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!

Sad legal result on Stanford Trails litigation, but the fight continues in San Mateo County

The California Supreme Court has ruled against CGF over a technical issue regarding the right time to file our lawsuit about Stanford's proposal to expand the Alpine Road sidewalk on top of San Francisquito Creek.  Unfortunately, we don't have a chance to even discuss in court the merits of our argument.  Fortunately, though, San Mateo County has listened both to us and to Stanford and concluded in 2007 that the proposal was environmentally harmful and dangerous.  Stanford will doubtless try to wave construction money at them to change their minds, but we'll be there still to fight that extremely bad idea.  CGF's press release is below.

-Brian

Committee for Green Foothills

NEWS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 11, 2010                               

PRESS CONTACTS: Brian Schmidt, Legislative Advocate, 650.968.7243w, 415.994.7403c, brian@greenfoothills.org

Supreme Court Decision on Stanford Trail Issue  Turns Attention to San Mateo County's Opposition to Sidewalk Expansion

Decision overturns appellate court ruling on technical filing issue that ends litigation; San mateo County's opposition not affected by ruling

PALO ALTO, CA  --  The California Supreme Court announced today that contrary to an appellate court ruling, Committee for Green Foothills (CGF) relied on the wrong deadline for filing litigation over a controversial Stanford University proposal to expand an existing sidewalk in San Mateo County to fulfill Stanford's promise of a trail on its lands.  The decision ends the lawsuit without considering the merits of CGF's argument that excluding a trail from Santa Clara County had unexamined environmental impacts.  San Mateo County has already rejected the Alpine Road sidewalk expansion proposed by Stanford to substitute for a trail on Stanford lands in Santa Clara County.  The end of litigation means that San Mateo County's previous decision and any potential change of mind will ultimately decide the trail issue.  If San Mateo County continues to reject the sidewalk expansion, Stanford must provide an equivalent amount of money to Santa Clara County Parks Department to mitigate for impacts caused the massive new development permitted on campus since 2000.

"We haven't had time to review the Court opinion," said Brian Schmidt, Committee for Green Foothills' Legislative Advocate, "we just know the outcome.  We've seen the arguments on filing deadlines and we are disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision, but it's important to remember that regarding the trail controversy, the decision is only about a technicality.  Cut your way through the technicalities, and the problem is that Stanford is trying to get out of fulfilling a promise it made in return for being allowed massive new development," said Schmidt.  "It promised two trails on its own land to make up for the cumulative impact that its new development would have on the broader community.  Expanding an existing sidewalk on a dangerously-busy street doesn't provide a recreational experience, and Stanford's proposal to build alongside and into the San Francisquito Creek would have significant environmental impacts, none of them reviewed in previous environmental documents.  We are very grateful that San Mateo County has stood up to Stanford, and we hope that continues."

The Court ruling concerned whether a 30-day or a 180-day deadline applied to the lawsuit filed against Stanford and Santa Clara County.  Committee for Green Foothills argued the 180-day deadline applies because the decision to exclude the trail from Santa Clara County was done without environmental review, which allows 180 days for a challenge.  Stanford and Santa Clara County argued that certain parts of the wording of the December 2005 decision and in one of the documents filed at the County Clerk's office show they relied upon previous environmental reviews, and a 30-day deadline was required.  CGF says that 30 days is wrong.  The trial court ruled against CGF, but the appellate court ruled in favor of the 180 day deadline.  With the Supreme Court overturning the appellate ruling, the case will be dismissed without considering the environmental issues.

Stanford and Santa Clara County argue that San Mateo County will have to review the environmental effects of Stanford's proposal prior to making a decision.  However, the decision that the trail could not go on Stanford land in Santa Clara County, as the trail was shown to go in Santa Clara County's own trail map, was made by Santa Clara County in December 2005 and environmental review should have been done at that time.

