CGF letter to San Mateo County Supervisors supporting suggested modifications to the Local Coastal Plan

(CGF sent out the letter below regarding the Local Coastal Plan for San Mateo County.  -Brian)

April 9, 2010

President Rich Gordon and Members,

San Mateo County Board of Supervisors

400 County Center

Redwood City, CA 94063

Re:  Board of Supervisors Meeting of April 13, 2010, Item 11:  Consideration of the Midcoast Local Coastal Program (LCP) Update

Dear President Gordon and Members of the Board,

Committee for Green Foothills urges your board to accept the Coastal Commission’s suggested modifications to the Midcoast LCP Update.  It has been over ten years since the County embarked on this important planning effort.  CGF commends the County and Coastal Commission in working together to resolve many issues that were initially identified by the Coastal Commission staff.

Regarding the issues that are discussed in the March 29, 2010 Staff Report, CGF has the following comments:

1.      Lot Retirement/Traffic Mitigation:  Retirement of lots as a condition of new subdivisions is an important and necessary mitigation measure to offset the cumulative impacts of new development on the coastside’s already inadequate highways.   There are not many lands in the urban midcoast that can be subdivided, and most of these areas are zoned for agriculture or open space.  Nonetheless, any new land divisions will have impacts on the already overburdened public services, particularly coastal highways.  CGF urges the County to institute a program to retire development rights on lots that are located within environmentally sensitive areas, including wetlands and riparian areas in Miramar and the Montecito Riparian Corridor, or in hazardous areas such as along the cliffs of Seal Cove, and lots that are underwater in the Princeton area.  CGF could support an exception to the traffic mitigation program for conditional Certificates of Compliance (CCOC’s) that are now required to legalize antiquated subdivision lots per the Witt and Abernathy decisions (and that are also conditioned to maximize consistency with current zoning and other applicable LCP requirements), inasmuch as these lots have already been included in the LCP’s buildout numbers.  CGF also urges the Board of Supervisors to adopt a traffic mitigation fee for new development in the urban midcoast, similar to Half Moon Bay’s.  This would help fund necessary traffic and safety improvements.

2.      Prohibition of New Private Wells:  CGF strongly supports the prohibition of new drinking water wells (and septic systems) in the urban midcoast area.  Allowing private wells within the boundaries of public water agencies places an undue economic burden on customers of the water districts, who must pay for costly infrastructure.  The small, isolated groundwater basins in much of the urban midcoast cannot support wells over the long term.  New wells near the Pillar Point Marsh could adversely impact this sensitive coastal resource.  Already some midcoast wells have failed, and in future drought cycles we can expect many more to fail.  Similarly, it makes no sense to allow private septic systems within the boundaries of public wastewater treatment agencies.

3.      Growth Limits:  CGF supports the growth rate limit of 40 (approximately 1%) residential units per year.  The County Planning Commission recommended this limit, and it is consistent with Half Moon Bay’s annual limit as well.  Over the past five years, an average of just 38 residential units have been approved annually.  County planning staff has agreed that the limit of 40 residential units should not have an impact on the current rate of development.

4.      Grandfathering:  Although it has been County policy to “grandfather” projects where an application has been submitted to County Planning, the proposed modifications would still allow projects that have received a Building Permit to proceed under the existing LCP.   As of December 2009, there were some 143 applications that had not received a Coastal Development Permit.  These should be evaluated under the updated Midcoast LCP standards.

5.      Public Works:  The County’s existing LCP already requires new public works facilities to be phased with each other and to be sized so as to serve, but not exceed, the buildout allowed by the LCP.  The Coastal Commission’s suggested modifications require that for public works expansion projects aimed at solving existing deficiencies for existing development, (i.e., to serve existing development on private wells or new infrastructure to solve the Sewer Authority Midcoastside’s wet weather flow problem), other public works deficiencies do not need to be solved first.  If a proposed public works expansion project were sized to accommodate existing buildout, the permit for the project could, and should, be conditioned to allowing the phasing of new sewer or water connections, for example.  CGF supports this approach.

6.      Land Use Priorities:  CGF supports the Coastal Commission’s suggested modifications that will set aside water and sewer capacities for affordable housing, through a two-tiered approach that maintains the LCP’s existing capacities for coastal act priorities.

7.      Rezoning of Bypass Lands:  CGF supports the rezoning of the former Caltrans Right of Way that is no longer needed for the Devil’s Slide Bypass.  This is an important step to ensure that these lands will become a trail and park system that will provide public access and a scenic non-motorized transportation route.

