COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

 

PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

 
 

DATE:

June 22, 2009

BOARD MEETING DATE:

July 7, 2009

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

None

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

 

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

 

FROM:

Lisa Grote, Director of Community Development

 

SUBJECT:

Public Hearing Regarding the Coastal Commission Staff’s Recommendation on the Midcoast Update Local Coastal Program Amendments

 
 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1.

Reconvene the public hearing initiated and continued on June 16, 2009.

   

2.

Authorize the Community Development Director to send a letter to the California Coastal Commission staff, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, identifying the County’s concerns and requests detailed by this report, and as may be supplemented at the July 7, 2009 public hearing.

   

VISION ALIGNMENT

 

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

 

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

 

The Midcoast Update contributes to these commitments and goals by: lowering the Midcoast growth rate; establishing a substandard lot merger process; preserving opportunities for neighborhood commercial uses; promoting inter-agency collaboration to improve roadway level of service; and strengthening water quality protections.

 

INTRODUCTION

 

On February 27, 2009, the staff of the California Coastal Commission (CCC) released its report on the Midcoast Update Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendments approved by the Board in November 2006 and submitted for Coastal Commission certification in January 2007. The CCC staff report, which is available at http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2009/3/Th6a-3-2009.pdf, recommends denial of the amendments submitted by the County, and approval of a modified version proposed by CCC staff (Attachment 1). If the CCC adopts the recommended changes, the County’s acceptance of these changes becomes a condition of amendment certification. If the County rejects the changes, the existing LCP will remain in effect, and the County would have the option of resubmitting a revised version of the Update.

 

The CCC staff report was prepared for a March 12, 2009 Coastal Commission hearing, which was postponed at the request of the County in order to provide more time for review and coordination with CCC staff. As part of this follow-up, the Board of Supervisors convened a public study session on June 16, 2009 in the City of Half Moon Bay. At the July 7, 2009 Board of Supervisors meeting, the Board will provide additional opportunity for public comment on the changes to the Update proposed by the Coastal Commission staff, and determine how the County should respond.

 

The Planning and Building Department recommends that at the July 7, 2009 public hearing, the Board authorize the Community Development Director to send a letter to the California Coastal Commission staff, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, identifying the County’s concerns and requests detailed by this report, and as may be supplemented during the study session. This letter will be sent to CCC staff before they release the staff recommendation for the rescheduled hearing, which is anticipated to take place on August 11 or 12, 2009 in San Francisco. In accordance with the direction previously received from the Board, Planning and Building staff will continue to meet with the CCC staff in an effort to reach resolution on as many of the issues as possible prior to the August Coastal Commission meeting.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Preparation of the Midcoast Update for CCC approval was initiated in 1999 and involved numerous community meetings to determine the scope and content of the Update. There were a total of twenty public hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to develop a final proposal. The final set of amendments approved by the Board of Supervisors includes text, policy, and ordinance changes to the LCP that:

 
 

Update the estimate of Midcoast residential buildout.

 

Update the estimate of Midcoast water and sewer demand.

 

Lower the residential growth rate limit from 125 to 75 units/year.

 

Prohibit new residences at El Granada’s “Burnham Strip.”

 

Limit residential uses to above the first floor in the C-1 District.

 

Revise controls on caretaker’s quarters in the Princeton Waterfront District.

 

Reduce house floor area and height in the RM-CZ and PAD Districts.

 

Propose projects to reduce traffic congestion on Highway 1.

 

Authorize a two-phased substandard lot merger process.

 

Add incentives for voluntary substandard lot merger.

 

Limit the amount of ground level impervious surfaces.

 

Improve winter grading controls.

 

Reserve water supply for failed wells and affordable housing.

 

Add incentives for affordable housing units in existing residential areas.

 

Require pedestrian improvements for Highway 1 projects.

 

Require traffic mitigation for development generating >50 trips.

 

Provide for future park/trail at the “Devil’s Slide bypass” property.

 

Update LCP trails policies and role of trail providing agencies.

 

Incorporate the requirements of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program.

 

Provide guidance on resolving LCP policy conflicts.

 

Correct and clarify ambiguous and inconsistent LCP provisions.

     
 

As part of the Board’s deliberations, serious consideration was given to the form in which these amendments would be submitted to the CCC. Local governments have the option of submitting LCP amendments for a simple yes or no vote, or in a manner that provides the CCC with the option of suggesting modifications necessary to reach an approval. The Board elected to submit the Update in a form that allows the Commission to propose changes to the amendment, but indicated its desire that such modifications be kept to a minimum.

   
 

Following submittal of the Update to the CCC in January 2007, the Planning and Building Department has spent a significant amount of time responding to the CCC staff’s requests for additional information, and has met with CCC staff on numerous occasions. On February 27, 2009, the CCC staff filed the amendment submittal as complete, which triggered a 90-day timeframe for final action. On March 20, 2009, the Commission extended the timeframe for action for up to one year after the initial 90 days, which established a May 28, 2010 deadline.

   

DISCUSSION

 

1.

June 16, 2009 Study Session

   
 

During the study session, Planning and Building staff presented the issues of greatest concern, and provided preliminary recommendations on County responses. The major issued addressed by staff’s presentation had to do with CCC staff recommendations that would:

   
   

Reduce the County approved growth rate;

   

Require demonstration of adequate public services;

   

Prohibit wells and septic systems;

   

Regulate the capacity of public works projects;

   

Diminish County priorities for affordable housing;

   

Require new land divisions retire development potential on an equivalent number of lots;

   

Rezone the area within the Highway 1 bypass alignment; and

   

Require the County to undertake new studies and monitoring programs.

       
 

These and other issues are discussed in more detail by the following sections of this report, and are summarized in table format by Attachment 2.

   
 

The Board also received a presentation by the Coastal Commission Deputy Director Charles Lester and public comment from thirty-seven people. Many of these speakers emphasized the need for very careful consideration of the CCC staff’s proposal, in a manner that provides adequate opportunity for local input.

   
 

Ten speakers expressed support for most, if not all of the CCC staff’s recommendation. This includes the Committee for Green Foothills (CGF), who agreed with the County that CCC staff’s proposed policies limiting the size of public works needs to be clarified, and that water quality protection policies should reference the Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP). CGF also suggested that this reference should be clarified to apply SMCWPPP “or its current replacement.” CGF also asked for clarification of buildout estimates in light of the Witt and Abernathy cases (as did other speakers).