San Mateo County residents, County officials, and the County Board of Supervisors had sharply negative reactions to Stanford's proposal when brought to them after the December 2005 decision, and San Mateo County has already rejected Stanford's proposal.  San Mateo County's position will stop the sidewalk regardless of court litigation.  Stanford has until 2011 to change San Mateo's position, with a potential two-year extension into 2013 if Santa Clara County agrees to further delay.  If the Alpine Road sidewalk expansion does not happen, the money for the expansion reverts to the Santa Clara County Parks Department to spend on recreational improvements in the vicinity of Stanford, something that Supervisor Liz Kniss had advocated since 2005.

Another effect of the Supreme Court litigation will be on Stanford's decision in 2006 to stop constructing the other one of the two trails it had promised, the S1 Trail running near to Page Mill Road.  Committee for Green Foothills had not sued over the S1 Trail decision and said it did not oppose that trail's construction or alignment, but after CGF filed its lawsuit, Stanford halted construction on the S1 Trail and blamed CGF's lawsuit.  CGF responded that its suit only concerned the substitution of the Alpine Road sidewalk expansion for the other proposed trail on the north side of the Stanford Foothills.

The question now arises as to whether and when Stanford will construct the S1 Trail that it had promised.

The third aspect of the trails controversy concerns the Alpine Road sidewalk in the jurisdiction of Portola Valley.  The environmental damages and large expense associated with expanding the sidewalk elsewhere generally do not apply to the section in Portola Valley, but the decision to expand that portion of the sidewalk was an inseparable part of the decision to exclude the trail alignment from Santa Clara County that Committee for Green Foothills had litigated.  With the Supreme Court ruling ending the litigation, the decision on the Portola Valley proposal could proceed depending on Portola Valley's decision whether to accept Stanford's proposal.

"Regardless of what happened today, it is still possible to do something besides throwing away money on a destructive and useless expanded sidewalk," said Schmidt.  "San Mateo County called for a grant program instead of harming San Francisquito Creek and instead of taking out part of a hill as Stanford proposed.  That is what should happen, now, and given San Mateo County's control over the issue, we agree with previous statements that it is unconscionable for Stanford to continue delaying and refusing to provide for its side of a deal it received for massive development rights."

Background

“Stanford tried to get out of its obligation to build a trail crossing its land in return for substantial development rights,” said Brian Schmidt.  “Santa Clara County capitulated to Stanford’s intense lobbying, tossed the trail out of Santa Clara County and proposed instead to expand the existing sidewalk/trail along busy Alpine Road in San Mateo County. This decision to move the trail across the creek and out of Santa Clara County was done without the required environmental review.”

Stanford and Santa Clara County did not seek approval of San Mateo County before deciding to replace its trail with the sidewalk expansion. Residents strongly oppose the proposed 16-foot wide sidewalk because of safety concerns where the expanded sidewalk would cross many private driveways in the Stanford Weekend Acres area, environmental impacts to sensitive creek and riparian areas, the proposal’s need to armor creek banks to support the expanded sidewalk, and to cut into a steep hillside to move Alpine Road.   Inquiries about replacing the sidewalk with other trail options outside of Stanford lands have been rebuffed.

The lower court ruled in October that Committee for Green Foothills had only 30 days to file suit over the decision that Stanford and Santa Clara County made in December 2005.  The Committee filed suit in June 2006, under the belief that a 180-day deadline should have applied.  To date, the court has not reviewed the merits of the case.

Stanford required to provide two trails

The Santa Clara County 1995 Trails Master Plan identified two trails crossing on the northern and southern sides of Stanford lands, identified as the “C1” and the “S1” trails.  As a condition of Stanford University’s 2000 General Use Permit that allowed the University to build an additional 5 million square feet of housing and academic facilities, Stanford was required to come back to the County with a plan to move forward with ‘building, dedicating and maintaining’ these two trails on University lands by the end of 2001.  “During this 5 year period, Committee for Green Foothills and other community members proposed several alternative alignments and several compromise alignments, all of which were rejected outright by Stanford,” said Schmidt. 

