Half Moon Bay EOC537 Kelly Ave.Half Moon Bay, CA 94019

Brian Holt, ChairJames Benjamin, Vice ChairSara Polgar, Planning CommissionerSteve Ruddock, Planning CommissionerRick Hernandez, Planning Commissioner

AGENDA

CITY OF HALF MOON BAYPLANNING COMMISSION

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2019

7:00 PM

This agenda contains a brief description of each item to be considered. Those wishing to address thePlanning Commission on any matter not listed on the Agenda, but within the jurisdiction of the PlanningCommission to resolve, may come forward to the podium during the Public Forum portion of the Agendaand will have a maximum of three minutes to discuss their item. Those wishing to speak on an agenda itemare asked to fill out a speaker card. Speaker(s) will be called forward at the appropriate time during theagenda item in consideration.

Please Note: Please Provide a Copy of Prepared Presentations to the Clerk

Copies of written documentation relating to each item of business on the Agenda are on file in theOffice of the City Clerk at City Hall and the Half Moon Bay Library where they are available for publicinspection. If requested, the agenda shall be available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with adisability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132.)Information may be obtained by calling 650-726-8271.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, special assistance for participation in thismeeting can be obtained by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at 650-726-8271. A 48-hour notification willenable the City to make reasonable accommodations to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II).

http://hmbcity.com/

MEETING WILL CONCLUDE BY 10:30 PM UNLESS OTHERWISE EXTENDED BY SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE OF THEPLANNING COMMISSION.

1

CORRESPONDANCE

Correspondence (After Agenda Packet was posted, before end of meeting 10.08.2019)Memo to PC 10.08.19

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND ROLL CALL

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes 09.24.201909.24.2019

PUBLIC COMMENT

1. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

1.ACONTINUED ITEM - LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN UPDATE – STUDYSESSION

Receive a presentation from staff on the draft Land Use Plan (LUP) Update; hold apublic comment forum; conduct a discussion and provide direction to staff.

STAFF REPORT

ATTACHMENT 1 - Programmatic Policies List

ATTACHMENT 2 - Venice Beach PD Example

ATTACHMENT 3 - ESHA Policy Examples

DIRECTOR'S REPORT

PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS

ADJOURNMENT

2

Community Development Department

Jill Dever Ekas, AICP, Director

Date: October 8, 2019

To: Honorable Chair and Planning Commissioners

From: Jill Ekas, Community Development Director

Brittney Cozzolino, Associate Planner

Subject: October 8, 2019 Local Coastal Land Use Plan Study Session

This memo is intended to convey to the Planning Commission several public comment correspondences

on the City’s Land Use Plan (LUP) update received after the staff report was published for the October 8,

2019 study session. The correspondences are attached to this memo.

The first is an email from Dawn Dillman, who is involved with the Andreotti family farm, and includes

comments regarding potential updates to the Urban Reserve land use designation. Staff will provide

additional responses to this email at tonight’s meeting as they relate to the Coastal Commission staff’s

comment letter, but notes that these considerations are consistent with City staff’s intent to support

agricultural operations through supplemental uses and expedited permitting processes as included in

policies of the draft Agriculture chapter.

Another communication is from Bill Balson regarding Ocean Colony. Similar to phone calls we have

received, Ocean Colony community members are concerned about Coastal Commission staff direction

with respect to re-designating developed Planned Development (PD) areas into more standard land use

designations. City staff appreciate this comment in that Ocean Colony is complex and multiple

designations would be required in order to follow this direction. We continue to communicate Coastal

Commission staff about some of these challenges and will certainly convey the community input about

this PD in particular.

The final is a letter from the Committee for Green Foothills (CGF) and includes overarching concerns

about public participation in the LUP update process as well as specific numbered comments about the

draft LUP update and the staff report for the October 8, 2019 study session. Staff appreciates the

opportunity to respond to these comments below with the corresponding numbering.

1. Parcel Legality. This comment was included in the Committee for Green Foothill’s comment

letter on the draft Development Chapter dated January 22, 2019. Staff appreciates this concept

being brought up again and agrees that there is a need to include such a policy in the LUP

update. Staff is also considering implementing this sooner than the LUP update certification as a

requirement of coastal development permit processing.

3

2. Lot Retirement. Staff is aware of the lot retirement funds provided through the Pacific Ridge

settlement agreement and the City is in possession of the line of credit documents. We are

looking forward to working more directly on the program details for Coastal Commission

approval for properly using these funds.

With respect to the LUP update, the draft plan does include a lot retirement policy. The policy is

specifically aligned with the CGF comment in that it intends to mitigate the cumulative effects of

new residential development on traffic and coastal access, as follows:

Policy 2-17 [starting on Page 2-23]. Lot Retirements. To protect coastal resources, coastal

access, and the capacity of public facilities, establish a lot retirement program that minimizes

and mitigates the individual and cumulative impacts of creating new residential lots by retiring

development potential on the same number of existing lots. The program shall:

a. Require retirement of lots wherein for each new residential lot created, a legal lot with

residential zoning within the city limits, shall be retired through recordation of a no-build

restriction.

b. Determine priority areas for lot retirement based on the presence of natural resources,

risk of hazards, viable agricultural use, or other characteristics consistent with the intent

of the program.

c. Exempt lot retirement requirements for deed restricted affordable housing outside Town

Center, and for all residential development within the Town Center.

d. Allow lot retirements as a means to increase density for new residential development

within the Town Center pursuant to a transfer of development rights program.

There have been several discussions in the public forum the LUP update process about this

policy and its intent during, including on how the policy should apply to the Town Center and

affordable housing. Specific feedback on the policy language is encouraged and appreciated.

3. Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs). There have been several discussions about the TDR

program policy and its intent in the public forum, including at the March 26, 2019 Planning

Commission study session. At that session, City staff presented on the relationship between lot

retirement and TDR programs. Staff expects these two programs to work together and be able

to be implemented concurrently as lot retirement would function as a development

requirement imposed on new subdivisions, and TDR would function as an incentive that is

voluntary for developers.

4. Workforce Housing. The suggestion for required workforce housing is consistent with the intent

of the proposed Priority Housing Overlay but does go further than what is currently included in

the draft LUP update. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider this comment

for inclusion in the final draft LUP update, the next Housing Element, or another General Plan

element.

4

5. Affordable Housing. Staff appreciates this information and we are reviewing recent, as well as

pending, state legislation carefully with respect to the LUP update. For clarification, the draft

LUP update does not propose any density increases in any land use designation, with the

exception of the Priority Housing Overlay designation. Density bonuses are noted throughout

the LUP update as they are a state requirement and should be considered as a possibility for

buildout assumptions. Potential density bonus units were included in the buildout assumptions

for both the 2040 and maximum theoretical scenarios.

6. ADUs. Staff agrees and has included ADUs in the buildout assumptions for these reasons

(reference Table B-1 at the bottom of page B-3 in Appendix B, as well as the narrative on page 3-

9 of Chapter 3. Public Works).

7. PDs Proposed to be Re-Designated. For clarification, the land use changes included in the first

table of the staff report for tonight’s study session are consistent with Figure 2-1 and Table 2-1

in the draft Chapter 2. Development. This chapter has been available to the public since last

December. The LUP only includes potential land use designations changes at this time, not

zoning changes.

a. Nurserymen’s Exchange: The existing LCP designates Nurserymen’s Exchange with the

Residential – Low Density land use designation and PUD zoning. Staff agrees that a PD

land use designation is more appropriate for this site, and has proposed this land use

change in the draft LUP update. Re-zoning is not under consideration.

b. Pacific Ridge Areas A and B: These areas were recommended to be re-designated as

Open Space for Conservation (a new land use designation proposed in the LUP update)

by the General Plan Advisory Committee some time ago. Staff will follow up with legal

research but is not currently aware of any conflicts between the Open Space for

Conservation land use designation and the conditions of the settlement agreement for

these lands to be protected as open space for habitat conservation purposes.

c. Pilarcitos West Urban Reserve: Support for re-designation to Urban Reserve is

appreciated.

d. 880 Stone Pine Road: Staff cannot assume who will own this property in the future. Staff

has been in communication with the current property owner to discuss potential land

uses that will not impact the conservation corridor. ESHA protection and hazard

avoidance policies will apply in any case. In staff’s opinion, other potential land uses

would need to be compatible with adjacent uses (e.g. Spanish Town) and have low trip

generation rates; light industrial and agriculture are two such considerations.

e. North Wavecrest – POST 80 acres: This parcel has been in active agriculture use, which is

not consistent with the Open Space for Conservation land use designation as currently

envisioned. Staff will confer with POST about the intended future use for this parcel.

f. Dolores and Upper Grandview and Glencree PDs: Support for dropping these PDs is

appreciated. Staff notes that the resource protection policies of the LUP would still

apply to development in Upper Grandview, and does not recommend keeping this area

as a more limited PD.