   
 

Twenty-five of the speakers either supported most if not all of the responses proposed by Planning and Building staff, or called on the Board to reject the CCC staff’s modifications and request CCC approval of the County approved Update without change. Of these speakers, nine were specifically concerned about the potential impacts that CCC staff’s recommendation may have on the proposed “Big Wave” project, and one (the Executive Officer of the Farm Bureau) was specifically concerned about the impact on the ability to form an irrigation district. One of the speakers supported the County’s position on most issues, but agreed with the CCC staff’s proposal to lower the growth rate.

   
 

The remaining two speakers had a generally neutral position. One wanted the County to consider what constitutes “adequate water,” and do a more careful analysis about the feasibility of providing water to serve buildout in light of the risks posed by dry and very dry years. Another wanted to know if property tax assessments would be revised in the event that wells and septic systems are prohibited.

   
 

Following the public comment period, Board members asked staff about the necessity to take action by July 7, 2009. Staff responded that Board action at the July 7 public hearing would be needed to transfer the content of that action to the Commission staff in time for it to be addressed by the staff report they will be releasing for the August 2009 Commission meeting. It was also noted that if the Board wanted more time to consider CCC staff’s recommendation, the Coastal Commission hearing could be postponed to a later date, such as the December 2009 meeting which will also be held in San Francisco.

   
 

The Board also requested staff to look into providing an updated buildout estimate that takes into consideration the implications of the Witt and Abernathy decision. Staff is actively working on this request, and will provide a response in a supplemental report or at the July 7 public hearing.

   
 

In addition, the Board identified its interest in understanding what types of special districts, in addition to the irrigation district suggested by the Farm Bureau, may be under consideration and be impacted by the CCC staff’s recommendation. Based on discussions with the Executive Director of San Mateo County’s Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), CCC staff’s Suggested Modification 12 could interfere with implementation of LAFCo’s adopted sphere of influence for the Midcoast, which recommends consolidation of sewer and water districts and formation of a community services district for provision of park and recreation services and facilities. LAFCo will be submitting a letter to CCC staff regarding this concern.

   
 

Finally, the Board recognized for the record that they had received a letter from the staff of the California Department of Transportation. This letter and all other correspondence regarding this matter received to date are included as Attachment 3.

   

2.

Revisions to Annual Growth Rate

   
 

a.

Description

     
   

As approved by the Board of Supervisors, the Update proposes to limit the number of new Midcoast dwelling units to 75 per year, not including affordable housing units and secondary dwellings. This represents a 40% reduction in the 125 units currently allowed by the LCP. The County-approved amendment also repeals an existing LCP provision that allows the Board to approve up to 200 units per year if certain findings are made.

     
   

CCC staff’s Suggested Modification 2 replaces the 75 unit annual limit proposed by the County with a maximum population growth rate of 1%, and applies this limit to secondary dwellings (i.e., “granny units”). The modification also states that the 1% limit shall be in effect until the County develops a comprehensive transportation management plan, sewage overflow problems have been resolved, and the growth rate is revised via future LCP amendment.

     
 

b.

Analysis

     
   

The number of new residences permitted in the Midcoast has averaged 49 units per year since the LCP was certified in 1981. The most development that occurred in one year was in 1987, when 133 units were built. (This is the one and only time the Board of Supervisors adopted the findings necessary to allow more than 125 units.) Over the past five years (2004-2008), an average of 38 units have been approved annually. During this five-year period, the maximum number of new units developed in one year was 50 in 2004, and the lowest number was 24 in 2008. (There has been a steady decline in the number of units constructed per year since 2004.)

     
   

The CCC proposal to establish an annual maximum population growth rate of 1% reduces the number of new residential units allowed per year from 75 (as proposed by the County) to 40, based on an average of 2.78 persons per household (as determined by the 2000 Census) and an estimate of 3,950 existing units. This will be more difficult to administer because the number of new units allowed will need to be periodically revised to reflect population changes.

     
   

An important question that remains unresolved is how the CCC staff’s proposed growth rate relates to the new policies they have proposed that prohibit new development until the adequacy of public services can be demonstrated. These policies, which are discussed in more detail in Section 3 of this report, establish a moratorium on new development until traffic and wastewater collection (among other service and infrastructure) issues are resolved. It appears that these new public service policies would supersede the growth rate policy and render the allowed growth rate moot.

     
   

The proposal to reduce or prohibit new residential development until infrastructure and service capacities are increased does not consider the role that new development plays in implementing such improvements. Existing fees for new development help fund recreation projects, stormwater programs, and roadway improvements. In addition, new development provides elements that address regional needs such as sidewalks, trails, and drainage infrastructure. Tying the growth rate directly to existing service capacities further impedes infrastructure improvements by widening the divide of public support for projects that enable growth.

     
   

CCC staff’s proposal to apply the growth rate limit to second units also conflicts with the County’s interest in meeting its regional housing needs, in a manner that complies with Department of Housing requirements and maximizes opportunities for urban infill. It also raises issues of consistency with Section 6585.2(a)(2) of the Government Code restricting the application of quotas to second units.

     
   

It is understood that the approved growth limit will be in place unless and until it is revised by a future LCP amendment, at which time the CCC will consider service capacity issues. Prescribing specific components of future amendments, such as the Comprehensive Traffic Management Plan called for by Suggested Modification 39, may create unnecessary obstacles to appropriate growth rate revisions if traffic issues are resolved through an alternative and equivalent process. It also places an emphasis on traffic and wastewater collection issues, whereas there may be other issues of equal or greater importance when and if the County proposes to revise the growth rate.

     
   

Finally, CCC staff’s proposed 69% reduction to the LCP’s existing growth rate is an unnecessary and inappropriate response to an amendment that reduces the allowed growth rate by 40%. The reduced growth rate adopted by the County was subject to an extensive public review process, and will improve the ability of public service and infrastructure improvements to keep pace with a level of new development that will help implement such improvements.

     
   

The County and other service providers have initiated a number of projects and planning efforts intended to address CCC staff’s concerns regarding the ability of infrastructure and public service capacities to accommodate the growth allowed by the LCP. These include the Midcoast Mobility Project, Midcoast groundwater studies, the Countywide Transportation Plan Update, Midcoast storm drain improvements, and the El Granada Sanitary District’s proposed wet weather storage project. In light of these efforts and the concerns raised above, it is premature and unnecessary for CCC staff to revise the County adopted annual growth limit.

