Californians for Property Rights

This is part of CPR’s response to the Vision and Principles for Midcoast Growth recently released by Supervisors Gordon and Hill of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. We will post the Principles themselves (or a link to them) as soon as we are able.

CPR’s summary: Previous midcoast planning ‘visions’ showed moderation and balance similar to that of the supervisors’ “statement of principles.” When revisited, the prior ‘visions’ substantiate a number of key recent CPR policy recommendations. 

MIDCOAST ELECTED OFFICIALS’ HOSTILITY TO THE COUNTY 

The leadership role in supporting the Supervisors’ moderation should be assumed by MidCoast elected officials, but a spate of intemperate statements and writings in recent weeks indicates otherwise. The Montara Water & Sanitary District (MWSD) wrote to you on February 10th that “The County has been a major barrier to our efforts to improve the water supply….” With respect to improving the amount of potable water from the airport aquifer, MWSD wrote that “The County has been unwilling to actively work with the District in this regard.” MWSD’s letter goes on to accuse the County of refusing to cooperate on a variety of other issues. Even the County’s planning process is roundly condemned as “indeterminate.”

Directors of the Granada Sanitary District (GSD) have recently created a website, plan.SanMateo.org , that posts the 1978 Montara-Moss Beach-El Granada Community Plan as a “vision for reasonable, planned growth” presenting a “sensitive and well balanced Community Plan.” In a newly written preface, the GSD directors offer the baseless opinion that ”...the County is determined to undermine the Plan by allowing all-out development” (emphasis added). Implying a conspiracy to disappear the document, the preface alleges that ”...the County tried to collect all existing printed copies of the Plan, claiming that it was being updated….Of course, it was never updated.” 

The MidCoast Community Council (MCC) has also cited the 1978 Community Plan, and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) 1999 document “Coastside Subregional Planning Project,” as previous ‘visions’ for the MidCoast from which the County has departed. As a matter of fact, this appendix will substantiate that it is certain ‘no-growth’ MWSD, GSD and MCC officials who have departed from the policies advocated in the 1978 and 1999 documents, while the CPR policy recommendations to you of March 8th and 29th are amply supported by the same documents.
 

THE 1978 COMMUNITY PLAN AND 1999 ABAG PLANNING PROJECT

The following policy recommendations from the 1978 and 1999 planning documents will be seen to corroborate CPR positions, while contradicting those offered by ‘no-growth’ officials of MWSD, GSD and MCC: 

• 1. INFILL ALREADY SUBDIVIDED AND PARTIALLY DEVELOPED AREAS


• 2. CONFORM INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY TO LEGISLATED GROWTH LIMITS, NOT VICE VERSA


• 3. REDRAW UTILITY DISTRICT BOUNDARIES TO EXCLUDE RURAL AREAS


• 4. CONVERT MONTARA TREATMENT PLANT PROPERTY TO PUBLIC USE


• 5. CONSOLIDATE COASTSIDE UTILITY DISTRICTS


• 6. UPGRADE PILLAR POINT HARBOR AS A VISITOR-SERVING CENTER

1. INFILL ALREADY SUBDIVIDED AND PARTIALLY DEVELOPED AREAS 

The 1978 Plan repeatedly promotes infill as a guiding principle. Page 29 states: 

“Encourage orderly and balanced development by limiting growth to the infill of already subdivided and partially developed areas.” 

This principle not only discourages sprawl into rural areas, it complements the Plan’s housing policy (p. 14): 

“Provide a variation in types and cost of housing to serve the full     economic range of community residents.” 

To promote the principled goals of infill and housing diversity, CPR recommends: 

• Existing development guidelines for urban substandard lots should not be changed.

• Smaller lots should not be subjected to forced lot consolidations, which would eliminate a much-needed market for less expensive properties.

• The rural residential (an ‘already subdivided and partially developed area’) should not be excluded from future utility connections, so that it may infill.

• The rural residential should not be subjected to forced lot consolidations, so that the infill may occur on smaller, less expensive lots.

In contradiction to the 1978 Plan, officials from MWSD, GSD and MCC have expressed to you their positions that the urban substandard lots should be drastically down-zoned, and forcibly merged wherever possible; also, that the rural residential areas should be deprived of future utility connections, with forcible lot mergers wherever possible. These positions stand opposed to widely-accepted mainstream land use principles of infill and housing diversity articulated in the 1978 Plan, and can only be reconciled with an extreme ‘no-growth’ agenda.
↑

2. CONFORM INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY TO LEGISLATED GROWTH LIMITS, NOT VICE VERSA 

MWSD, GSD and MCC officials, attempting to freeze development by retarding infrastructure, have continually made the argument that growth rates and buildout numbers should be slashed because of alleged infrastructural incapacities. On the contrary, infrastructure should be scaled to the planned limits of growth, not vice versa. This principle is succinctly stated in the 1978 Plan (p. 29): 

“Set the capacity of public utility districts to conform to established limits of growth.” 