CGF urges the Board of Supervisors to accept the suggested modifications.  If there are outstanding issues you feel must be addressed, we suggest that you ask for an extension of time, not to exceed six months, so your Board of Supervisors can complete this planning effort that you and the Coastal Commission have invested a great deal of time and money in.

Thank you for consideration of our comments.

Sincerely,

Lennie Roberts, Legislative Advocate

Committee for Green Foothills

Read more!

CGF Comments on an appeal to allow a Coastal Development Permit

(CGF Legislative Advocate Lennie Roberts submitted the letter below opposing an appeal of a decision denying a Coastal Development Permit in San Mateo County. -Brian)


August 24, 2009

President Mark Church and Members
Board of Supervisors
400 County Center
Redwood City, CA 94063

Re: Item #6 on the August 25, 20009 Meeting Agenda: PLN 2003-00226 (Irizarry/Caron) Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Denial of a Coastal Development Permit and Certificate of Compliance (Type B) to legalize a 17,900 square foot parcel, and Use Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and Design Review Permit to construct a single family residence on a parcel within the COSC Zoning District (Burnham Strip), El Granada

Dear President Church and Members of the Board,

Committee for Green Foothills urges you to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) and Certificate of Compliance (CoC), Type B, and to deny the requested variances and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) for the proposed single-family residence. If you choose to approve the CoC, which we do not support, we urge you to include a Finding that the applicable date of recordation of the CoC, for purposes of compliance with the COSC regulations is after August 25, 2009. We further request that any approval of the CDP for the CoC be conditioned to require any development of the parcel to fully comply with the COSC zoning regulations including prohibition of residential uses, as well as with the Visual Resource Policies of the LCP.

Regarding the Certificate of Compliance, Type B: The key issue for this permit is what is the date of recordation of the subject parcel. Clearly, it is 2009, after your Board’s approval of the CoC, Type B, and not back in 1949, when the then-owner, Louise Souza, recorded a Grant Deed to the State of California for the center portion of her larger parcel for the construction of Highway One, leaving two unrecorded parcels – one to the west, and this one to the east. The Staff Report (page 7) correctly points out that the July 8, 1949 Grant Deed from Louise Souza to the State of California for the State Highway physically bisected her property, but did not in fact create a separate legal parcel. “No evidence has been presented that a new property description for these remaining portions was recorded.”

The Staff Report (page 10) further supports the conclusion that the date of recordation of this parcel has not yet occurred. “The very fact that a CoC, Type B, is needed is a recognition that subdivision requirements were not followed in 1949, when a de facto subdivision occurred. As discussed above, however, the fact that the parcel must now be legalized does itself establish that the parcel has not been “recorded” for purposes of Section 6227.b.6.”

The date of recordation is crucial to this issue, since the COSC Zoning District prohibits residential uses on any parcel recorded after 1981. There is no ambiguity with respect to the word “recorded” in Section 6227.b.6, which permits certain uses in the COSC Zoning District subject to a Use Permit including: “6. Division of land, except that no residential uses shall be permitted on a parcel recorded after 12/1/81.”

If the subject parcel had been recorded in 1949 as a separate, legal parcel, the Applicant would not be requesting a CoC, Type B today.

Approval of the single family residence would require multiple variances and exceptions to the zoning regulations, and would result in significant visual impacts. Approval of these variances and exceptions is unacceptable.

COSC Section 6228 (a) Development Standards requires a minimum of 2 acres for a building site; the Caron parcel is less than one-half acre.

COSC Section 6228 (d) Minimum Yards Requires a 50-foot setback from the front property line; the variance requested is for a 24-foot setback (Location B).

COSC Section 6228 (d) Minimum Yards requires a 50-foot setback from the rear property line; the variance requested is for a 39-foot setback (Location B).

The Planning Commission found that the property does not vary substantially from other parcels on the Burnham Strip, as there are two other undeveloped parcels that are as shallow or shallower than this parcel, and where application of the setbacks would also minimize or eliminate their development potential. Therefore, the variance findings cannot be made in this case.

The Planning Commission also found that there were significant adverse impacts on coastal resources, specifically visual resources. The proposed single family residence would result in significant visual intrusion into an area having natural scenic qualities, and would obstruct views from existing public roads, public water bodies, and public lands. These impacts cannot be mitigated, due to the parcels topography and location.