5

8. Proposed Additional Changes to PDs. Staff notes again that no re-zoning is proposed at this

time. As mentioned in the staff report for this study session, there are multiple options for

ensuring that zoning is consistent with re-designated PDs and there can be a many-to-one

relationship between land use designations and zoning districts.

a. Casa Mira PD: The policies contained in the Coastal Hazards chapter apply to this site

and essentially function as a “hazards overlay” as the site is within 300 feet of a bluff

edge.

b. Pacific Ridge Residential Area: Staff is not currently aware of any conflicts between the

Residential land use designation and the conditions of the settlement agreement and

will follow up with the City Attorney’s office to confirm.

c. Matteucci PD: Staff agrees that land use re-designations should not induce subdivision

potential as noted in the staff report for this study session. To address this concern, staff

presented for the September 24 study session, and continues to recommend that the

Planning Commission consider a new large-lot rural residential land use designation with

a range of minimum lot sizes.

d. Andreotti PD: Staff welcomes ideas on how to maintain the historic Andreotti name in

this PD, whether it remains as a PD or is re-designated to other land use categories. Staff

is uncertain of the best way to do this, as the PD was developed with commercial and

residential areas with projects that did not use the historic name, including street

names.

e. Main Street Park PD: The terms of affordability are dependent on the affordable housing

requirements, not on the land use designation. In this case, the affordable housing

developed by MidPen Housing Corporation provides for 55-year affordability through

2051 for Phase I (36 units) and 55-year affordability through 2056 for Phase 2 (28 units).

This information can be found in Table 1-30 on page 1-19 of the Housing Element. This

development is considered to be at low risk of conversion due to its long term and its

ownership and management under an affordable housing developer. Re-designating this

development to a residential land use would not affect this affordable housing

requirement.

f. Ocean Colony PD: Staff is not proposing re-zoning Ocean Colony. The intent of the

proposed land use change is to address Coastal Commission staff’s concerns about the

challenges of development review in PDs, especially where the PD has been developed

and could be re-designated to reflect its actual land uses. As mentioned in the staff

report, staff recommends re-designating Ocean Colony into the appropriate residential

and commercial land use designations and either retaining Ocean Colony in PUD zoning

or creating a new zoning district that is specific to Ocean Colony and is consistent with

the CC&Rs. Land use and zoning changes do not interfere with easements or

infrastructure ownerships, and staff is not aware of any conflicting agreements or

settlements. Staff is continuing to work closely with Coastal Commission staff and Ocean

Colony stakeholders to address these concerns, and welcomes Planning Commission

6

input. As previously noted above, staff feels that it will be helpful to Coastal Commission

staff to consider the range of input received on this particular topic.

g. Carter Hill PD: Staff agrees that this is a challenging site and these constraints have been

stated in the draft Development chapter. A land use change to Residential – Low Density

would not significantly impact the capacity of Lewis Foster Drive. Additional access

drives onto Highway 92 are not recommended.

h. Staff believes this comment was meant to be included with subsection (g) above

regarding Carter Hill, and notes that Carter Hill has a very different context from

unincorporated San Mateo County as it is located within the Urban/Rural Boundary and

has the potential to connect to municipal water and sewer services. As the comment

notes; however, given the many site constraints, the Planning Commission should

consider whether a PD designation makes more sense for Carter Hill.

i. ESHA buffer language: Staff agrees that the LUP update should not loosen any buffer

requirements as established in the current LUP and agrees on the bank edge

modification for riparian buffer measurements as already presented in the draft LUP

(Chapter 6. Natural Resources). Staff will work with Committee for Green Foothills and

the City Attorney’s office to clarify the language in the Appeals Court ruling on vernally

wet areas. Attachment 3 to the staff report was published with the packet for this study

session last Wednesday and is available on the City’s website, and has since been

provided directly to the Committee for Green Foothills.

j. (Unnumbered in the comment letter) Definition of Resource Dependent Use: This

definition was based on several certified LUPs that include policies defining public

accessways, public trails, and low-impact campgrounds as resource dependent uses

including Solana Beach, Santa Monica Mountains, Marin County, and Malibu. Staff

recommends that the Planning Commission consider the language of this draft

definition.

With respect to the comments about the public participation opportunities in the Committee for Green

Foothills letter, staff would like to note the extent of public outreach that has been done diligently

throughout this LUP update process. In addition to the community visioning outreach that commenced

in December 2013, formation of the General Plan Advisory Committee and adoption of the Guiding

Principles in 2014, and response to public comments on the first public draft of the LUP update in 2016,

staff has taken special care to ensure that each public meeting on the LUP update is noticed through the

City’s e-newsletter, the Planning Commission and PlanHMB mailing lists, and on Nextdoor. These

sources reach thousands of residents.

Staff has also been meeting often with property owners and other interested parties to address

questions and concerns about proposed changes in the LUP update. The current draft chapters of the

LUP update have been made available to the public as they have been updated from the first public

draft starting last October, and the Planning Commission has held eight study sessions with opportunity

for public comment on the revised draft chapters since that time. Staff is also working to compile the

public comments received on the 2018-19 draft LUP into a response table to be shared with the

7

Planning Commission, City Council, and the public that addresses each comment made. It is staff’s belief

that the amount of public participation in the LUP update process over the past year is reflective of the

Planning Commission, the Planning Commission Ad Hoc LCP Update Subcommittee, and staff’s

responsiveness to questions and concerns from the public. Over the course of the past year in particular,

members of the Planning Commission and staff have made themselves available for in-depth interviews

with local reporters and other media outlets to cast an even broader net. Staff will continue to engage

property owners and other interested parties throughout the rest of the LUP update process and

encourages anyone to reach out if they would like to meet or submit comments. It is also noted and well

known that these Planning Commission sessions are televised and viewed by many during and after the

sessions.

Attachments:

1. Email from Dawn Dillman dated October 7, 2019

2. Comments from Bill Balson, dated October 8, 2019

3. Letter from Committee for Green Foothills dated October 7, 2019

8

9

10

Comments by Bill Balson, Ocean Colony Resident

Re: Planning Commission Agenda for October 8, 2019, Item 1A draft Land Use Plan (LUP)

Staff Report on p. 4 opines that “Another option could be creating a residential zoning district

for Ocean Colony …”. The current zoning for Ocean Colony is PUD and should remain without changes.

Ocean Colony has existed since 1974 as a mixed use PUD that includes both commercial and

residential uses carefully integrated and managed with regard to existing permits granted by the City

and the Coastal Commission. With the final phase of the Carnoustie subdivision, Ocean Colony will be

fully built and no further increase in residential construction is envisioned. Ocean Colony is largely self-

governing within the constraints of the CC&Rs, the permits and applicable law. This self-governing

Association has served as an enormous public benefit both in regards to relying on the City’s scarce

administrative resources and in regards to furthering the public’s desire for coastal access.

Ocean Colony Association manages and pays for repairs to its own roads and infrastructure,

ordinarily a leading City expense. The Association maintains an Architectural Review Committee (ARC)

overseeing modifications to existing residences in advance of City building permit applications. The ARC

maintains data on the 20 different subdivisions within Ocean Colony, each with its own set of setbacks

and related permit constraints. The Association fields up to 300 homeowner calls and emails a month

on routine questions that might otherwise be directed to the City Clerk. All of this activity occurs under

the authority of a private contract among the property owners frequently referred to as the CC&Rs.

These CC&Rs are enforceable at law by the Association and by any of the 565 Association members.