     
 

c.

Preliminary Recommendation

     
   

Request CCC staff to delete Suggested Modification 2. Rather than imposing a change to the County adopted growth rate, CCC staff should participate in the infrastructure planning efforts that will allow public service capacities to keep pace with the modest rate of infill development allowed by the County and envisioned by the LCP.

     
   

In the event that CCC staff is unwilling to delete this modification, Planning and Building Department staff suggests that the County request CCC staff to revise the modification to:

     
   

Establish a maximum annual growth rate based on a number of units rather than a percent of the population;

   

Clarify the relationship of proposed public service policies to the growth rate;

   

Exclude secondary dwelling units from the growth limit; and

   

Eliminate language that hinges future growth rate changes on a Comprehensive Traffic Management Plan and resolution of wastewater collection issues.

       

3.

Water Quality Protection

   
 

a.

Description

     
   

CCC staff’s Suggested Modification 3 deletes a new County policy that requires compliance with the Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP)1 and references minimum requirements that will be attached as an appendix to the LCP. In its place, Suggested Modification 4 proposes seven new policies that provide detailed stormwater control and treatment standards. These policy changes apply throughout the County’s Coastal Zone, and are not limited to the Midcoast project area.

     
 

b.

Analysis

     
   

Suggested Modifications 3 and 4 abandon the use of the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) as the primary method for protecting water quality. This program has been created in accordance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, and provides a uniform way for protecting all of the County water bodies.

     
   

The replacement of SMCWPPP with LCP specific standards will result in the application of different standards for the Coastal Zone, and thereby create an artificial divide between bay and ocean waters that deserve equal protection. Although these standards have been designed to be consistent with SMCWPPP where possible, they also include some significant additions that mimic the RWQCB’s proposed new Municipal Regional Permit requirements, which have yet to be adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board and are the subject of much debate.

     
   

In addition, the CCC staff’s proposed replacement of SMCWPPP with LCP specific standards creates administrative issues beyond those associated with different standards for projects that require coastal development permits.2 As proposed by the County, the reference to SMCWPPP allows the County to apply state of the art best management practices and pollution control designs and technologies that become a part of this program, without having to amend the LCP. Under the modifications suggested by CCC staff, the County will have to amend its LCP anytime it wants to update the very specific measures prescribed by the new policies.

     
   

Finally, many of the technical and detailed standards proposed by Suggested Modification 4 normally take the form of implementing regulations and permit conditions, not policies. Policies are purposefully broad in nature, and provide the basis for the more specific implementing codes and regulations. The technical standards proposed by CCC staff as new LCP policies are inconsistent with this framework, and incompatible with the scope of other LCP policies. They are also redundant to each other and unclear in many areas.

     
 

c.

Preliminary Recommendation

     
   

Request CCC staff to retain the approach proposed by the County that establishes a policy that requires new development to protect water quality by complying with SMCWPPP, and that attaches minimum requirements as an appendix. If there are gaps in the minimum requirements established by the County proposed appendix, CCC staff should limit their modifications to the minimum needed to fill these gaps.

     
   

To the degree CCC staff determines that it is necessary to amend or supplement the appendix, the suggested modifications presented in the staff report prepared for the postponed March 2009 meeting should be revised to:

     
   

Eliminate redundancies (e.g., between 1.36a and 1.37c(1), 1.37b(5) and 1.37(d)1, 1.39b and the preceding policies);

   

Define “small collection strategies” and “micro-detention” in proposed Policies 1.36b and 1.37c(1);

   

Describe how the County is expected to “reduce pollutants associated with vehicles and increased traffic resulting from development” (Policy 1.36f);

   

Recognize that disconnecting downspouts may not always be a best practice (1.37c(1));

   

Acknowledge that sewer connections for swimming pools and other listed facilities are not available in rural areas (1.37(d)); and

   

Describe how the need for additional treatment measures will be determined (Policy 1.39a).

       

4.

Deletion of New County Policy Regarding Conflict Resolution

   
 

a.

Description

     
   

Suggested Modification 5 removes a new policy proposed by the County that would allow decision makers to resolve conflicts between LCP policies in a manner that is, on balance, the most protective of significant coastal resources. The County proposal to include such a policy in the LCP is based on Sections 30007.5 and 30200(b) of the Coastal Act, which state:

     
     

Section 30007.5. Legislative findings and declarations; resolution of policy conflicts

       
     

The Legislature further finds and recognizes that conflicts may occur between one or more policies of the division. The Legislature therefore declares that in carrying out the provisions of this division such conflicts be resolved in a manner which on balance is the most protective of significant coastal resources. In this context, the Legislature declares that broader policies which, for example, serve to concentrate development in close proximity to urban and employment centers may be more protective, overall, than specific wildlife habitat and other similar resource policies.

       
     

Section 30200. Policies as standards; resolution of policy conflicts

     

     

(b) Where the commission or any local government in implementing the provisions of this division identifies a conflict between the policies of this chapter, Section 30007.5 shall be utilized to resolve the conflict and the resolution of such conflicts shall be supported by appropriate findings setting forth the basis for the resolution of identified policy conflicts.

       
   

The purpose of incorporating such a conflict resolution policy into the LCP is to provide the County with the ability to balance the sometime conflicting objectives of LCP resource protection provisions. These types of conflicts arise when the implementation of one LCP policy runs contrary to the directives of another policy, such as if the application of visual resource protection policies would push development in a sensitive habitat.

     
 

b.

Analysis

     
   

CCC staff interprets Coastal Act Sections 30007.5 and 30200(b) as applying only to conflicts between the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act, and not to conflicts between LCP policies. Based on this interpretation, Sections 30007.5 and 30200(b) are only applicable to CCC decisions on LCP submittals and amendments, and to coastal development permits (CDPs) where the Coastal Act, rather than a certified LCP, is the standard of review.

     
   

Within the bounds of this interpretation, there is room for local governments to propose, and the CCC to certify, conflict resolution provisions that are specific to particular resource issues. This is reflected in the visual resource provisions of the existing LCP; LCP Policy 8.5 states that where there are conflicts in complying with the requirements of this policy, they shall be balanced in manner that protects significant coastal resources on the parcel, consistent with Coastal Act Section 30007.5.

