard” lots as well as parcels smaller than one acre. Lot merger among contiguous, commonly own lots/parcels can occur when at least one lot/parcel is smaller than 5,000 sq. ft. or it does not meet current standards for water supply or sewage disposal, i.e. smaller than one acre.

Requiring lot merger can implement the LCP planned development density, prevent exceeding buildout when lots are “sold off,” and assure that parcels are sufficiently large enough to support a water well and septic system.

The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the County comprehensively merge all applicable Midcoast lots/parcels designated Rural Residential or Open Space with the goal of combining parcels up to at least five acres, and that vacant lots/parcels be merged first.

The Board has not taken tentative action on this topic.

b.

Board Request for Additional Information

(1)

Number and Size of Affected Parcels

The Board requested that staff determine the number and size of the affected parcels.

Staff has determined that 91 parcels would be affected by the proposed merger. Most of the parcels are aggregations of numerous small substandard lots. The lots/parcels, ranging in size between 2,500 sq. ft. and 3 acres, would be merged into 54 parcels ranging size between 5,000 sq. ft. and 7.6 acres.

(2)

Incentives for Voluntary Merger

The Board requested that staff evaluate providing incentives for voluntary lot merger in lieu of County initiated lot merger.

As indicated in key issue 5, staff has prepared a two-phased merger proposal whereby during Phase 1, incentives are offered for voluntary merger. Where voluntary merger does not occur, the County would merge the remaining lots/parcels during Phase 2. The incentives would be applied to a housing unit on the merged parcel, and include bonus floor area and reduced covered parking and building permit fees. This incentive proposal could be adapted for rural area application.

c.

Alignment with Principles

Both policy options are somewhat aligned with the principles. The status quo, i.e. not merging rural lots most respects property rights, but is likely to result in exceeding LCP buildout and density for the Midcoast, and the continuation of residential substandard lots. However, comprehensive merger is most likely to achieve these desired outcomes. Also, the incentive merger proposal aligns well with principles by encouraging voluntary merger through incentives, while including a comprehensive merger component.

d.

Subcommittee Recommendation

The Subcommittee recommends that the Board tentatively approve: (1) the incentive merger proposal, and (2) merge subdivided substandard lots in the Midcoast rural area. This means that lots smaller than 5,000 sq. ft. designated Rural Residential or Open Space would be merged in a two-phased process with the goal of combining lots up to at least five acres. Phase 1 would involve, voluntary merger with incentives. Phase 2 would involve County initiated comprehensive merger. For the reasons described in Key Issue 16, lot merger would exclude applicable lots within the CalTrans’ owned Devil’s Slide bypass property.

This approach focuses on merging substandard lots because these are most inconsistent with the rural area density limits. The Subcommittee believes that it aligns well with the principles since it seeks to preserve LCP buildout and density through incentives before commencing mandatory merger.

16.

Use of the CalTrans Devil’s Slide Bypass Property

a.

Background

CalTrans owns a corridor of land crossing Montara that at one time was planned to be a roadway that bypassed landslide prone Devil’s Slide. The “bypass” property is mostly comprised of subdivided “substandard” lots, and includes land designated Medium Density Residential and zoned R-1/S-17 (5,000 sq. ft. minimum parcel size).

State Park lands border the property on the north, and there is pending federal legislation to include the bypass within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) boundary.

Planning the bypass’s future can assure that the existing land use policy does not conflict with the County’s desire for very low intensity open space or recreation uses on this property.

The Planning Commission and staff recommend revising LCP policy to support adding the bypass property to adjoining parkland, and to promote future low intensity recreation uses, including a trail located on the property. The recommendation includes: (1) redesignating the portions of the site designated for residential use to Open Space, and rezoning these areas COSC, and (2) encouraging CalTrans to voluntarily merge the lots, and convey the land to a public agency at a price no greater than the original cost.

The Board has not taken tentative action on this topic.

b.

Board Request for Additional Information

(1)

Existing Residences in the Bypass Area

The Board requested that staff determine the number and status of existing residences in the Devil’s Slide bypass area.

Staff contacted CalTrans and determined that the agency leases four residences on the bypass property. In addition, CalTrans leases four other properties for agricultural and commercial stable use.

(2)

CalTrans’ Response/Future Plans

The Board requested that staff contact CalTrans to determine the agency’s (1) responses to the recommended rezoning proposal, and (2) future plans for the bypass property.

In September, the Subcommittee met with the CalTrans District 4 management to discuss the future of the Devil’s Slide bypass property. The Caltrans personnel indicated that it would not begin discussions with the County regarding either the proposed land use changes or its future plans for the property until the Highway 1 (Montara Mountain) tunnel project is complete and operational. Tunnel construction began this year and is not expected to be complete until 2010-2012.

(3)

Sale to Adjacent Owners

The Board requested that County Counsel determine whether CalTrans has a legal obligation to offer the bypass land to the adjacent owners.

Generally, property acquired in fee by a public agency through Eminent Domain may be used for other public purposes. The property will not revert back to former owners if the public use is abandoned or the property is devoted to a different use. Also, the public agency would not typically be required to offer the property to adjacent owners.

Staff and County Counsel consulted with CalTrans’ representatives, and they advised that the former owners of the bypass lands do not have a right of first refusal. However, it is CalTrans’ policy to offer to sell a property or a portion of a property to lessees with over five (5) years tenancy. If the offer is not accepted, the property would be sold or transferred to a new owner subject to the lease. The new owner would have the option of retaining the lease or canceling it if cancellation is allowed under the lease agreement. There may be leased portions of the bypass lands that would be affected by this policy.

(4)

Legal Constraints

The Board requested that County Counsel evaluate whether the recommendation to (a) rezone to COSC, and (b) prohibit residential use in the COSC district constitutes a taking of property.

This question raises some unresolved legal issues. First, it is not clear whether the State can make a “takings” claim since the “Takings” Clauses of the federal and state constitutions prohibit the taking of private property, not necessarily government-owned property. It is also not clear whether the State could raise theories under Eminent Domain Law which would require the County to prove that its proposed action is a “more necessary public use” than the one intended by CalTrans. Finally, there is an unresolved issue under Takings law whether an owner can sue for a taking on one or more parcels even if the owner owns adjoining parcels. The issue is whether each parcel is considered individually or in aggregation with other similarly owned parcels.

Keeping these issues in mind, County Counsel asked Mr. Recht to analyze the effect of rezoning the bypass properties to COSC without allowing residential use. The bypass is approximately 40 acres that has been previously subdivided, mostly into parcels less than 5,000 sq. ft. Since the area is not currently served by public utilities, it is estimated that current development would require one (1) acre of aggregated parcels to support a well and septic system.

If the parcels are reviewed individually, housing would be the only feasible use given the small parcel size. If, however, parcels are aggregated or considered in sufficiently large groups, or even the total 40-plus acres, there may be feasible uses other than residential. Mr. Recht again raised the question whether the alternatives other than residential use in the COSC present inferior or less desirable land use choices to residential use, particularly for the adjacent neighborhoods.

c.

Alignment with Principles

Both policy options are somewhat in alignment with the principles. Rezoning portions of the bypass property from R-1/S-17 to an open space zoning district could prevent exceeding the LCP planned density and buildout. The status quo, i.e. retaining the existing R-1 zoning i.e. most respects property rights, but could facilitate exceeding the LCP buildout.

d.

Subcommittee Recommendation

The Subcommittee values inter-agency coordination and partnership when developing land use policy. Since CalTrans prefers not to discuss plans for the bypass property until the tunnel is operational, the Subcommittee recommends postponing consideration of proposals for this property until the tunnel project is complete. Specifically, the Subcommittee recommends that the Board postpone consideration of whether to:

(1)

Promote future use of the bypass property for low intensity recreation.

(2)

Revise LCP policy identify a future trail on the bypass property.

(3)

Redesignate the portions of the bypass property designated for residential use to Open Space, and rezoning these areas COSC.

(4)

Encourage CalTrans to voluntarily merge the lots in the Devil’s Slide bypass property, and convey the land to a public agency at a price no greater than the original cost.

In addition, the Subcommittee recommends that the Board exclude substandard lots within the bypass property from any lot merger requirement that may be approved. This would include bypass property lots designated Medium Density Residential or Open Space. Excluding the bypass property from lot merger accommodates future coordination with CalTrans and avoids assembling land into buildable parcels.

17.

Highway 1 Pedestrian Improvements

a.

Background

The Highway 1 right-of-way is wide enough to accommodate a parallel multi-purpose trail. Highway 1 traffic congestion occurs during peak commute hours, thus increasing the risk of pedestrian and bicycle collisions.

The Park and Recreation Division’s Midcoast Recreational Needs Assessment endorsed construction of seven underground pedestrian crossings at seven Highway 1 locations, some of which are aligned with existing stream culverts. Establishing pedestrian access at Highway 1 can reduce safety hazards, provide for transportation alternatives, and foster recreational opportunities.

The Planning Commission and staff recommend revising LCP policy to:

(1)

Promote coordination with the Transportation Authority (TA)/CalTrans in developing (1) a Highway 1 pedestrian/multi-purpose trail, and (2) above or below ground pedestrian crossings at locations along Highway 1.

(2)

Require that the Highway 1 improvement projects be conditioned to require development of pedestrian access, or grade separated crossings.

The Board tentatively approved the Planning Commission recommendation.

b.

Alignment with Principles

The tentatively approved policy change to facilitate additional pedestrian access is aligned with the principles. Specifically, this approach can provide increased opportunities for public recreation while reducing hazard risk.

c.

Subcommittee Recommendation

The Subcommittee recommends that the Board keep its prior approval.

18.

Updating Midcoast Trails Policies

a.

Background

In 2001, the State legislature directed the Coastal Conservancy to coordinate the implementation of the California Coastal Trail. For San Mateo County, the Coastal Trail is a partially completed, primarily bluff-top route that would connect numerous state and County parks as a continuous north-south path. Within the Midcoast, the Trail would connect Montara State Beach with Half Moon Bay.

The existing LCP lists the principal coastside trails, has not been updated since 1980, and does not reference the County Trails Plan. It also identifies trails by names that have changed, and predates the GGNRA expansion into the County.

The Planning Commission and staff recommend revising LCP policy to (1) support and facilitate the Coastal Conservancy’s efforts to coordinate development of the Coastal Trail, and (2) update LCP trails policies, particularly trail names and the role of trail providing agencies.

The Board has not taken tentative action on this topic.

b.

Board Request for Additional Information

The Board requested that staff obtain from the State Coastal Conservancy the most updated map showing the Coastal Trail alignment for the Midcoast.

Staff has coordinated with the Coastal Conservancy to obtain the most current map, which is included as Attachment 6.

c.

Alignment with Principles

The proposal to facilitate Coastal Trail development and update LCP trails policies aligns with the principles, particularly the principle to provide increased opportunities for public recreation and pedestrian oriented access.

d.

Subcommittee Recommendation

The Subcommittee recommends that the Board tentatively approve revising LCP policy to support and facilitate the Coastal Conservancy’s Coastal Trail development efforts, and updating LCP trails policies.

19.

Impervious Surface Limit/Winter Grading

a.

Background

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 porous surfaces and contained grading sites can reduce runoff. San Mateo County complies with federal and State stormwater pollution requirements through C/CAG’s Countywide Stormwater Pollution Program (STOPPP).

The Planning Commission and staff recommend (1) maintaining the existing STOPPP, (2) limiting the amount of parcel area covered by ground level impervious surfaces at 10% of parcel size (not to exceed 1,170 sq. ft.), (3) providing a limited exception to the impervious surface limit, and (4) prohibiting winter grading unless rigorous site containment occurs.

The Board tentatively approved the Planning Commission recommendation with a change to specify that the 1,170 sq. ft. limit applies in residential zoned areas only.

b.

Alignment with Principles

The tentatively approved policy is in alignment with the principles. It prevents degrading environmentally sensitive areas, and protects coastal waters and marine resources.

c.

Subcommittee Recommendation

The Subcommittee recommends that the Board keep its prior approval.

20.

Codifying Coastal Act Sections

a.

Background

Coastal Act Sections 30210-30265.5 establish statewide coastal land use policy and development review criteria. Between 1976 and 1980, these policies governed new development in San Mateo County’s Coastal Zone. In 1980, the Coastal Commission certified the County LCP as consistent with the Coastal Act. Thus, the LCP policies became the standard of review for Coastal Zone development. Some community participants have suggested that Coastal Act Sections 30210-30265.5 be codified as additional LCP policy.

The Planning Commission and staff recommend (1) not codifying the Coastal Act sections as LCP policy, and (2) enacting a new policy to assure that resolution of LCP policy conflicts occur in a manner most protective of significant coastal resources.

The Board tentatively approved the Planning Commission recommendation.

b.

Subcommittee Recommendation

The Subcommittee recommends that the Board keep its prior approval.

21.

LCP Tasks Assigned to the County

a.

Background

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.

The Planning Commission and staff believe the County has effectively met most of the tasks assigned to it. However, there are several tasks where more work is needed.

The Planning Commission recommends that the Board direct staff to promptly complete these tasks, which are:

(1)

Record a Notice of Violation for any newly created illegal parcel, in accordance with Government Code Section 66499.

(2)

Require agencies to submit to the County a list of the proposed public works projects to be constructed during the ensuing fiscal year, and 5-year capital improvement plans.

(3)

Collaborate with SamTrans in planning for a park and ride facility near the intersection of Highways 1 and 92.

(4)

Continue evaluating methods to provide affordable housing, including incentives for affordable units on substandard lots.

(5)

Reestablish the Coastal Access Acquisition and Development Fund.

The Board tentatively approved the Planning Commission recommendation.

b.

Subcommittee Recommendation

The Subcommittee recommends that the Board keep its prior approval.

22.

LCP Policy Conflicts/Ambiguous Provisions

a.

Background

The Midcoast LCP Update Project has identified conflicts, inconsistencies and ambiguities which hinder effective policy administration.

The Planning Commission recommends that identified LCP policies be revised to correct errors, resolve conflicts and clarify ambiguous provisions.

The Board tentatively approved the Planning Commission recommendation.

b.

Subcommittee Recommendation

The Subcommittee recommends that the Board keep its prior approval.

23.

New Midcoast Affordable Housing Policy

a.

Background

Since the 1990s, the Midcoast has experienced a substantial increase in housing sales prices and rents due to a robust regional economy. The trend toward higher prices continues and affordability remains an issue. Relatively low paid service and agriculture employees as well as a growing number of seniors contribute to a need for Midcoast affordable housing.

The key LCP policies that facilitate affordable housing in the Midcoast are:

(1)

LCP Policy 1.22 excludes affordable housing units from the annual limit on the number of new Midcoast residential units.

(2)

LCP Policy 2.21 (Table 2.7) reserves sewage treatment capacity for housing units at the designated affordable housing sites.

(3)

LCP Policy 2.29 (Table 2.17) reserves water supply capacity for housing units at the designated affordable housing sites.

(4)

LCP Policy 3.15 designates three affordable housing sites in Moss Beach and El Granada. Units developed at these sites must include 35% to 50% that are for low and moderate income households.

(5)

LCP Policy 3.18 allows mobile homes or modular/manufactured housing on permanent foundations generally where single-family residences are permitted.

(6)

LCP Policy 3.19 provides a 25% density bonus and other incentives for development of five or more units if:

•

10% of the housing units are for very low-income households, or

•

20% of the housing units are for lower-income households, or

•

50% of the housing units are for senior households.

(7)

LCP Policy 3.20 calls for establishing an “inclusionary requirement” whereby a percentage of the units would be reserved as affordable housing, or an in-lieu fee would be paid. The County has adopted an inclusionary ordinance applicable to developments with five or more units, Coastal Commission certification is pending.

(8)

LCP Policy 3.21 permits second units in the R-1 zoning district.

(9)

Board of Supervisors Ordinance 62405 provides for expedited priority processing and waiver of permit processing fees for affordable housing projects.

To date, no affordable housing units have been developed on the designated sites nor as a result of the density bonus provision. Approximately 70 second units have been approved in the Midcoast, though none are subject to income and rent limits.

b.

Subcommittee Recommendation

In order to increase the number of affordable housing units in the Midcoast, the Subcommittee recommends that the Board tentatively approve adding the following measures as a part of the Midcoast LCP Update Project:

(1)

Revise LCP Policy 2.21 (Table 2.7) to reserve sewage treatment capacity for all affordable housing units, including those built on conforming parcels, nonconforming substandard lots and at the designated affordable housing sites.

(2)

Revise LCP Policy 2.29 (Table 2.17) to reserve water supply capacity for all affordable housing units, including those built on conforming parcels, nonconforming substandard lots and at the designated affordable housing sites.

(3)

Revise LCP Policy 3.21 to require that new second dwelling units may only be established as affordable units, i.e. subject to income and rent limits. Code enforcement efforts would be increased to identify new unpermitted second units.

(4)

Prepare and pre-approve a variety of house designs for affordable and market rate units constructed on substandard lots. Use of a pre-approved house design would be exempt from design review and use permit requirements.

(5)

Request the Granada Sanitary District to repeal its policy that adds regulatory barriers for a sewer connection serving a house on a nonconforming parcel, primarily since the policy constrains the provision of Midcoast affordable housing.

This proposal is combined with the recommendation in Key Issue 6 to provide the following incentives for developing a moderate income affordable unit on a substandard lot:

(1)

Up to 200 sq. ft. garage floor area bonus,

(2)

Up to 1 covered space reduced parking,

(3)

Ability to obtain priority reserved water and sewer connection,

(4)

Waive permit fees; expedite permit processing,

(5)

To the extent feasible, direct access to a County assembled pool of pre-qualified buyers, and

(6)

To the extent feasible, receive an interest free or reduced interest loan for construction costs.

In addition to contributing to the County meeting its regional affordable housing objectives, the Subcommittee believes that the recommended new affordable housing measures align well with the Board approved principles to guide Midcoast growth. Specifically, the measures provide increased opportunities for dispersed infill affordable housing using incentives, bonuses and streamlining procedures. Further, they encourage the voluntary provision of affordable housing on nonconforming parcels, while assuring a unit that is no greater in size than is permitted for conforming parcels.

REVIEWING AGENCIES

County Counsel

County Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Map of Midcoast Project Area

2.

Principles to Guide Midcoast Growth (approved by Board of Supervisors - June 2, 2005)

3.

Description of the “Proportionality Rule”

4.

Map of Two Sites at Half Moon Bay Airport Determined as not Necessary for Airport-related Activities

5.

Map of Airport Overlay (AO) District

6.

Coastal Conservancy Map of Coastal Trail Alignment (2005)