Since Ocean Colony was first created in 1974, close to 400 hotel rooms have been constructed

within a quarter mile of Ocean Colony. The Association has given its public support to this increased

transient occupancy, which is now at the point of straining the limited capacity of Miramontes Point Rd.

and Redondo Beach Rd. However, the public has even broader access rights through the Coastal Trail

dedication. Taken together, the intensity of coastal access approved by the City in 1973 now serves as a

model for mixed-use public access.

Ocean Colony is a bit like a Gordian Knot at this late date and changes to its underlying

permitting structure fraught with risk for the public as well as the property owners. A tangle of 20

subdivision permits exists each with unique combinations of approved building code specifications

spread over five decades. Superimposed over those permits are the private property rights of the 565

residential and commercial Association members, any one of whom has enforcement rights separate

and above those of the City and Coastal Commission. And many of the subdivisions have their own sub-

Association CC&Rs. Attempting to untie this knot raises more than a few troubling questions.

Examined objectively, the proposed rezoning of Ocean Colony is a solution looking for a

problem. The existing permitting structure has served and continues to serve both the public and the

Association’s members well. Altering this time-tested and successful mixture of public, commercial and

residential uses can only produce excess cost and risk with zero benefit to any involved party.

11

3921 E. Bayshore Road 650.968.7243 PHONE info@GreenFoothills.org Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.968.8431 FAX www.GreenFoothills.org

Chair Brian Holt and Members, October 7, 2019 Half Moon Bay Planning Commission 501 Main Street Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 Re: Planning Commission Study Session, Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update, October 8 On behalf of Committee for Green Foothills (CGF), thanks are due to your Commission and Planning Staff for the diligence, thoroughness, and close attention to detail in the preparation of the Draft Land Use Plan and supporting documents. With the issuance of the final Chapter of the Draft in June, a major challenge for the public (as well as the Planning Commission we suspect) has been to have adequate time and opportunity to review and comment on key chapters, as well as the entire document. While we appreciate the High Level Summaries of key policies that have been presented at Planning Commission Study Sessions, it has been difficult for members of the public to fully participate in this Update, especially since some of the early Draft policies have now been revised, and the overall document is several hundred pages long. CGF notes that most Planning Commission Study Sessions and meetings on the LCP Update have had an attendance of approximately 25-30 people, some of whom have been representatives of agencies. The Public Comment Letter Index (Attachment A, September 24, 2019) includes comments on behalf of 4 public agencies, 11 major property owners, one organization representing Realtors, one organization representing environmental interests, and 7 individual residents. While these written comments do cover many LCP policy issues, CGF believes that lack of broader input on the Draft is most likely due to lack of public awareness of the importance of this effort, and difficulty in knowing when key decisions are being made. Certainly lack of broader public participation in meetings or through comments is not due to lack of interest in the land use decisions that affect the City. We know from long experience that Half Moon Bay residents are keenly interested in the City’s land use decisions and how these decisions affect quality of life. Indeed, the Guiding Principles for the City’s April 2016 Draft General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan notes that “Preserving Environmental Resources and Open Space” and “Maintain Half Moon Bay’s small-town character and quality of life” were top choices identified in a community survey. The California Coastal Act (Section 30006) includes the following Findings regarding the importance of public participation in implementation of the Act: “The Legislature further finds and declares that the public has a right to fully participate in decisions affecting coastal planning, conservation and development; that achievement of sound coastal conservation and development is dependent upon public understanding and support; and that the continuing planning and implementation of programs for coastal conservation and development should include the widest opportunity for public participation.” (emphasis added)

12

Committee for Green Foothills October 7, 2019

Page 2 of 4

We urge you to keep in mind the strong and unequivocal public support for maintenance of Half Moon Bay’s scenic open space, agricultural lands, and environmentally sensitive habitats (and their buffers) as well as the key Coastal Act policies that these community values are strongly aligned with. We also urge you to find ways to better engage the public before the Draft LUP is finalized. Specific comments on the Staff Report for the October 8 meeting:

1. ParcelLegality—therearemanyundevelopedlotswithinalreadysubdividedareas,associatedwith“AntiquatedSubdivisions”thatneedtobecarefullyaddressedincludingProofofParcelLegality,aswehavenotedpreviously.Contiguousundevelopedparcelsmaynotbe“legalseparateparcels”pertheWittandAbernathycourtdecisions.TheLUPDevelopmentChaptershouldincludeaspecificpolicytoaddressParcelLegality.Theremaybefarfewer“legalparcels”withinsubstantiallydevelopedsubdivisionsaswellaswithinsomeoftheundevelopedPDs.Assumingentitlementstoacertainnumberofresidentialunitspurelybasedontheexistenceof“paperlots”withinPDsorexistingneighborhoodswilllikelyresultinoverestimates.

2. LotRetirement–wehavealsoaddressedthisinpreviouscomments.ThePacificRidgeSettlementAgreement(2004–CoastalCommission,Ailanto&HalfMoonBay)resultedinsignificantfundsforaLotRetirementProgramOrdinancetobepreparedbyHalfMoonBay.Whatisthestatusofthosefundsandwhatistheplanforordinanceadoptionandimplementation?TheLCPshouldincludeapolicyapplicabletofutureresidentialsubdivisionsinordertomitigatethecumulativeeffectsofnewresidentialdevelopmentontrafficandtheabilityofthepublictoaccessthecoastperCoastalCommissionfindingsandsubsequentlytestedintheSanMateoSuperiorCourt.

3. TDR’s–wecontinuetoquestionwhetheraTDRprogramisadvisableforHalfMoonBay,assuchaprogramwouldgreatlyincreasethecomplexityofrecordkeeping,wouldtakemanyyearstoaccomplishitsgoals,andcouldwellconflictand/orcompetewithaLotRetirementProgram.

4. WorkforceHousing—theLUPshouldincludeapolicythatrequiresworkforcehousingtobeincludedwhenapprovingLandUsesthatrequireasignificantnumberoflowerpaidworkers,forexample:hotels/conferencecenters/spas,andlargerestaurants.Providiingworkforcehousingcouldhelpalleviatesignificantadversetrafficimpacts,andisalsoasocialjusticeissue,asworkersmusttravellongdistancesfromtheirhomestocoastalemploymentsites.

5. AffordableHousing—theStateLegislaturethisyearhasauthoredseveralbillsthatwouldimpingeonlocalgovernmentdecisionsregardinglanduse,particularlyasitrelatestohousing.Manyofthesebillswilllikelynotactuallyachieveaffordablehousing,butmaywellsimplymandateadditionalmarketratehousingthatcouldfurtherexacerbatealreadystrainedcapacitiesoftheMidcoastarea’ssewer,water,andhighwaysystems.ThistrendintheLegislatureislikelytocontinue.ItwouldbeprudentfortheCitytobecautiousaboutincreasingresidentialdensities,exceptincaseswheretheincreaseddensityisspecificallyrestrictedastoaffordablehousingforlowandmoderateincomepeople,orwherespecificallyrequiredbystatelegislation.

13

Committee for Green Foothills October 7, 2019

Page 3 of 4

6. WenotethatADUs,whetherwithinanexistinghomeoranadditionalstructureonaproperty,willinfactresultinincreaseddemandforwater,sewer,andhighwaycapacity.TheLCPshouldincludeanalysisandpoliciesaddressingthisissue.

7. RegardingspecificPDsproposedtoberedesignated(TopChartonpage3):a. Nurserymen’sExchange:Wearenotsurewhetherrezoningisnecessary,asaccording

totheCity’sZoningMap,the“Nurserymen’sExchange”areaisa“PUD”already.WeagreethatPDforthis37-acreareaisappropriate.

b. PacificRidgeAreaAandB:WerecommendkeepingtheentiresitedesignatedasPDinordertomaintainallconditionsoftheCourtorderedSettlementAgreement.

c. PilarcitosWestUrbanReservePD:Wesupporttheredesignationofthis145-acreareacomprisedofimportantClassIandIIagriculturallandsonbothsidesofPilarcitosCreekfromPDtoUrbanReserve.

d. 880StonePineRoad:Wesupporttheredesignationofthis22-acrearea,assumingthattheCitywillbeacquiringitforbothresourceprotectionandpublicfacilitieswithaportionofthesiteoutsidetheESHA/riparianbufferarea/daminundationzonedesignatedasPublicFacility(MunicipalCorporationYard).

e. NorthWavecrestParcels:WearecuriousastowhythePOST80acresisproposedtoberedesignatedasOpenSpace–ReserveratherthanOpenSpaceforConservation.

f. DoloresandUpperGrandviewandGlencreePD:WesupportdroppingthesePDshoweverwenotethatseveralparcelsinUpperGrandviewmaybeundevelopableduetothepresenceofwetlandsandassociatedbuffers;thereforeitmaybedesirabletokeepUpperGrandviewasamorelimitedPDarea.