In conclusion, Committee for Green Foothills respectfully requests that you uphold the decision of the Planning Commission, and deny the CoC Type B, and also deny the CDP, Use Permit and Variances for the single family residence.

Thank you very much for consideration of our comments.




Lennie Roberts, Legislative Advocate
Committee for Green Foothills

cc: Lisa Grote, Director of Community Development

Read more!

CGF's San Mateo County Update

This month, the Committee for Green Foothills has been busy in San Mateo County - protecting our coasts and creeks from development and speaking out against new permits for offshore oil drilling permits. A quick update:

Coastal Commission Workshop with Local Governments: A couple of years ago, the League of Cities formed a “Coastal Cities Issues Group” that has been pushing to re-set decision-making to favor local government. Currently each jurisdiction with land in the coastal zone must prepare a Local Coastal Program (LCP) that is consistent with the Coastal Act. The LCP must then go to the Coastal Commission for certification that the Land Use Plan policies and implementing ordinances are consistent with the Coastal Act. A similar process is followed for LCP Amendments, many of which are driven by development projects that may well not be consistent with the Coastal Act. Many local elected officials up and down the state are not supportive of the Coastal Act, and are continuously trying to find ways to either ignore or berate the Coastal Commission. There was a Workshop on August 12 in San Francisco between the 12 Commission members and 12 elected officials – 6 from coastal cities, and 6 from coastal counties. A very small amount of time was allowed for interested public members to be heard. Limiting the public in such a forum is contrary to the Coastal Act, which requires “maximum public participation” in any decisions affecting the coast. Many environmental groups wrote letters objecting to the workshop format, and the fact that the Coastal Cities Issues Group meets privately. CGF advocate Lennie Roberts wrote a letter and spoke at the Workshop, pointing out that San Mateo County has a strong Local Coastal Program that can’t be weakened without voter approval, and it takes constant education of elected officials that the public supports coastal protection.

San Francisquito Creek Protection: CGF opposed the subdivision of a parcel in the Stanford Weekend Acres area. The property already has two old houses on it, and part of the property is within the creek. The houses would be vastly enlarged, and the one in the back actually hangs seven feet over the creek – clearly not consistent with creek protection. The applicant was asking for an exception to the requirement for a 20 foot wide driveway to access the “flag” lot. Due to CGF and other opposition, the Zoning Hearing Officer denied the subdivision.

PXP Offshore Oil Lease: CGF signed on to a letter with 33 other environmental groups opposing the Governor’s inclusion in the state budget a provision that would override the State Lands Commission’s denial of a new offshore oil lease off Santa Barbara. The Governor’s intervention in favor of PXP would have allowed the first offshore oil drilling in state waters in 40 years, and would have made it impossible for the state to oppose federal leases in federal waters (beyond three miles). CGF has had a long-standing position of opposition to offshore oil drilling. We led the effort in 1986 to pass Measure A, the citizen initiative that prohibits onshore oil facilities for offshore drilling. CGF also opposed Lease Sale 30 back in the early 80’s, which would have allowed drilling off the San Mateo coast.

The alternative to allowing drilling in state or federal waters is an oil severance tax. California is the only state in the top 10 producing states that does NOT have this tax. Assemblymember Pedro Nava will be authoring legislation which would require the oil industry to pay a severance of 10% of the gross value of each barrel of oil pumped in California. This would produce an estimated $1.5 billion annual revenue to the General Fund, and help close the gap in our state budget. The legislation would prevent oil companies from passing this fee on to motorists. CGF is supporting these provisions.

-Lennie (with assistance from CGF Intern Shari Pomerantz)

Read more!

Great news for Northern California and San Mateo Coasts

The Coastal Commission decided yesterday on a 3-2 vote to set up no fishing, no diving/underwater take zones in certain areas of the California coast, including off of Half Moon Bay.

Our oceans have been so devastated with overfishing and other impacts over the last few decades that "safe zones" free from human predation make overwhelming sense. This, incidentally, was one of the idea behind establishing national parks a century ago: that refuges for game animals would be a source of animals that left the protected area where they could then be hunted without risk of wiping out the population.

A fishermen's group rightly notes that water pollution is not addressed or solved by this action, but that's no reason not to move forward. We at CGF are very interested in solving water pollution issues just as much as seeing marine habitats protected from overfishing.

One final note - it's unfortunate that this wasn't a unanimous vote. CGF has paid a lot of attention to getting good people appointed to the Coastal Commission, and it paid off this time.

Read more!