In 2003, the County decided to split the planning of the two trails and moved forward with planning for the less-controversial “S1 Trail” first, and initiated an extensive review process to determine the S1 Trail alignment.

Stanford offered an alternative alignment for the S1 Trail that moved it away from Page Mill Road, but when the County indicated in the fall of 2005 that it would accept that offer, Stanford added another condition.  It offered to make the “S1 Trail” available immediately, but only if the County immediately decided to exclude the second trail, the “C1 Trail” from crossing Stanford lands in Santa Clara County.  Stanford proposed that instead of going forward with the C1 Trail within its lands, it would offer to pay San Mateo County and the Town of Portola Valley to expand an existing sidewalk along Alpine Road.  The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors voted to accept this proposal in December, 2005.  The County’s approval did not contain any environmental review of the C1 alignment, even though the environmental review for the S1 Trail had been extensive.

“Stanford’s offer for the S1 Trail was used to get the County to throw out better alignments proposed by the environmental community.  Later, Stanford said its S1 Trail offer was unavailable unless the County immediately excluded the C1 Trail, or unless another long delay ensued to hold up the S1 Trail until the C1 Trail had also been reviewed,” said Brian Schmidt, CGF’s Legislative Advocate.  “Even if San Mateo County eventually does review the proposal, that doesn’t release Santa Clara County from conducting its own review of its own decisions.”

Stanford and Santa Clara County also changed plans without environmental review by agreeing to take money instead of a trail if San Mateo County or Portola Valley rejected plans for an expanded sidewalk.  This decision to eliminate a potential Santa Clara County trail in return for money is another approval made by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors without environmental review.  This agreement also leaves unclear what happens if Stanford money is spent by San Mateo County or Portola Valley to prepare environmental reviews but then did not go forward with the sidewalk expansion , then it is quite possible that no trail would get build nor would Stanford need to provide any money to build trails elsewhere .

“There’s a striking contrast between the S1 Trail decision with a full scale Environmental Impact Report, and the more-destructive decision on the Alpine Road sidewalk, which was made with no review at all,” said Schmidt.  “That was our basis of argument that the 180-day period in which to file suit should have applied.”

# # #

About the Committee for Green Foothills

Committee for Green Foothills is a regional grassroots organization working to establish and maintain land-use policies that protect the environment throughout San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties.  Committee for Green Foothills, established in 1962, is a Bay Area leader in the continuing effort to protect open space and the natural environment of our Peninsula.   For more information about the Committee for Green Foothills or about our work on this issue, visit www.GreenFoothills.org.

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!

MidPen expansion to the Coast is complete!

You probably thought that MidPen's expansion to the Coast, a major goal of CGF, had been completed years ago. That was effectively right, and now the final paperwork is done:

Victory for Open Space

Decades of effort by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to dramatically expand the amount of coastal land in San Mateo County eligible for preservation may finally come to fruition, following a decision Wednesday by the state Supreme Court to reject a lawsuit seeking to block the expansion.

The court refused to review the February decision of a state appeals court that the district legally arranged to add as many as 144,000 acres of potential territory in coastal San Mateo County.

Now on to the work of protecting that open space!

-Brian

Read more!

Arctic warming affecting California coastal ecology

Via Grist, a disturbing story about the gray whales that migrate through the San Mateo County coastal area: pronounced warming means there's not enough food in the Arctic zones to support the migration, so whales are switching to different food items and staying in different areas. California may have some more resident whales, but a less dependable migration, and fewer baby whales seems likely to result in a smaller population overall. The overall result on our coastal ecology and the whale-watching economy isn't clear yet.

-Brian

Read more!

Keeping drugs out of the water

The Mercury News reports about a successful program in San Mateo County encouraging people to turn in their old medicines for proper disposal, instead of pouring them down the toilet. The powerful drugs, even in minute quantities, are harming the fish and amphibians in constant contact with medicated water.

Other jurisdictions are looking to copy San Mateo County. Let's hope it spreads.

-Brian

Read more!