8. ProposedAdditionalChangesinresponsetoCCCComments(BottomChartonPage3):a. CasaMira(MiradaonZoningMap)PD:Thissiteisvulnerabletotsunamiinundation

andSeaLevelRise,andshouldbesonotedifitisredesignatedasResidential,perhapswithaHazardsoverlay.

b. PacificRidgeResidentialAreaPD:Percommentsabove,inordertomaintainallconditionsoftheCourtOrderedSettlement,thePDshouldnotbechanged.

c. MatteucciPD:WerecommendkeepingthePDdesignationasthereareseveralverylongparcelsboundedbythewesternedgethatshouldnotbere-subdivided;aPDwouldbeabletoeffectivelyaddressthis.

d. AndreottiPD:Wedonotobjecttotheredesignation,however,werecommendthattheCityfindawaytomaintainthehistoricAndreottinamehere.

e. MainStreetParkPD:ThiscompletePDisfullydevelopedwith64affordableunits.WesupportredesignationasMediumDensityResidentialaslongastheaffordabilityoftheseunitsisassuredinperpetuity.

f. OceanColonyPD:TheCC&RsforOceanColonyareanimportantcomponentofthisPD.WedonotrecommendrezoningtheresidentialportionsbecausetherearenumerousSpecificPlanswithdifferentiationstostandardzoningstandards(includingstreetwidths,parkingstandards,sidewalks,andnoparkingatnight),andthereisalongandimportantcollectionofeasements,infrastructureownerships,agreementsandSettlementsthattheCitywouldonlycomplicatebymakingthisunnecessarychange.In

14

Committee for Green Foothills October 7, 2019

Page 4 of 4

anyevent,theaffectedhomeownersandstakeholdersinOceanColonyshouldbeconsultedregardingpossibleimpactsofredesignatingthislong-standingPD.

g. CarterHillPD:Thisisaverydifficultsitetodevelopduetohazardsincludingsteepslopes,andhighlyflammabledenseeucalyptusforest.Additionally,accesstothisPDwasexpectedtobefromFoothillBoulevard–whichisnowdefunct.AccessthroughtheHighSchool’sroadsseemsunwisegiventhattheaccessrightsalreadygrantedtoothersalreadycomplicatethatroute’scapacity.

h. ARuralResidentialzoningmaybeappropriate,howeveraPDmaymakemoresenseduetotheflexibilitythataPDallows.SanMateoCounty’sRuralResidentialzoningdoesnotallowconnectionstomunicipalsewerandwater,otherthanforFireProtection.

i. ESHABufferLanguage:Weareconcernedaboutanyprojectspecific“adjustments”toESHAbuffersandperformancestandards.Ourexperienceovermanyyearstellsusthateventhebestconsultantsaresubjecttoeconomicpressuresandtherearealltoomanyconsultantsthatfallwellbelowthebestcategory.WefavorkeepingthecurrentminimumswiththeexceptionsofmovingtheintermittentstreammeasuringpointfromthemidpointofthestreamtothebankedgewhenthereisanabsenceofriparianvegetationandsomethoughtfulconsiderationofdevelopmentthatoccurredpriortotheCoastalAct.WealsofavorwordingintheESHAdefinitionthatclearlycapturestheAppealsCourtrulingregardingVernallyWetareas.WehavenotseenthecitedexamplesfromotherLCP’s(inAttachment3oftheStaffReport,whichwedidnotreceive).

Glossary(Tab12,page1-7):DefinitionofResourceDependentUse:ThereisnodefinitionintheCoastalActthatwouldserveasguidanceforthisdefinition.CGFsupportstheprimarydefinition:“Anydevelopmentorusethatdependsontheareaorresourceswithinoradjacenttoenvironmentallysensitivehabitatareastobeabletofunction”.However,severalofthecitedexamplesareinappropriateand/orcontrarytothedefinition.Westronglyrecommenddeletinghorsebackriding,bicycleandpedestriantrails,andlow-impactcampgrounds,astheseusesdonotdependonESHAoradjacencytheretoinordertobeabletofunction.

We appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments for your review and consideration. Thank you again for your diligence in this comprehensive update of the City’s LUP. Sincerely,

Lennie Roberts, Legislative Advocate Committee for Green Foothills cc: Jill Ekas, Community Development Director

15

September 24, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 6

MINUTES

CITY OF HALF MOON BAY PLANNING COMMISSION

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2019

EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER (EOC) / 537 KELLY AVENUE Vice Chair Benjamin called the meeting to order at 7:10 PM PRESENT: Vice Chair Benjamin, Hernandez, Polgar and Ruddock ABSENT: Chair Holt PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND ROLL CALL

Vice Chair Benjamin led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes: September 10, 2019 Motion made as written with the addition to add comment: 433 Laurel Ave is a residence directly across the street, the City Engineer needs to evaluate the water/flooding issues that occur in that area when reviewing the design for the new residences on Pine. M/S: Hernandez/Polgar Approved: 4-0 PUBLIC COMMENT None 1.A - Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update – Study Session: Receive a presentation from staff regarding the major topics of comments on the draft Land Use Plan (LUP) Update received by the public and the Planning Commission to date; hold a public comment forum; conduct a discussion and provide direction to staff. Brittney Cozzolino, Associate Planner and Jill Ekas, Community Development Director presented to the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION CLARIFYING QUESTIONS None 16

September 24, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 6

PUBLIC COMMENT 1) Maurice Rosenberg, Real Estate Advisory Services, client is the property owner North

of Sam’s Chowder House – San Mateo County Harbor Commission had planned to locate an office on this property; however, the plans have changed. The property owner would like to propose the new plans for this location including offices and a public parking area for when offices are closed.

2) Mike Ferreira, Sierra Club – Reviewed past points in the Land Use Plan update process

involving various planned developments and how upsetting it was for the community, as well as City Council; City Council directed that Pacific Ridge and Ocean Colony should not be subject to the new ADU ordinance. Pacific Ridge has a complex history (lawsuit, appeals court, new law, settlement agreements, and conservation easements) and should not be changed to a residential zoning district. The Sierra Club would like to except all of the comments made by the Committee for Green Foothills with one exception, the Sierra Club would like to define water capacity in terms of permits for 5/8” connections. Also expressed that the City’s Land Use Plan should use the same units as the San Mateo County plan with respect to water supply and demand (use millions of gallons per day [mgd] instead of millions of gallons per year [MGY].)

3) George Mutiff, resident - Recognized staff for their work, the plan has come a long way since the 2004-2005 years; an outstanding opportunity to encourage affordable housing. With the high property values, it will be important to address the high cost of water and sewer connections to make development of affordable housing more feasible.

4) Kerry Burke, resident – Recognized staff for their hard work, as well at the Planning Commission and Community; shared concern about the Coastal Commission’s direction with respect to the planned developments. The landowners and community members deserve information.

5) Greg Jamison, resident and property owner – With respect to R-2 zoned properties,

could we consider clustering development on these sites properties to facilitate development of these lots.

Planning Commission Comments: General:

• Coastal Commission Comments are generally well founded; however, take exception to Urban Reserve suggestion

• Some of the Coastal Commission Comments were unexpected

• Appreciate staff responses and explanations of the comments

• Obligation for community to get context on the document

• Reduce redundancy 17

September 24, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 6

• Background information and programmatic policies – would like some examples, but don’t remove what needs Coastal Commission certification and protection that comes from it

• Remove programmatic polices; e.g. study ground water- keep in; sidewalks – out Planned Unit Developments (PDs)

• Move substantially developed PD’s out of PD section.

• Need to make sure litigated obligations are followed through

• PUDs – not wanting the LCP old descriptions, needs to be specific and current

• Appreciated the examples/diagrams for presentation but not in the final plan.