↑

3. REDRAW UTILITY DISTRICT BOUNDARIES TO EXCLUDE RURAL AREAS 

MWSD, GSD and MCC officials have never taken any actions to correct widely publicized utility district boundary discrepancies that are the cause of ongoing taxation and electoral irregularities. Yet the 1978 Plan (p. 36) explains the problem with admirable clarity: 

“The existing boundaries of the sanitary districts are well outside the limits of urban development. They were originally established when extensive community growth was anticipated. Re-evaluation of community goals with respect to growth patterns and future population now makes these boundaries obsolete.” 

The 1978 Plan is no less unequivocal on water district boundaries (p. 36): 

“Like the sanitary district boundaries, the boundaries of the water districts extend well beyond the limits of urban development and need to be brought into conformance with projected growth patterns.” 

CPR again recommends that the County and/or LAFCo redraw the boundaries of MWSD and GSD to exclude the rural areas of Montara, Moss Beach and El Granada, as the 1978 Plan proposed, and as the LCP and State special district law require. 
 
↑

4. CONVERT MONTARA TREATMENT PLANT PROPERTY TO PUBLIC USE 

Both the 1978 Plan and 1999 Planning Project envision the Montara Treatment Plant property, adjacent to the historic Montara Lighthouse, as public space. The 1978 Plan’s Map A (“Land Use Plan”) classifies the property under “Parks, Beaches & Recreation Corridors.” Its Map E (“Trails System”) draws an oceanfront trail through the property. Two recommendations on page 32 speak further to this issue:
 
bq. “Acquire land connecting Montara State Beach with the Fitzgerald Marine Reserve.” 

“Establish a community center for the area.” 

The 1999 Planning Project’s *“Coastal Trail Alignment & Open Space Lands Map”* also charts an oceanfront trail through the property. Footnote 94 makes the following fiscal point: 

“County-owned blufftop land and street-end vista points located within the boundaries of the Fitzgerald Marine Reserve are identified in the LCP as high priorities for public funding.” 

Indeed, numerous Policy Components of the LCP advocate public use for the property. Although MWSD and MCC officials have long been apprised of the issue, and GSD has placed an application to become a MidCoast parks/community services special district, none of the three agencies, to our knowledge, has ever agendized the subject of converting the oceanfront Montara Treatment Plant property to public use. 

↑

5. CONSOLIDATE COASTSIDE UTILITY DISTRICTS 

The 1978 Plan (p. 10) states: 

”...consolidation of coastside water districts is encouraged, to provide improved water service to Montara and Moss Beach.” 

The policy is repeated on page 36: 

“Encourage consolidation of water districts in the community.” 

Any thoroughgoing vision for the MidCoast must confront the reality that balkanized utility districts are far from ideal. Organizational structures are redundant, offering no economies of scale. There is inevitable infighting between adjacent and often competing bureaucracies. And as a result, the County has difficulty orchestrating the utility districts to plan and implement interdependent policies that would benefit end-users.

Despite the benefits of utility district consolidation, as cited by the 1978 Plan, officials from MWSD, GSD and MCC have shown little interest in a commonsense measure that would improve service, lower costs, and increase safety for the public. 

↑

6. UPGRADE PILLAR POINT HARBOR AS A VISITOR-SERVING CENTER 

The 1978 Plan (p. 34) states the following principle concerning the Pillar Point Harbor area: 

“An upgrading of existing development, and new motels, shops and restaurants, will establish the area as one of the prime visitor centers on the coastside.” 

The Harbor Village project, approved years ago, has been opposed throughout by ‘no-growth’ MWSD, GSD and MCC officials. Most recently, the owner of the development complained to the County that Granada Sanitary District has obstructed construction by footdragging on sewer permits, causing delays in project completion. Utility districts should not politicize the construction process by resisting or withholding utility service: as the 1978 Plan recognized, in order for the harbor to be a successful visitor center, it needs to be upgraded. Harbor Village is designed and approved to achieve that end. 
↑
 
SUMMARY 

PREVIOUS MIDCOAST PLANNING ‘VISIONS’ SHOWED MODERATION AND BALANCE SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE SUPERVISORS’ “STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES.” WHEN REVISITED, THE PRIOR ‘VISIONS’ SUBSTANTIATE A NUMBER OF KEY RECENT CPR POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS.