First update of Mid-Coast LCP underway
by April Vargas

San Mateo County made history when it became the first in the State for which the Coastal Commission certified a Local Coastal Program (LCP). After an extensive two-year public process involving 40 public hearings and workshops, the Board of Supervisors approved the LCP in December 1980 and the LCP was certified by the State Coastal Commission in April 1981. Because the incorporated cities each are required to have their own LCP, this LCP covers the Mid-Coast area of the County, including the communities of Montara, Moss Beach, El Granada, Princeton and unincorporated Miramar (but not Half Moon Bay, which has its own LCP).



CGF Advocates Lennie Roberts (L) and April Vargas examine land use designations on the San Mateo County map of the Local Coastal Plan Update.


While there have been amendments to the County's LCP over the past 22 years, the policies have not been comprehensively reviewed since their adoption. Prompted by rapidly changing demographics, an escalation of appeals challenging County-issued project permits and the continuing decline of coastal resources, San Mateo County responded to citizens' requests for a review and update of the Mid-Coast LCP.

Long process involves many public workshops
This review and update process will involve public hearings before the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, and subsequent submittal of any proposed amendments to the Coastal Commission for certification (after more public hearings). The Commission must determine whether the proposed amendments are consistent with the Coastal Act.

The Mid-Coast LCP Update process began in 2000 and may well take even longer than the original creation of the document. The County has already conducted dozens of scoping meetings and public workshops, which resulted in the identification of a number of areas of concern within the LCP.

As a result of those workshops, the Planning Department has identified a huge list of 23 tasks to be addressed during the update project. Committee for Green Foothills is following a number of these tasks closely, providing feedback that will help ensure that the LCP continues to be a strong tool for coastal protection.

Several key issues relate to open space
For the past 41 years, CGF has fought to maintain an enforceable boundary that will limit urban density of development to urban areas and protect adjacent rural agricultural, timber and open space lands. We are diligently participating in the Mid-Coast LCP update to ensure that new development meets the letter and spirit of the Coastal Act.

The 23 tasks for the Mid-Coast LCP Update include several that relate directly to Committee for Green Foothills' mission to protect coastal open space. We are working to address the updating of these items, including:

• Residential Buildout
  How many additional residential units can be built given the amount of land set aside for development? How quickly should this building occur?
  
  Due to worsening traffic conditions and the lack of adequate water supplies in some communities, CGF favors a reduction in the buildout numbers and a prohibition against the creation of any new subdivisions without adequate mitigation.
  
  
• Non-conforming parcels
  How shall we best manage the large number of lots that are too small to meet the minimum lot size for development?
  
  CGF is backing a policy that will require the merger of substandard lots and a corresponding reduction in the number of units that can be developed.
  
  
• Infrastructure capacity
  How are coastal roads, sewers, water systems and schools able to absorb the effects of more residential development?
  
  CGF supports additional developments only in those areas that are already subdivided and served by utilities - roads, sewer and water. We will work to ensure that the impacts of any additional development are addressed in a way that is consistent with the Coastal Act and protects coastal resources.
  
  
• Agricultural lands, open space, hazards and sensitive habitat
  Do we need greater development controls in zoning districts containing agricultural and geologically unstable lands? How can we create a more comprehensive definition of wetlands? How shall we update the County's Sensitive Habitat Map?
  
  The Committee is encouraging the County to adopt a buy-back program through which the County would acquire lots that are unbuildable due to the proximity to sensitive habitat or geologic hazard zones. We applaud the updating of the Sensitive Habitats map and are encouraging County staff to make this resource readily available to property owners. CGF is also working to help create a more consistent and comprehensive definition of wetlands that can be applied throughout the unincorporated areas of the County. Because regulatory agencies currently use a variety of different definitions, adopting a consistent definition will eliminate confusion for applicants and the public.