• Limited size on single family residence – appreciates this guidance for the plan

• Natural Resource section was a bit of a stretch and could go somewhere else

• ADUs – How are the included in a PD vs. an R zone

• Don’t lose the intent of the policies in the PDs

• PD – fall back zoning – what would it look like? Wants to preserve the thinking about public works planning

• Support change to upper Grandview/Glencree

• Drainages in PDs are critical understudied infrastructure

• PDs – A lot more dialogue needs to take place. Need to make sure careful with area with past histories, but open to it. Look back at Committee for Green Foothills letter on this topic

• Need to maintain buildout so as to not be equivalent to the existing land use plan, which does not take all of the known constraints into consideration.

Urban Reserve

• Urban Reserve/Open Space Reserve – does not want reserved designations to go away

• Not sure Urban reserve designation go away? What will it look like? Not comfortable?

• Urban Reserve/Open Space Reserve: not ripe yet

• Urban Reserve/Open Space – not clear to answer yet Hazards

• No problem regrouping hazards

• Hazards chapter – shore and inland

• Not a powerful distribution between inland and other erosion; e.g. geomorphology with respect to erosion and sedimentation; need to carry the “holistic” approach in dialogue with Coastal Commission Staff. Coastal Act calls the City to protect the coastal zone.

• Committee for Green Foothills – Sea Level Rise - working off the best projections – need a process going forward on keeping up with projections

• Drainage is critically under study item – impacts on undeveloped area – very important – see more with climate changes

Housing

• Priority Overlay – Make sure numbers are baked in • Overlay – concerned about ESHA and wants to learn from mistakes

• Supportive of housing overlay, ok to help schools, State Parks, County Parks,

• School district housing, speed up process 18

September 24, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 6

• Challenges with R-2 lots

• BuffersHow to quickly shift some land to Ag Land if and when needed; food security idea is a good idea, but not sure how it fits into the LCP

• Need clarification on the scrutinizing budget of water permits

• Camping at a resource dependent – What are Coastal Commissions thoughts? Does it happen in other places?

• Committee for Green Foothills – reclaimed and recycled water – what can we do to make it real?

• Benches in the coastal trail for our seniors – look at where trails should be located?

• Comments about energy – interesting Staff Reponses - Camping as a resource dependent use: Not a new concept in the coastal zone, the Coastal Commission has certified such previsions in other plans. Eucalyptus Trees: Clarified that the Heritage Tree Ordinance does not require a removal permit for Eucalyptus trees; they not treated the same as native or heritage trees. However, before removal, inspection for nesting birds, monarchs, etc. is a requirement. Coastal Trail Amenities and Management: Note draft Policy 5-46 – page 530 – in Chapter 5. Coastal Access and Recreation with respect to benches and speed-graded trails; these types of considerations are also included in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. R-2: Development Flexibility: Reviewed how such development approaches can be supported; note that there is a new provision proposed in the draft Land Use Plan, page 2-16, “planned area development permits. Water Supply and Demand: Reviewed that the choice to present water supply and demand in terms of MGY was made to be consistent with Coastside County Water District’s Urban Water Management Plan. Reverting to millions of gallons per day [mgd] requires a simple conversion (dividing MGY by 365 days determines an average mgd), as was presented in the the San Mateo County land use plan. This can be used in the next draft. Accessory Dwelling Units in PDs: Clarified that as currently written, PDs are not subject to the accessory dwelling unit ordinance. All of the City’s “R” zones and mixed-use zones are included. It was also noted that new State law may potential further limit local control with respect to accessory dwelling units and HOA restrictions and zoning designations may become less controlling. Next Steps - Local Coastal Land Use Plan:

• October 8, 2019 - Planning Commission Study Session

• October 29, 2019 - Joint Study Session with City Council 19

September 24, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 6

• November/December - Additional study session and/or hearing Motion made to continue item to the October 8, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting. M/S: Hernandez/Polgar Vote: 4-0

1B CITY FILE No.: PDP-19-035

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1) Receive an update on the Poplar Beach Gateways Plan; and 2) Adopt a resolution approving PDP-19-035, an application for a Coastal Development Permit as a follow-up to emergency CDPS #PDP-18-092 and PDP-19-024 to construct safety and drainage improvements including installation of wooden steps anchored by metal stakes, a cable handrail, a stepped concrete landing, and a 6-inch-deep drainage V-ditch with minor grading and compaction at the existing beach access ramp for Poplar Beach Brittney Cozzolino, Associate Planner gave a presentation to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Clarifying Questions: Q: Expected longevity of the stairs? A: The best the City we can give it. Hoping for 5-7, max 10 years. Q: Bottom of stairs will be a concrete landing? A: Pour in place landing, which is an element of support that will help stabilize the rest of the structure. Q: Compatible with the gateway project – stairs won’t be scrapped with the new gateway project? A: They will not be replaced with the gateway project before the end of their useful life. Q: What happened to the V-ditch at the foot of the ramp? A: Not many options for this; project to stay near the bluff. Q: Will there be space under the steps/landing where trash can accumulate? A: Working with staff to create a design that it won’t become an issue. Q: Do the conditions include the V-ditch? A: Not included Q: There are many ways to get down to Poplar Beach, is there a way to direct traffic to go a specific way? A: The City has installed split fencing and such assist public from the parking PUBLIC COMMENT:

1) Roy Salume, resident – suggested to round the concrete pad edges to prevent tripping when the sand moves around in the area.

Planning Commission Comments: General

• Supportive of project 20

September 24, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 6

• Great undertaking Construction and Design Details

• Construction timing – get in and out fast; valuable to place unignorable signage as you park and pay areas

• Handrails – bonfire

• New path created during construction for 3 week while construction is going on….

• Fence posts found on the beach – need to secure the proposed steps because wood is used in bonfires.

• Party place for young people after hours – worried about construction and how robust it will need to be – think about security

Equestrian

• Horse parking increase, when we aren’t having access at this location – need to redirect to Francis Beach

• Need signage in the parking lot during construction when horses cannot use this access point

• “The Slot” is becoming the “slots” – equestrian users are fine going down, but people have been using this access point and making other slots as horse poop has impacted the main slot.

Other

• Volleyball court opportunity – install in the non-wildlife areas

• Orange fencing is not pleasing to look at, is there another something that can be used? Motion as written in the Staff Report with two additional conditions at the end of the life of the project the City will remove the stairs, etc.; and add appropriate signage where needed during construction and after implementation. M/S: Hernandez/Ruddock Vote: 4-0 DIRECTOR REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT

M/S: Polgar/Hernandez Motion Carried: unanimous Meeting adjourned: 10:28 pm

Respectfully Submitted: Approved: ____________________________ _________________________________ Bridget Jett, Planning Analyst James Benjamin, Vice Chair 21

BUSINESS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT

For meeting of: October 8, 2019

TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commissioners FROM: Jill Ekas, Community Development Director

Brittney Cozzolino, Associate Planner TITLE: Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update – Study Session ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION Receive a presentation from staff on the draft Land Use Plan (LUP) Update; hold a public comment forum; conduct a discussion and provide direction to staff. BACKGROUND This study session is one in a series of meetings with the Planning Commission for the purpose of receiving and providing input on public draft chapters of the LUP. The last study session on the draft LUP update included an overview of public comments received, as well as a high-level discussion of suggestions brought up by California Coastal Commission (CCC) staff in a comment letter dated September 23, 2019. Staff has had several follow-up conversations with CCC staff regarding these suggestions and presents further analyses and recommendations in this staff report based on these conversations. DISCUSSION The suggestions in the CCC staff comment letter primarily concern the length of the draft LUP update, the challenges presented by placeholder land use designations, and the complexity of the Planned Development (PD) and environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) policies. The letter reiterates the intent of the LUP in relation to these concerns, which is to implement the Coastal Act and provide guidance for review of coastal development permits. More specifically, the CCC staff letter recommends that (1) the draft LUP update reduces or removes background information and programmatic policies that do not help guide coastal development; (2) the substantially developed PDs be re-designated to reflect their actual land uses; (3) the policies for the substantially undeveloped PDs be simplified to provide flexibility in the master planning process; (4) the Urban Reserve and Open Space Reserve designations be re-designated as PDs; and (5) the ESHA and ESHA buffer discussions and policies be simplified to allow adjustments on a project-by-project basis. Since the letter was submitted, City staff and CCC staff have had several conversations to better understand these concerns and work through

22

Planning Commission – LCLUP Study Session Page 2 of 5 October 8, 2019

solutions or other options. These five topics are detailed further below with staff recommendations and supporting attachments.

