Californians for Property Rights

7 May 2005

To – Half Moon Bay City Council and Planning Commission
Subject—HMB Land Use Planning & LCP Issues

The HMB Local Coastal Program/General Plan Update Public Review Draft April 29, 2005 is the “product of 7 years of community meetings, technical studies, and HMB CC/PC hearings”. Most of those meetings have been focussed on very specific issues, and in recent months up to four meetings a week are being held.

Currently a “two step” and multiple phase approach is being taken by the Planning Commission and the Planning Director for this update. Many public participants have requested a complete “Clean” copy of all proposals for review, and that their questions be answered by the HMB PC/CC. That has not been the case.

Californians for Property Rights (CPR) is active in the Midcoast and the HMB LCP update processes. In addition, CPR is concerned with the status and participation of Southcoast citizens on the many issues affecting reasonable land use policies.

CPR submits the following to the HMB CC/PC for the public record.

1—- Page 7, SUMMARY of the Planning Process for the LUP Update states this document is “only the first step in the LCP Update Process”. Page 30 states that “The City’s strategy for lot consolidation in the antiquated subdivisions will be further developed in Step 2 of the 2005 LCP Update Process” Page 32 states “The general and area-specific discussion of each PD district included in the policies later in the chapter will be reviewed in Step 2 of the LCP Update process.” Page 33 states “An update of the downtown specific plan is scheduled as part of Step 2 of the LCP Update.” Page 37 states “Step 2 will take on the task of potentially revising the Map to manage development over the twenty year span of the planinng period.”

Will the certification process of this submission to the California Coastal Commission also entail public input?

When will fiscal the analysis be completed? At the end? When is that anticipated to be?

If step 1 is implemented, and subsequently found to not be fiscally viable, what opportunities are available to the public and HMB for corrections?

Recommendation: Please provide a flow chart detailing all items, issues, assumptions, and data that must be accomplished or provided in the complete LCP Update Process, show all steps and phases, and provide rationale for proceeding with current piecemeal approach with its multiple steps and phases.

2—- Page 12, ASSUMPTIONS—-

Chapter 1 Section H (new Section labelled Assumptions) It is imperative to see all the assumptions that pertain to this plan in one place early in the document, rather than scattered throughout the document or not even stated at all. In particular, all assumptions that pertain to Chapter 10 Public Works and Circulation are especially important.

What are the assumptions regarding water, sewer infrastructure and streets, highways, and intersections?

Does this plan assume tertiary water systems? If so, when?

Does this plan assume no major disaster will befall us (drought, earthquake, conflagration, or tsunami)?

Does this plan assume that HWY 92 and HWY 1 interchange will be modified, If so, when and what level of change?

What estimated increase in tourist and visitor traffic is assumed from the planned $100M of open space purchases from MROSD, with undetermined acquisitions by GGNRA, by POST, HOST, and other agencies?

What increase of traffic is assumed from developments in Princeton and Airport Blvd?

What is the assumed impact of tunnel construction, and when is the tunnel assumed to be complete?

What measures or metrics are being used in determining that the proposed LUP policies will not “compromise public access, public safety, natural resources, and the scenic qualities of the California coast,” (Page 37)

What liabilities and possible future lawsuits will the city possibly incur if this proposed LCP is enacted? For one example, Page 33 “in return for other considerations would forego the development of the property” is one example of such possibilities.

What is the expected and assumed impact of the LCP updates for Midcoast and Southcoast, especially regarding growth rate and infrastructure issues?

What is the assumed outcome of the CA State Supreme Court ruling on the Marine Forest Society case against the CCC which will be issued no later than 6 July 2005 ?

Recommendation: Provide complete summary of all assumptions that this LCP Update is based upon in Chapter ONE of this document for public comment before submitting to CCC.

3—- p 16, POLICY 3-1, A 5b appears to be a circular definition: “Wetlands that meet the definition of ESHA” under a heading of ESHA. Recommendation: Make it very clear which ESHA are City responsibilities. Do not focus only only those responsibilities of property owners.

4—- p 17, C RIPARIAN CORRIDORS, How does this section differentiate between a riparian corridor and a storm drain system? Recommendation: Make it very clear which areas, like storm drains, are a City responsibility and not the property owner’s.

5—- p 33 LOCATION AND PHASING OF NEW DEVELOPMENT, “The owner of the donor site would retain property ownership but, in return for other considerations, would forego development of the property” Recommendation: Please delineate all “other considerations”. Also it appears that the city of HMB wants the owner to still pay taxes and infrastructure costs while having no development rights. Is that your intent? What liabilities do you expect the city to incur with this proviso? What is the fiscal impact?

6—- p 37 states “No revisions to the land use and zoning map are proposed in this initial step 1 of the LCP Update…” Why not? It would be very helpful to update and identify on maps all city managed storm drains, as well as mapping of city circulation with street assignments. Recommendation: Provide complete map with all integrated details with every proposal to the CCC for public review and input.

7—- page 65 Policy 10-25, Level of Service and Mitigation Standards—The LOS definitions do not clearly specify at what times of the day a level D (an average delay of 32 seconds) is determined.

Is that a daily 24 hr average, an average for the best hour of the day, for the worst hour of the day? for weekdays? Weekends?

Does that Level D exclude accidents, emergencies, road repair or not? Recommendation: Please provide specifics On LOS and Mitigation measures, especially since this is a major factor and consideration on the coast.

8—- Page 72 18.04.020 Definitions C and D. “Measure D Allocation” and “Measure D Certificate” Please provide additional description of the basis and impact of these terms. What is the intent, and what is the limit, if any, on authority of mayor and Planning Director for those issues?

Thank you in advance for your consideration and response to this letter.

Terry Gossett
Director, Californians for Property Rights