     
   

While the CCC has certified such specific conflict resolution policies within LCPs, it is apparently not willing to accept a general LCP policy that mimics the language of Section 30007.5, as the County has proposed in the Update. This seems to be at odds with the Coastal Act’s delegation of coastal development permit decisions to local governments with certified LCPs, and the specific language of Section 30200(b) which recognizes that conflicts may arise when local governments are implementing the provisions of the Coastal Act through LCPs. LCP policies that have been determined to be consistent with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act are just as likely to raise internal conflicts as the Chapter 3 policies themselves. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to allow local governments to apply Section 30007.5 in such instances where there are conflicts between LCP policies enacted in accordance with the division.

     
   

The most common instances of conflict between LCP resource protection policies are those related to the application of visual resource protection policies and the implications it has on other LCP objectives, such as avoiding the conversion of agricultural lands, protecting sensitive habitats, and setting development back from hazardous areas. As noted above, the LCP already states that the visual protection policies should be carried out in a manner that is, on balance, the most protective of coastal resources, so the County is already covered in this regard.

     
   

Another potential area of conflict is in the application of LCP agriculture policies that direct non-agricultural development away from soils that are either prime or suitable for agriculture, which has the potential to push development into other areas that may have sensitive habitats, scenic qualities, or hazardous conditions. With regard to the potential for such conflicts, LCP agriculture policies state that non-agricultural development should be located away from agricultural soils, unless all agriculturally unsuitable lands have been developed or are undevelopable. Accordingly, the County has the ability to resolve conflicts between agriculture and other LCP policies by determining that areas of a site with important scenic, habitat, or hazardous areas are not suitable for development.

     
 

c.

Preliminary Recommendation

     
   

It is impossible to predict the full range of possible conflicts that may arise between LCP policies during the review of particular development proposals. Although the existing LCP contains adequate provisions to resolve conflicts that may be raised through the application of visual resource and agriculture policies, there is the possibility that other conflicts could arise, such as between water quality and sensitive habitat policies (e.g., if the installation of an essential water quality protection measure necessitates a location within a sensitive habitat). In the interest in providing the County with the flexibility to address such circumstances, the County should request CCC staff to delete Suggested Modification 5.

     

5.

New Policy Requiring the Demonstration of Public Service Capacities

   
 

a.

Description

     
   

As described above, CCC staff is concerned about the ability of existing infrastructure and public services to support the total amount of development allowed by the LCP referred to as “buildout.” These include concerns about the impact of traffic on coastal access; the ability of the wastewater collection system to handle increased flows; and the adequacy of local water supplies to sustain additional growth.

     
   

CCC staff attempts to address these concerns, among other ways, by adding a new policy (Suggested Modification 6) that prohibits the approval of new development unless it can be demonstrated that there are adequate public services. Services that must be addressed during the coastal development review process include, but are not limited to: water; wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal; storm drainage; fire, emergency, and medical response; police protection; transportation; schools; and solid waste collection and disposal (as applicable to the project). With regard to water and sewer services, the policy requires evidence that there is adequate capacity within the system to serve the development and “all other foreseeable development that the system is committed to serving.”

     
 

b.

Analysis

     
   

There is no question that the adequacy of public service capacities is an essential consideration in the review of development applications. The new policy proposed by CCC staff does not, however, provide a clear, reasonable, or effective method for addressing this issue. This is because the proposed policy is unclear about what constitutes adequate levels of service; does not identify the specific information needed to demonstrate such adequacy; and only applies to a very limited segment of new development that is not exempt from coastal development permit requirements by virtue of the existing Categorical Exclusion Order.

     
   

The policy proposed by CCC staff identifies over eight types of public services that must be addressed prior to the approval of any coastal development. However, there are only two areas in which adequate levels of service are defined. The first is in the area of water and sewer facilities, where the policy states that “adequate capacity (including transmission, collection, treatment, and disposal) exists within the system to serve the development and all other existing and foreseeable development the system is committed to serving.” The second is in the area of transportation, where the Commission staff suggests that a Level of Service (LOS) D at peak commuter hours, and LOS E during peak recreation periods, be considered as adequate along State Route 1 and Highway 92.

     
   

These thresholds present a number of unresolved issues. The first has to do with the requirement to demonstrate that water and sewer service is not only adequate to serve the proposed development, but all other development the system is committed to serving as well. It is unclear what constitutes a commitment to serve, such as whether an assessment levied by a service district for future service equates to such a commitment, even if the levy was assessed for a service that cannot be provided in a manner consistent with the LCP (such as for water or sewer treatment service outside the urban boundary). It is also unclear what is required to determine the full scope of existing service commitments, who will bear the burden of accurately making this determination, and how such commitments may preclude the establishment of Coastal Act priority land uses.

     
   

The second has to do with the feasibility and appropriateness of using roadway levels of service (LOS) as the threshold for circulation adequacy. Currently, there is no data available regarding LOS during peak recreation periods, which means that a new monitoring program will be needed to address CCC staff’s recommended threshold. More generally, it is important to consider whether the presence of commuter and weekend traffic present an appropriate basis for a moratorium on development, particularly in light of the role that it plays in financing needed circulation improvements and addressing the region’s jobs to housing imbalance.

     
   

A third issue has to do with the limited geographic area in which this standard will be applicable, and the resulting impediment it will create for commercial, mixed-use, and multi-residential infill projects that can help reduce traffic by creating walkable communities with a better jobs to housing balance. Single-family residential development will continue to be excluded from coastal development permit requirements throughout the urban exclusion area, and thereby exempt from the requirement to demonstrate adequate public services. Meanwhile, other uses that provide a greater degree of community benefit will be put to a much more rigorous test and at greater risk of being able to obtain the service capacities that are being consumed by single-family residences.

     
   

Finally, as discussed in Section 1.b above, the thresholds for determining the adequacy of roadway and wastewater treatment capacities appear to create a de facto moratorium on new development until peak traffic issues and wet weather overflow problems are resolved. This, in turn, creates impediments to implementing the infrastructure improvements needed to provide adequate service capacities.

     
 

c.

Recommendation

     
   

Request CCC staff to delete Sections a, b, g, and h of proposed Policy 1.18.1. Instead, CCC staff should work with the County through future LCP amendments to develop more specific and objective criteria that facilitate rather than hinder land use priorities.

     

6.

Prohibition of Wells and Septic Systems

   
 

a.

Description

     
   

Due to concerns regarding the sustainability of groundwater supplies, Suggested Modification 6 also proposes to prohibit private wells and septic systems be prohibited within the Midcoast urban area, unless they are consistent with a groundwater management plan approved by the Commission via future LCP amendment. The proposed prohibitions are reinforced by Suggested Modifications 17 and 26.

     
 

b.

Analysis

     
   

A precautionary approach to individual wells in the urban area is warranted given outstanding questions regarding the safe yield of Midcoast groundwater basins.3 The proposal to develop a groundwater management plan is also appropriate given the various land uses, service districts, and natural habitats that depend on a sustainable groundwater supply.

     
   

While such a management plan is being developed, there may be instances where individual water supply and/or wastewater treatment systems warrant an exemption from the CCC staff’s recommended prohibition because they will have either no adverse impacts on the basin, or will benefit groundwater recharge. It would be appropriate to allow exceptions to the prohibition in such instances.

     
   

It is also important to clarify that the prohibition applies only to new wells and septic systems. This avoids existing wells from becoming non-conforming, which would present obstacles to their ongoing use and maintenance.

     
 

c.

Preliminary Recommendation

     
   

Request CCC staff to work with County staff on a revised version of Suggested Modifications 6, 17 and 26 that: describes the limited instances in which wells and/or septic systems will be allowed; identifies the specific documentation and findings needed to approve wells and septic systems; and addresses the ramifications of this policy on existing wells and septic systems.

     

7.

New Policies Regulating the Size of Public Works

   
 

a.

Description

     
   

CCC staff’s Suggested Modifications 8, 11, 20, 25, 28, 29 and 33 propose policies that require the capacity of public works projects to be limited to that which can be effectively served by other existing or reasonable foreseeable public service capacities. For example, the capacity of roadway projects would be limited to serving a population that can be accommodated by existing or foreseeable water supplies and wastewater treatment capacities. Similarly, the capacity of water supply projects would be limited to serving a level of development that could be sustained by existing or foreseeable roadway and wastewater treatment capacities.

     
 

b.

Analysis

     
   

CCC staff’s suggested modification creates an unreasonable expectation that all types of public works projects will move forward in tandem. As a case in point, it is unrealistic to assume that a project to improve traffic flow on Highway 1 will be able to predict the future capacity of the area’s water supply within the timeframe that such roadway improvements are needed. Although there are a range of options available to help address the area’s water supply needs (such as improved conservation and groundwater management, reuse of recycled wastewater, and desalination), it is not possible at this point in time to identify a “foreseeable” supplemental water supply. As a result, the policy recommended by CCC staff would restrict roadway improvements to the minimum level needed to serve existing levels of use, which would be neither an efficient nor effective method of addressing long-term transportation needs.

     
   

It also creates a situation under which the current status of public works projects, rather than the level of development that can be accommodated consistent with the protection of coastal resources, determines the level of development allowed by the LCP. It is inappropriate to limit potential future development simply because a particular service needs to expand its capacity, without evidence that such an expansion would harm coastal resources.

     
 

c.

Preliminary Recommendation

     
   

Request CCC staff to delete the Suggested Modifications referenced above. Otherwise, they should be revised to limit the capacity of public works to that which will serve the buildout allowed by the LCP.

     

8.

Reservation of Transportation Capacity

   
 

a.

Description

     
   

Coastal Act Section 30254 states in part:

     
     

Where existing or planned public works facilities can accommodate only a limited amount of new development, services to coastal dependent land use, essential public services and basic industries vital to the economic health of the region, state, or nation, public recreation, commercial recreation, and visitor-serving land uses shall not be precluded by other development.

       
   

Pursuant to this policy, the LCP establishes a system for reserving allocations of limited water and sewer service capacities to priority land uses. Suggested Modifications 9 and 42 revise these policies by including the regional transportation system (e.g., Highways 1 and 92) as a type of public works facility, the capacities of which must be reserved for priority land uses.

     
 

b.

Analysis

     
   

The concept of reserving roadway capacity for priority uses presents some very basic implementation questions. In particular, it is unclear how such capacities are to be effectively determined and reserved.

     
   

Taking the CCC staff’s recommendation as a whole, it appears that CCC staff expects the County to prohibit any new development until the levels of service along Highways 1 and 92 are “D” or better during peak commuter periods, and “E” or better during peak recreation periods. Any additional roadway capacity that may be available within these parameters must be reserved for priority land uses. In order to implement these recommendations, the County would need to determine the roadway needs of all future priority land uses, and improve circulation to the degree that meets this need, along with the needs of existing and future non-priority land uses, before any new development can occur.

     
   

A major challenge associated with this approach will be accurately assessing the transportation demands associated with future development of priority land uses, and the impacts that such demands will have on peak commuter and recreation periods. If this can be determined, the next challenge will be to analyze how the capacity of future roadway projects and transit improvements will be used. Finally, the County would need to document that future roadway projects are adequate to serve both priority and non-priority land uses allowed by the LCP, but would not create additional capacity that could induce growth beyond that which is allowed by the LCP.

     
   

The type of analyses described above is not only prone to error and debate, but is really only a paper exercise. When it comes down to actual use of the roadway and transit network, there is no effective means of allocating these facilities to priority land uses, as there is for services such as water and sewer.

     
 

c.

Preliminary Recommendation

     
   

Request that CCC staff delete the portions of Suggested Modifications 9 and 42 that require transportation capacity to be reserved for priority uses.

     

9.

Limits on the Creation of New Service Districts

   
 

a.

Description

     
   

Coastal Act Section 30254 also states, again in part, that:

     
     

Special districts shall not be formed or expanded except where assessment for, and provision of, the service would not induce development inconsistent with this division.

       
   

Based on this policy and concerns that existing levels of development exceed current public service capacities, CCC staff’s Suggested Modification 12 allows the formation or expansion of special districts only when public service capacity issues such as water, sewer, and transportation are resolved.

     
 

b.

Analysis

     
   

The establishment and expansion of special districts is regulated by the Local Agency Formation Commission, which not only considers whether such actions are consistent with the LCP, but whether they are in the best interest of the public from a cost, efficiency, and effectiveness standpoint.

     
   

As provided by the Coastal Act, special districts should not be formed if they will induce growth that is inconsistent with the policies of the Coastal Act or a certified LCP. In other words, it is appropriate to form special districts if they will provide an effective and efficient means of meeting the needs of both existing and anticipated future development.

     
   

CCC staff’s Suggested Modification 12 does not carry out Coastal Act Section 30254, but instead uses existing service capacities as a basis to evaluate whether it is appropriate to form or expand special districts. This could have the undesirable result of precluding the formation of a special district that may be needed to meet the existing needs of the Coastside (e.g., a recreation district), or preventing the consolidation of existing service districts to provide more efficient and/or cost effective service, for a completely unrelated reason (e.g., levels of service along Highways 1 and 92 do not meet the minimums proposed by CCC staff).

     
 

c.

Preliminary Recommendation

     
   

Request that CCC staff delete Suggested Modification 12.

     

10.

Limits on the Use of Recycled Water

   
 

a.

Description

     
   

Suggested Modification 14 revises LCP Policy 2.18 regarding the timing and sizing of projects that expand sewage collection and treatment capacities, and raises issues regarding the sizing of public works project described by the June 1, 2009 memorandum. Suggested Modification 14 also restricts the possible future reuse of treated wastewater by prohibiting connections to commercial, residential, or industrial water users.

     
 

b.

Analysis

     
   

CCC staff’s proposed restrictions on the possible reuse of treated wastewater appears to be based on a concern that it will be growth inducing. Since treated wastewater is not allowed to be used for domestic uses, it is unlikely to be growth inducing. The most likely use of treated wastewater will be to provide an alternative source of irrigation for landscaping and agricultural purposes, which will in turn reduce demands on limited groundwater supplies. CCC staff’s proposed restrictions are therefore unnecessary and run counter to the interest in conserving water.

     
 

c.

Preliminary Recommendation

     
   

Request that CCC staff delete the portion of Suggested Modification 14 that prohibits the provision of treated water to commercial, industrial, or residential water users.

     

11.

Reduced Service Priorities for Affordable Housing

   
 

a.

Description

     
   

In areas with limited public service capacities, the Coastal Act gives priority for such services to the specific types of land uses described in Section 2 above. Building on this approach, the LCP identifies affordable housing as a type of land use that should also be eligible to receive water capacities set aside for priority land uses. Specifically, the existing LCP reserves water for affordable housing constructed on the three vacant sites designated for high-density residential development. The Update would expand this program by also reserving water for up to 40 additional units located outside of these three sites (20 units within the Montara Water and Sanitary District’s jurisdiction, and 20 units within the Coastside County Water District). This reservation represents a reallocation of water that was previously set aside for floriculture uses, based on the fact that the amount of water actually being used for that purpose is much less than that which was previously reserved.

     
   

Suggested Modifications 16, 23, and 43 revise the County’s proposal in two ways. First, Suggested Modifications 16 and 23 indicate that the land uses specified by Coastal Act Section 30254 have priority over affordable housing. Second, Suggested Modification 43 deletes the County’s proposal to make up to 40 units of affordable housing located outside the three vacant high-density residential sites eligible for priority water.

     
 

b.

Analysis

     
   

Coastal Act Section 30604(f) and (g) directs the Coastal Commission to encourage the provision of affordable housing in the Coastal Zone. Given the limited availability of water to accommodate new development, one of the most direct ways in which affordable housing can be encouraged is by making it eligible to receive water supplies that have been, or will be, set aside for priority land uses.

     
   

In its report, the CCC staff observes that affordable housing is not listed as a priority use by Coastal Act Section 30254, and therefore proposes to make affordable housing on the three identified affordable housing sites a secondary priority to the uses listed by the Coastal Act. This position runs contrary to the fact that the Commission previously certified affordable housing as a priority use with equal standing to the uses listed by the Coastal Act.

     
   

In addition to pointing out that affordable housing is not a priority use under the Coastal Act, the CCC staff justifies its rejection of the County’s proposal to reserve water for 20 additional affordable residential units in the Montara Water and Sanitary District (MWSD) service area on “the reality of MWSD’s existing capacity deficit and uncertain future supply capacity.” Despite the fact that water may not be currently available, it remains in the County’s interest to have a policy that reserves water for affordable housing so that future water supply projects are designed and implemented with this in mind.

     
   

For the 20 additional affordable units that the County has preserved to reserve water for in the Coastside County Water District service area, the CCC staff report states on one hand that “the County has demonstrated that there is excess capacity currently allocated for floriculture,” but goes on to state that “the reallocation of priority water to affordable residential uses, which are not a priority, has not been adequately justified.” It is unclear what sort of justification the CCC staff is looking for, or why both the County’s (and

   

the State’s) interest in providing affordable housing needs justification in light of Coastal Act Section 30604.

     
 

c.

Preliminary Recommendation

     
   

Request that CCC staff delete Suggested Modification 43, as well as the portions of Suggested Modifications 16 and 23 that make affordable housing a secondary priority.

     

12.

Limits on the Provision of Water Service to Properties with Wells

   
 

a.

Description

     
   

County policy regarding the use of individual wells to serve new development in the urban Midcoast requires, among other things, that wells be replaced with connections to municipal water systems when such connections become available. Suggested Modification 20 allows new water supply projects that help achieve this objective, but only after existing available capacities have already been consumed.

     
 

b.

Analysis

     
   

It does not appear that Suggested Modification 20 will have an effect within the Montara Water and Sanitary District’s boundaries, where existing water service capacities have been fully consumed. It will, however, create an obstacle to replacing wells within the Coastside County Water District, where allocated water is not being fully consumed.

     
 

c.

Preliminary Recommendation

     
   

Request that CCC staff revise Suggested Modification 20 to allow new water supply projects that will replace wells with service connections to move forward as soon as possible.

     

13.

New Policy Regarding Desalination

   
 

a.

Description

     
   

Suggested Modification 21 adds a new policy regarding desalination that requires an LCP amendment for any proposed desalination plant, and establishes standards for the development of desalination projects.

     
 

b.

Analysis

     
   

CCC staff’s proposed design and construction standards for desalination plants seem reasonable and consistent with other elements of the County’s General Plan. However, the suggested modification raises some procedural issues.

     
   

The first is that it brings up an issue area which is beyond the scope of the Midcoast Update, and was not been discussed or considered locally. The new policy would apply throughout the County’s Coastal Zone. It is unlikely that all parties that may have an interest in this issue have been properly notified or informed that such a policy is being considered.

     
   

The second issue has to do with the requirement for an LCP amendment. There is no question that desalination plants require a coastal development permit. Requiring an LCP amendment as well, however, does not appear to be consistent with the development review procedures established by the Coastal Act. The requirement for an LCP amendment should only apply to instances where a proposed desalination plant is not allowed by an existing LCP.

     
   

Chapter 24 of the County Zoning Regulations, which are a component of the LCP’s Implementation Program, allows public utility or public service uses in any district, provided that a use permit is obtained and such facilities are necessary for the public health, safety, convenience or welfare. Desalination plants that meet this standard, and that comply with all other relevant LCP provisions, should therefore not require an LCP amendment.

     
   

The third issue has to do with the need to clarify what constitutes a “desalination plant.” The process of removing salt from seawater or groundwater can occur at varying scales, and in order to effectively implement the proposed policy, it is important to know what size or scale of a reverse osmosis treatment system would trigger the standards established by this policy.

     
 

c.

Preliminary Recommendation

     
   

Request that CCC staff either delete Suggested Modification 21, or revise it to eliminate the need for an LCP amendment and clarify what constitutes a “desalination plant.”

     

14.

Traffic Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

   
 

a.

Description

     
   

LCP Policy 2.52.b currently requires the County to monitor the number and rate of new residential construction, particularly in the rural Midcoast. Suggested Modification 32 revises this policy by removing the emphasis on the rural Midcoast and by adding a requirement that the County monitor the relationship of residential construction to traffic levels during peak commuter and recreation traffic periods.

     
 

b.

Analysis

     
   

As noted in Section 3 of the Planning and Building Department’s June 1, 2009 memorandum, there is no data available, and no monitoring program in place, to document roadway levels of service during peak recreation periods. The CCC staff’s suggested modification would require either the County or the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) to initiate such a program.

     
   

An additional problem with the suggested modification is the difficulty of correlating residential development to traffic volumes on regional transportation routes. Highways 1 and 92 are critical components of the regional transportation system and serve a much greater than local need. Given the wide range of roadway users, it is unclear how the County could draw a reliable conclusion about how residential development in the unincorporated area relates to levels of service.

     
 

c.

Preliminary Recommendation

     
   

Request that CCC staff delete the modification to Policy 2.52.b.

     

15.

New Policy Requiring County Parks to Maintain a Trail Along the Abandoned Portions of Highway 1 Unless an Alternative Management Entity is Identified

   
 

a.

Description

     
   

Suggested Modification 36 requires the County to accept portions of Highway 1 that will be relinquished by CalTrans upon completion of the Devil’s Slide Tunnel access improvements, open and operate the trail and facilities 365 days a year, and incorporate these facilities into the County park system, unless and until another acceptable management agency is identified.

     
 

b.

Analysis

     
   

The revisions proposed by CCC staff essentially mimic the conditions of approval for the Devil’s Slide Tunnel project, which were negotiated with Commission staff in response to an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the project. However, a significant distinction is that the policy being recommended by CCC staff requires the County to open and operate the trail and access facilities 365 days a year. In comparison, the conditions of the tunnel permit allow for the terms of public access to be developed in coordination with the Devil’s Slide Coastal Access Task Force, and include provisions for temporary closures in the event that the trail becomes unusable, un-repairable, or un-maintainable.

     
 

c.

Preliminary Recommendation

     
   

Request CCC staff to revise Suggested Modification 36 to clarify the terms under which the trail may be closed, and to reflect the fact that the terms of public use shall be determined in accordance with the operations plan developed by CalTrans in coordination with the Devil’s Slide Coastal Access Task Force.

     

16.

Trail and Crossing Improvements Required in Conjunction with Roadway Projects

     
 

a.

Description

     
   

As proposed by the County, the Update calls for the installation of a multi-modal path parallel to Highway 1, as well as pedestrian crossings shown by the Midcoast Recreational Needs Assessment, when warranted by the size of a highway project. Suggested Modification 36 requires that the path and crossings be installed “as part of any new or improved roadway project.”

     
 

b.

Analysis

     
   

CalTrans has expressed concern about this modification because it could be interpreted as requiring them to construct a path and/or crossing in conjunction with repair and maintenance activities or other small-scale projects. Clarification regarding the type of roadway projects that would trigger these requirements would be beneficial.

     
 

c.

Preliminary Recommendation

     
   

Continue to work with CCC and CalTrans staff on alternative language that resolves this issue.

     

17.

Traffic Mitigation Requirements

   
 

a.

Description

     
   

Suggested Modification 38 requires a Traffic Impact Analysis and Mitigation Plans for all new development that will generate a net increase in vehicle trips on Highway 1 or 92, except single-family residential and visitor-serving development. One of the mitigation measures required by this policy requires all land divisions to either retire or merge a number of existing legal lots equivalent to the number of lots to be developed, to avoid a net increase in the amount of residential development.

     
 

b.

Analysis

     
   

The proposed lot retirement requirement involves a complex program under which applicants proposing a land division would have to locate and purchase other land with equivalent development potential, and record legal documents prohibiting their future development. It also places the responsibility for long-term management of retired lots on public agencies, private associations, or adjacent landowners.

     
   

As described by County Counsel’s June 16, 2009 memorandum regarding the Witt and Abernathy cases, resolving the legality of many Midcoast parcels will likely necessitate the processing of a Conditional Certificate of Compliance or a subdivision, both of which constitute a “land division.” The CCC staff’s suggested modification will therefore have a much broader application than what seems to have been originally intended by the modification. This will pose significant challenges for infill development and may be an impediment to the provision of affordable housing.

     
 

c.

Preliminary Recommendation

     
   

Request CCC staff to revise Suggested Modification 38 so that it only applies to the creation of five or more new parcels, and not to land divisions associated with the development of affordable housing projects.

     

18.

Transportation Management Plan Requirements

   
 

a.

Description

     
   

Suggested Modification 39 requires the County to develop a comprehensive transportation management plan, based on the results of a County commissioned study that identifies the total cumulative traffic impact of projected new development at LCP buildout. Among other things, the plan must propose LCP policies “designed to offset the demand for all new vehicle trips generated by the project”4 and mitigate for cumulative impacts on public access to and recreation use of Midcoast beaches.

     
 

b.