1. Document Length

Staff concurs with the recommendation to reduce the amount of background information and programmatic policies in the draft LUP update. In addition to the example of the special status species information in the Natural Resources chapter as background information that can be truncated, CCC staff provided City staff with examples of programmatic policies that could be moved from the LUP update into a separate working document:

Policy 3-15. Water Connection Allocation Process for Proposed Development. Consult with CCWD to establish a process for allocating water connections for development proposals that includes temporary conditional reservations for development proposals contingent on entitlement review, selling connections after entitlements are granted, and expiring or otherwise returning connections to the district’s inventory if the development does not proceed within as established period of time. Policy 7-62. Fire District Coordination. Work with the CFPD to provide fire prevention services and programming and ensure adequate emergency response services. Request updates from the District regarding training and fire prevention programs to ensure that the City is supported adequately through best practices.

Based on these examples, City staff compiled a preliminary list of policies in the draft LUP update that could be moved to a corresponding General Plan element (Attachment 1). These policies that “study,” “coordinate,” “establish a program for,” or include language along these lines may not be directly applicable to development review or Coastal Act implementation and may be more appropriate in a General Plan element that complements and supports the LUP. Specifically, programmatic policies from the Development, Public Works, Agriculture, Cultural Resources, and Scenic and Visual Resources chapters could be moved to a Land Use Element; from the Natural Resources chapter to an Open Space and Conservation Element; and from the Coastal Hazards chapter to the Safety Element. In some cases, a programmatic policy could be related to Coastal Act implementation and intended to help guide development review, and may be able to be re-worded in a more directive manner. As this list is based on recent input from CCC staff and very preliminary, City staff recommends that the Planning Commission identify any such policies included in Attachment 1 that the Commission prefers to retain in the LUP.

2. PD Re-designation Staff concurs with the recommendation to re-designate the substantially developed PDs to reflect their actual land use. The current draft document includes several such changes, as well as several new PDs to accommodate flexible and holistic site planning. The changes already contained in the draft LUP update are as follows:

23

Planning Commission – LCLUP Study Session Page 3 of 5 October 8, 2019

Site Existing LUP Designation

2019 LUP Update Designation

Guerrero Avenue PD PD Open Space for Conservation and Residential – Medium Density

Stoloski/Gonzalez PD PD Residential – Low Density

Nurserymen’s Exchange Residential – Low Density

PD

Pacific Ridge Areas A and B PD Open Space for Conservation

Pilarcitos West Urban Reserve PD PD Urban Reserve

880 Stone Pine Road Urban Reserve PD

North Wavecrest Parcels

• Coastside Land Trust 50 Acres PD Open Space for Conservation

• POST 80 Acres PD Open Space – Reserve

• Smith Field Park PD City Parks and Recreation

• Wavecrest Arroyo PD Open Space for Conservation

400 – 408 Redondo Beach Road PD Residential – Medium Density

The current draft also includes the Dolores and the Upper Grandview and Glencree PDs. These two PDs will not be brought forward in the final draft and will remain in residential land use. In response to the CCC comment letter, City staff suggests that the Planning Commission consider the following additional PD changes be made for the final draft:

Site Existing LUP Designation 2019 LUP Update Designation

Casa Mira PD PD Residential – Medium Density

Pacific Ridge PD PD Residential – Low Density

Matteucci PD PD Residential – Low Density

Andreotti PD PD Commercial – General (Stone Pine Shopping Center), Residential – Medium Density (Cypress Cove townhomes), Light Industrial (vacant Highway 92-fronting parcels)

Main Street Park PD PD Residential – Medium Density

South Downtown Gateway PD

PD Commercial – Visitor Serving

Ocean Colony PD PD Residential – Low/Medium Density (housing subdivisions and golf course), Commercial – General/Visitor Serving (Ritz Carlton, Highway 1 frontage)

South Wavecrest PD PD Commercial – Visitor Serving

Carter Hill PD Public Facilities, Residential – Low Density

24

Planning Commission – LCLUP Study Session Page 4 of 5 October 8, 2019

There are multiple options for ensuring that zoning is consistent with these re-designated PDs. There can be a many-to-one relationship between land use designations and zoning districts. For example, Ocean Colony and Pacific Ridge could remain in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district as their residential densities do not readily fit into one of the existing residential zones. Another option could be creating a residential zoning district for Ocean Colony that is consistent with the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs), similar to an action taken in Santa Cruz County that was certified by the Coastal Commission for the Seascape Beach Estates subdivision (ref. LCP-3-SCO-19-0102-1 Part A for the September 11, 2019 Commission Hearing). Staff notes that the Zoning Code currently allows golf courses and private recreation facilities in residential zoning districts with a use permit. Re-designating the Carter Hill and Matteucci PDs may necessitate creation of a new residential zoning district. Staff recommends consideration of a new large-lot rural residential zone, potentially with a range of minimum lot sizes. The Carter Hill parcels (excluding Coastside County Water District’s properties) range from about 1 acre to 19.4 acres, and the large lots off Jenna Lane in the Matteucci PD range from approximately 25,000 to 54,000 square feet. The rural residential zone could be constructed such that it accommodates these lot sizes without inducing subdivision potential and allows residential, agricultural, and agricultural compatible uses. Staff would appreciate feedback from the Planning Commission on these approaches.

3. Level of Specificity in PD Policies With the above-recommended changes, the remaining substantially undeveloped PDs include Nurserymen’s Exchange, Surf Beach/Dunes Beach, Venice Beach, West of Railroad, North Wavecrest, Podesta, and Stone Pine Public Facilities and Conservation Corridor. As pointed out in the CCC comment letter, the proposed policies for the substantially undeveloped PDs contain a level of detail that may presuppose the appropriate amount of land uses prior to site-specific studies and inhibit a flexible master planning and Coastal Commission certification process. CCC staff has provided an example of the level of detail they find appropriate in the PD policies, using Venice Beach as the example (Attachment 2). Essentially, the recommended changes are to remove the quantified estimated maximum development and the individual PD policies, leaving a higher-level discussion of the general site constraints and envisioned land uses. While City staff agrees that the suggested changes will alleviate concerns raised by both CCC staff and several PD landowners, it will be necessary to ensure that all concepts (both opportunities and constraints) contained in the deleted polices are reflected in each PD narrative and in the “factored” PD policies (Policies 2-78 through 2-100). CCC staff has also clarified that it is acceptable to use the estimated maximum development contained in the current draft to inform the buildout projections and Public Works chapter, noting that they are preliminary assumptions for infrastructure planning purposes only.

4. OSR/UR changes

25

Planning Commission – LCLUP Study Session Page 5 of 5 October 8, 2019

As discussed in the staff response memo to the CCC staff letter dated September 23, 2019, there would likely be several unintended consequences with re-designating the reserve lands to a PD. City staff has conveyed these concerns to CCC staff, and have discussed other options that would meet the intent of reducing the amount of placeholder land use designations and protecting agricultural lands. CCC staff has indicated that they understand the challenges involved with re-designating to PD and that they will not require this modification. City staff instead recommends a single reserve designation, such as “Rural Reserve”, that will cover the permitted uses in both Urban Reserve and Open Space Reserve. The intent of this designation would be to support agricultural operations, allow primary residences and farmworker housing, and retain the tiered development sequence described in Policy 2-135. CCC staff has indicated their preliminary support of this option, and City staff will be coordinating further with them on the details of this new land use designation. Input from property owners and the Planning Commission is welcome.

