Californians for Property Rights

Below you will find CPR’s recommendations concerning Half Moon Bay’s Local Coastal Program Update. These recommendations are based on a point by point discussion (17 pages) of the issues which are available here as a pdf file. (248 kb)

Californians for Property Rights
Box 282, Moss Beach, CA 94038
Phone: 650-563-9508
Email: texterry@pacbell.net

Property rights are civil rights

CPR RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING HALF MOON BAY’S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM UPDATE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF MEASURE D

• Implement Measure D without embellishing its mandate. Acknowledge that the proposed definitions of Residential Infill Parcel and Residential Infill Area, as well as proposed Policies 9-5 and 10-5, are not required by Measure D, and would result in legal and practical difficulties. Instead, retain the existing definition of Residential Infill Projects, giving them a non-exclusive development priority. Do not prohibit residential development of otherwise developable vacant parcels in existing neighborhoods and subdivisions.

• Acknowledge that whereas Measure D mandates ‘metered’ growth, it states or implies nothing about prohibiting residential development for an unspecified period of time in all but the proposed Residential Infill Area. Reject the concept of “Infill Phase” as an embellishment of Measure D that is unworkable and legally suspect.

• Acknowledge that if Measure D intended to prohibit non-neighborhood development, it would have stated so. Proposed prohibitions are a grafting onto Measure D that twists its intent. Rejecting the prohibitions avoids legal battles, while giving the City maximum planning flexibility within the Measure D mandate.

• Give residential parcels in existing neighborhoods a non-exclusive priority for Measure D Certificates. For those parcels, use a first come, first served allocation system for the first eight months of each year. Allocate Certificates only upon receipt of a complete development application. Tie the Certificate to its development application and parcel, allowing only the ownership to transfer. After the eight month period, the City Council banks unused Certificates for potential future use. Allow owners of any residentially developable properties to present complete development applications during the last three months of the year. The Council may allocate any unused Certificates for those projects, at its discretion. All residential development is counted, to respect Measure D growth limits.

• Do not prohibit UR or OSR parcels from residential development. Allow wells to serve a residence on UR/OSR parcels whether or not the land continues to be farmed. Do not require a conservation easement over ag parcels that the City has long acknowledged are economically unviable.

• Modify proposed Policy 3-1(B) so that it applies to all residential parcels in existing neighborhoods. Map, study and publish tentative findings concerning constructed habitats believed to occupy formerly ESHA locations. Provide property owners the opportunity to contest such findings. Do not allow future ex post facto findings.

• Directly control development by political and legislative means, not indirectly through infrastructural retardation. Acknowledge that water and sewer utility capacities are currently sufficient. Improve traffic conditions by significantly re-engineering traffic flows.

• Do not submit the LCP amendments for certification in piecemeal stages. Acknowledging that “Foundation” Policies will be tested and modified as they are applied to more specific Policies and applications, instead submit a completely updated LCP as a fully integrated, unitary program of long-range planning policy.

---

You may download a one page copy of the above recommendations.

Also, please download and read the full discussion as mentioned at the beginning of this article.