Analysis

     
   

The County is actively engaged in transportation management planning, among other ways by participating on the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Technical Advisory Committee and Countywide Transportation Plan Update Working Group. The update of the Countywide Transportation Plan will provide an opportunity to address many aspects of the plan prescribed by the Commission staff. However, several of the recommended plan components, such as the buildout study and the formulation of new LCP policies, will require supplemental efforts, some of which are outside the scope of a typical traffic management plan (e.g., mitigation for impacts of residential development on recreational use of beaches). It is unlikely that the County will have the financial and staffing resources to undertake these supplemental efforts in the near future.

     
 

c.

Preliminary Recommendation

     
   

Request that CCC staff revise Suggested Modification 39 to delete requirements for a buildout study and recreation mitigation measures.

     

19.

Coastal Trail Alignment Study Requirements

   
 

a.

Description

     
   

Suggested Modification 44 requires the County to pursue a grant or other funding to conduct a Coastal Trail Alignment Study, with a specified scope of work, within two years of amendment certification.

     
 

b.

Analysis

     
   

The County is also an active participant in a wide range of trail planning and improvement projects, including interagency efforts to plan for and develop a continuous Coastal Trail system. The County Parks Department has completed a Midcoast Recreational Needs Assessment and Midcoast Action Plan, and will be conducting an intensive three-day public workshop, led by the Local Government and a national “walkable communities” expert, to address pedestrian mobility issues in Miramar and El Granada. Current County trail projects include construction of portions of the Coastal Trail near the Fitzgerald Marine Reserve and in Miramar (“Mirada Surf West”), and management of trails on property owned by the Peninsula Open Space Trust at the Pillar Point bluffs.

     
   

The programming of these and other County Parks projects is done in close coordination with the Board of Supervisors, based on a careful evaluation of Countywide needs and available resources. The County is supportive of the effort to establish and improve a Coastal Trail network, and will continue to be an active participant in this regard. However, it is inappropriate for CCC staff to dictate how the County Parks Department’s time and resources should be spent.

     
 

c.

Preliminary Recommendation

     
   

Request CCC staff to revise Suggested Modification 44 to delete the requirement that the County seek funding and complete a California Coastal Trail Alignment Study.

     

20.

Designation and Rezoning of the Devil’s Slide Bypass Alignment

   
 

a.

Description

     
   

As submitted by the County, the Midcoast Update adds a new provision to LCP Policy 11.27 that supports efforts to add the Devil’s Slide bypass roadway alignment to adjoining park units, including but not limited to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.

     
   

Suggested Modifications 55, 58, and 59 require the County to designate the Devil’s Slide bypass alignment as a Linear Park and Trail, rezone this area to Community Open Space, and pursue a grant or other funding to complete a linear park and trail, in partnership with other agencies, within two years of amendment certification.

     
 

b.

Analysis

     
   

While the County supports the concept of including the bypass lands within adjoining park units, there are many issues that need to be resolved prior to rezoning the entirety of this area, some of which is currently zoned for residential development, to open space. One of the most fundamental of these issues is ownership. The new policies proposed by Commission staff assume that the land will be transferred from CalTrans to the County. This is a premature assumption.

     
   

According to the staff of CalTrans right-of-way division, CalTrans has legal agreements with the former owners of the parcels that underlie the bypass area, that memorialize certain commitments regarding the future of these lands in the event the bypass is not constructed. County staff has not yet been provided the opportunity to review these agreements to determine what if any impact they might have on the transfer of this land or its future use.

     
   

CalTrans staff has also indicated a need to understand the form of compensation it would receive for transferring this land to a public agency. In addition, CalTrans staff has stated the importance of preserving rights of access to lots that are within and east of the bypass alignment. Until these issues are resolved, it would be inappropriate to zone the entire area for open space.

     
 

c.

Preliminary Recommendation

     
   

Request that CCC staff deleted Suggested Modifications 55, 58, and 59.

     

21.

Designation of a Park Overlay on the Burnham Strip

   
 

a.

Description

     
   

Suggested Modification 57 requires the County to designate a Park Overlay District on the Burnham Strip.

     
 

b.

Analysis

     
   

Maps contained in the County’s Montara, Moss Beach, and El Granada Community Plan designate the Burnham Strip as “Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Corridors.” While this designation points out areas that should be considered for park and recreation improvements, it does not provide any standards for, or restrictions on development. Including a “park overlay” on the LCP Land Use Plan Map is therefore unnecessary.

     
 

c.

Preliminary Recommendation

     
   

Request that CCC staff delete Suggested Modification 57.

     

22.

Revisions to Allowed Uses on the Burnham Strip

   
 

a.

Description

     
   

Suggested Modification 63 deletes roadside stands as an allowable use on the Burnham Strip, and restricts outdoor art centers on the Strip to temporary uses only.

     
 

b.

Analysis

     
   

CCC staff’s modification prohibits the installation of portable or permanent structures that are used for the sale of produce or other goods and merchandise. In addition, the modification limits “outdoor art centers” to temporary uses only, and thereby prohibits the regular or permanent establishment of outdoor facilities used for the exhibition, study or creation of

   

art. These restrictions are unnecessary and preclude uses that could benefit residents and visitors.

     
 

c.

Preliminary Recommendation

     
   

Request that CCC staff revise Suggested Modification 63 to retain roadside stands and outdoor art centers as permitted uses.

     

REVIEWING AGENCIES

 

County Counsel

Environmental Health

Parks Department

Public Works

 

FISCAL IMPACT

 

The County has committed significant staff and financial resources towards developing the Midcoast Update and completing the Coastal Commission certification process. A timely and successful resolution of the issues identified by this report, as necessary to obtain certification of the amendments, is needed to realize the objectives of this investment and avoid further strains on limited County staffing and financial resources.

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.

CCC Staff’s Suggested Modifications

2.

Summary Table of Staff Recommended Responses

3.

Correspondence

1 STOPPP has been renamed to the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP). Information regarding this program is available at www.flowstobay.org.

2 As previously noted, much of the Midcoast area is within an area where single-family residential development has been categorically excluded from coastal development permit requirements, and thereby exempt from the LCP policies proposed by CCC staff.

3 See Midcoast Groundwater Study and Staff Summary at (http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/smc/department/esa/home/0,2151,5557771_18409674,00.html)

4 It is unclear what “project” is being referenced by the CCC staff’s proposed policy.