5. Example of ESHA buffer language

Staff concurs with the intent of simplifying ESHA policies to allow project-specific adjustments to ESHA buffers and performance standards. CCC staff has provided several examples of ESHA protection policies in other local jurisdictions that achieve this (Attachment 3). The first example is from the City of Pacific Grove, which has a fairly small coastal zone area and does not have a certified Local Coastal Program. This language was presented to the Coastal Commission for certification at their July 2019 hearing, but the item was continued and is expected to be heard again this November. The second example is from the City of Morro Bay, which is undergoing a comprehensive LCP update and is more similar to Half Moon Bay in that their jurisdiction is almost entirely within the coastal zone. As with Pacific Grove, these are also un-certified draft policies. The third example is from Marin County and was certified by the Coastal Commission in 2017. As noted by CCC staff, Half Moon Bay is unique as it has areas of urban development where a smaller ESHA buffer could be warranted, including to reflect existing development patterns, as well as more rural and undeveloped areas where a larger ESHA buffer could be warranted. Policies allowing adjustments through evidence provided by a site-specific biological assessment would help make these determinations. Minimum buffer requirements would be maintained in policy to ensure adequate ESHA protection. SUMMARY Next steps include responding to public comments and incorporating the Planning Commission’s direction on revisions for a final draft document. Progress will be brought to the Planning Commission for a joint study session with City Council on October 29, 2019. Attachments:

1. Programmatic Policies List 2. Venice Beach PD Example 3. ESHA Policies Examples

26

Planning Commission – LCLUP Study Session Attachment 1 October 8, 2019

1

Programmatic Policies in the Draft LUP Update

Green highlights indicate policies that staff considered to be more straight-forward

programmatic policies that are not specifically Coastal Act relevant or directive for

development review.

Yellow highlights indicate policies that staff identified to contain programmatic language but

may be possible to retain or re-word in the LUP update as they hold significance for Coastal Act

implementation, development review, and community and/or Planning Commission interest for

this LUP.

Potential Land Use Element Policies:

2-22. Development Impact Fees. Periodically review, prepare nexus studies, and update

development impact fees. Establish additional fiscal impact measures necessary to assure

that new development permitted by the Land Use Plan will generate sufficient revenues to

cover costs to the City for providing public services (e.g. public safety, parks, schools, roads,

and utilities, etc.).

2-31. Desired Land Uses. Encourage the development of land uses desired by the community and which contribute to quality of life. Uses include affordable and diverse housing types such as farmworker housing and smaller homes; healthcare and assisted living; light industrial including live-work and artisan uses; adaptive reuse of heritage buildings; agriculture along with supportive accessory uses; commercial including neighborhood and local-serving uses; and civic and public uses including parks and other community facilities.

2-35. Gathering Places. Foster community connection and cohesion through the development of more public gathering places.

2-37. Diversity of Commercial Land Uses. Promote a range of commercial uses, providing employment opportunities for the local population, flexible commercial space for businesses, and an array of uses and amenities that cater to residents’ everyday needs for goods and services while also supporting visitors.

2-42. Vibrant Downtown. Enhance Downtown vitality and vibrancy through promoting a diversified mixture of uses, including pedestrian-oriented residential and commercial uses, while balancing and respecting the area’s historic character. Concentrate new development in the Town Center to create a vibrant walkable center with a variety of uses and amenities.

2-43. Residential Development. Promote the development of local workforce and urban-lifestyle housing located within walking distance of amenities.

2-44. Residential Diversity. Encourage a diversity of housing types, including housing at a range of affordability levels, densities, sizes, and ownership types. Meet the needs of Half Moon Bay’s diverse population, including young families, multi-generational families, students, young professionals, and seniors.

27

Planning Commission – LCLUP Study Session Attachment 1 October 8, 2019

2

2-47. Commercial Development. Promote the development of commercial uses that fulfill a diversity of local needs; visitor-serving uses to support tourism; and office and business incubation space.

2-48. Local-Serving Commercial. Promote the development of businesses providing goods and services to Half Moon Bay residents accessible from the city’s pedestrian, bicycle, and transit networks.

2-49. Visitor-Serving Commercial. Promote the development of businesses providing goods and services to visitors, including dining, recreation, shopping, and agritourism. Consider the local and regional market demand for lower-cost options when evaluating the need for new overnight accommodations.

2-50. Mixed-Use Development. Promote mixed-use development on sites accessible by the city’s pedestrian, bicycle, and transit networks and allow flexibility for potential mixed-uses (including housing, office space, retail, restaurants, or personal services).

2-51. Pedestrian Environment. Ensure inviting, safe and comfortable pedestrian environment to encourage activity in the Town Center area.

2-52. Connectivity and Wayfinding. Improve the Town Center’s connectivity to other areas of the city, including the beaches, highways, and residential neighborhoods outside the Town Center. Increase the Town Center’s visibility and overall accessibility for travelers of all modes and abilities with wayfinding signage, gateway treatments, and Town Boulevard design elements.

2-55. Heritage Downtown Plan. Prepare and adopt an updated plan for the Heritage Downtown that includes design guidelines, accommodates new activities and buildings, enhances the area’s pedestrian-oriented character, supports bicycle circulation, and supports parking management through a “park-once-and-walk” approach to Downtown and beach access. The plan shall include measures to protect the historic architectural character of Downtown. Streetscape plans focused on smaller areas, such as Kelly Avenue or Church Street, may be considered separately or in conjunction with a more comprehensive plan for Heritage Downtown.

2-59. Highway 92 and North Main Street Study. Study the Highway 92 and North Main Street area

for redevelopment options including visitor-serving and mixed-use development

coordinated with intersection realignment or redesign to provide visitor and neighborhood

services while also addressing congestion from visitor traffic.

2-71. Complete Neighborhoods. Integrate single-family and multi-family residential neighborhoods with neighborhood shopping centers, parks, child care, and other uses to be convenient and supportive of the residential living environment.

2-72. Incompatible Uses. Protect neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompatible activities or land uses that may have a negative impact on the residential living environment.

a. Within neighborhoods: Implement neighborhood preservation and code compliance programs to address weed abatement, outside storage, and other basic property maintenance standards; establish and enforce noise and lighting performance standards.

b. Adjacent to neighborhoods: Establish and enforce performance standards for commercial, industrial, and public facilities uses including controls for noise, vibration, air quality, lighting, and visual impacts. Such standards are not applicable to interfaces with agricultural uses and right-to-farm allowances.

28

Planning Commission – LCLUP Study Session Attachment 1 October 8, 2019

3

3-3. Monitor Growth and Infrastructure Capacity. Monitor and provide public reports regarding

growth, including residential and non-residential development, infrastructure capacity, and

any changed conditions that may affect growth, infrastructure capacity, or the regulatory

requirements associated with infrastructure and development, every three years.

3-15. Water Connection Allocation Process for Proposed Development. Consult with CCWD to

establish a process for allocating water connections for development proposals that includes

temporary conditional reservations for development proposals contingent on entitlement

review, selling connections after entitlements are granted, and expiring or otherwise

returning connections to the district’s inventory if the development does not proceed within

as established period of time.

3-27. Treatment Plant Vulnerability. Support vulnerability studies for the SAM treatment plant to

determine risk of aging infrastructure and coastal hazards including erosions and

sedimentation, flooding, storm surges, and sea level rise. Studies should address the longevity

of the treatment plant and options for protection, retreat or relocation.

3-29. Sewer Service District Study. Study SAM JPA agency structure and operations and consider

establishing new boundaries between agencies or consolidating agencies if it would be

supportive to performance, coordination, organization efficiency, or other goals agreed upon

by the JPA member agencies.

3-39. One Water. Collaborate with Coastside County Water District and the Sewer Authority Mid-

Coastside to consider the potential applicability of a One Water approach to the City’s water

systems management.

3-43. Interagency Coordination. Work with San Mateo County, Caltrans, and other applicable

agencies to coordinate the Town Boulevard concept and other circulation improvements

with the Comprehensive Transportation Management Plan.

4-3. Incentives for Continued Agricultural Use. Provide incentives for landowners to maintain

land in productive agricultural use, including affirmative agricultural easements and

Williamson Act contracts.

4-23. Interagency Consultation for Agriculture Preservation. Consult with other agencies and

organizations including but not limited to San Mateo County, Coastal Conservancy, San Mateo

County Resource Conservation District, Coastside Land Trust, POST, non-profits and others

as applicable to provide a comprehensive, effectual, and innovative range of agriculture

preservation strategies, comprehensive water conservation approaches, and incentives to

promote the continued agricultural use in Half Moon Bay and the unincorporated Midcoast.

4-24. Agricultural Runoff. Coordinate with the jurisdictional regulatory agencies and the San Mateo

County Resource Conservation District to encourage agricultural operations to update and

enhance their practices for minimizing water quality impacts due to runoff, particularly in

areas at increased risk of flooding.

8-2. Cultural Resources Awareness. Promote community education and awareness of the region’s culture, history, and historical resources through a variety of means, including the provision of arts and cultural offerings and exhibits accessible to all members of the community. Inform the public that any potential archaeological finds should be reported to the City immediately.

29

Planning Commission – LCLUP Study Session Attachment 1 October 8, 2019

4

8-3. Cultural Resources Inventory Updates. Update the Planning Commission on the status of and any changes to the City’s cultural resources inventory, districts and designations every 2-5 years, or as otherwise appropriate.

8-14. Historic Resources Inventory. Prepare, maintain, and update no less than every five years a comprehensive inventory of buildings, structure, objects, and areas of historic, architectural, and engineering significance in Half Moon Bay.

8-15. Historic Resource Designation. Assess potential historic resources; and if eligible, resources shall be brought forth for resource designation to the highest level to which they are eligible. Consider establishing a district of local importance in the heritage downtown area.

8-16. Historic Resources Preservation Ordinance. Review and update the Historic Resources Preservation Ordinance periodically, at a minimum ensuring continued compliance with CEQA and the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, repair and maintenance, and reconstruction of historic resources.

8-17. Historic Resource Protection. Continue to protect, preserve, and/or restore identified historic resources through the Historic Resources Preservation chapter of the City’s Zoning Ordinance (part of the City’s Local Coastal Implementation Plan).

8-18. Historic Resource Evaluation. Require historic resource evaluations for all development applications associated with potential historic resources on or adjacent to the proposed project site. Historic resources identified through this process shall be included in the historic resources inventory.

8-19. Historic Resource Training. The City shall provide periodic training to the Planning Commission and City staff regarding the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Secretary of Interior’s Standards.

8-20. Adaptive Reuse of Historic Resources. Encourage adaptive reuse of historic structures compatible with surrounding development and preserving the historical integrity of the structures. Establish guidelines for adaptive reuse in the Historic Resources Preservation Ordinance.

8-21. City-Owned Historic Resources. Maintain historic City-owned properties such as the Johnston House, Historic Train Depot, Half Moon Bay Historic Jail, Johnston Barn and others and make them available to the public.

8-22. Mills Act Contracts Program. Establish a Mills Act Contracts Program to incentivize private property owners to ensure the restoration and preservation of qualified historic buildings through agreed-upon scheduled maintenance repairs and restoration.

8-23. Restoration Grant Program. Study the feasibility of establishing a grant program for funding historic resource restoration projects, and pursue other related state and federal grant funding opportunities.

9-22. Town Forest. Plan for long term maintenance and diversification of a resilient town forest by

preparing a preemptive tree replacement plan for significant stands of trees.

9-45. Right-of-Way Signage. Minimize the use of parking and directional signage and locate it so as

to not encroach into any pedestrian path or sidewalk. Establish a program for creating

consistent highway, directional, and parking signage, and remove or consolidate excess

signage where feasible.

30

Planning Commission – LCLUP Study Session Attachment 1 October 8, 2019

5

Potential Open Space and Conservation Element Policies:

2-154. Land Trust Properties. In collaboration with land trusts and other public entities support efforts to establish lands in conservation easements including the Railroad Avenue conservation corridor, lands in and around the North Wavecrest PD, and others as they may be acquired over the planning horizon.

2-165. Regional Public Recreation Funding. Coordinate with State Parks to seek grant funding and

other support for maintenance and operations, planning and other needs.

6-5. Community Education. Provide educational opportunities and interpretation in conservation

areas as feasible to broaden community appreciation and awareness, considering potential

impacts to sensitive habitats and special-status species.

6-6. Land Conservation. Foster partnerships with agencies, trusts, and conservation

organizations to strategically acquire and assemble open space lands for conservation.

6-15. Reporting Biological Sightings. Encourage the reporting and verification of special-status

species sightings in the Planning Area with the California Natural Diversity Database and with

a qualified biologist. Inform and educate the public on how to identify, report, and protect

special-status species.

6-99. Priority Conservation Areas. Coordinate with the Association of Bay Area Governments to

support Priority Conservation Areas in Half Moon Bay and identify lands that could qualify as

a Priority Conservation Area.

6-100. Mitigation Banking. Utilize mitigation banks as a means to compensate for natural resource

impacts elsewhere, and to accomplish resource management and habitat restoration goals.

Qualify the City as a recipient for mitigation banking projects and coordinate with the

appropriate resource management agencies to establish mitigation banks and habitat

restoration plans.

6-101. Partnerships for Open Space Conservation and Habitat Management. Coordinate with San

Mateo County, the State of California, the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District,

Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, and other related local, state, or federal

conservation and environmental organizations to strategically acquire and manage lands to

be conserved as open space for hazard avoidance and habitat protection.

6-103. Public Acquisition. Establish a program to partner with state, federal, and non-profit

organizations to acquire and protect natural resource areas for public use, including areas

that could serve as refugia for species impacted by sea level rise, or areas that could be

appropriate sites for coastal habitat creation or restoration.

6-110. Ecosystem Function. Pursue strategies to protect ecosystem function under a range of future

sea level rise or climate change scenarios. Recommend coastal habitat management

strategies that strive to protect ecosystem function in the future, including protecting a wide

range of ecosystem types, protecting refugia, protecting wildlife and habitat corridors, and

establishing methods to monitor ecosystem change over time.

6-113. Dune Management. Identify existing dune systems and develop or encourage management

plans to enhance and restore these areas, including consideration of ways that the system

will change with rising sea level.

31

Planning Commission – LCLUP Study Session Attachment 1 October 8, 2019

6

6-114. Regional Sediment Management. Collaborate with regional efforts to develop a Regional

Sediment Management (RSM) program that includes strategies designed to allow the use of

natural processes to solve engineering problems. Local sediment management actions and

policies can also be implemented through an RSM.

6-121. Watershed Planning. Support and participate in watershed planning efforts. Coordinate with

San Mateo County, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and other agencies.

6-122. Groundwater Management. Plan and coordinate monitoring, operation, and administration

of a groundwater basin or portion of a groundwater basin with the goal of fostering long-term

sustainability of the resource. Specify limits or establish other standards for the use of

groundwater and sensitive aquifers. Coordinate with other regional water planning efforts.

6-123. Groundwater Analysis. Encourage or support ongoing and new analysis to develop reliable

data to better understand groundwater resources and the potential/limitation for increased

public/municipal use.

6-124. Seawater Intrusion. Promote research to increase the understanding of the vulnerability of

coastal aquifers to seawater intrusion and establish a long-term strategy for addressing risks.

6-146. Sea Level Rise Impacts and Runoff Pollution. Coordinate with the Regional Water Quality

Control Board and San Mateo County Resource Conservation District to add policies to reduce

water pollution from runoff should agricultural lands or other sources of non-point pollution

become flooded or inundated due to sea level rise.

6-147. Citywide Drainage Master Plan. Complete an update of the Citywide Drainage Master Plan,

incorporating an inventory of stormwater infrastructure and hydraulic and hydrologic

analysis to identify inadequate infrastructure, especially in areas identified as having

localized flooding, erosion, or sedimentation concerns. Include sea level rise and extreme

storms in stormwater management plans and actions. (Note: similar policy is included in

Chapter 3. Public Works (3-35) and Chapter 7. Coastal Hazards (7-52).)

6-148. Flood Mapping. Support efforts to update the City’s FEMA flood mapping with historical

information collection, grant funding, and studies. (Note: similar policy is included in Chapter

7. Coastal Hazards (7-43).

6-151. Education and Outreach. Continue and expand public education and outreach to reduce

industrial and illicit discharges to stormwater infrastructure.

6-152. Analysis of Pollutant Sources. Encourage or support ongoing and new analysis to understand

surface water quality pollution sources, especially in Pilarcitos Creek.

6-156. Wastewater Infrastructure Retrofit, Relocation, and Removal. Establish a program to retrofit,

relocate, or eliminate ocean outfalls and other wastewater infrastructure, including private

septic systems, deemed at risk. Alternatives include modifications to outfall lines, the use of

green infrastructure, and redesign of waste and stormwater systems. Identify areas where

sea level rise could affect flow of wastewater from outfalls and lead to backup and inland

flooding, and plan to retrofit, relocate, or eliminate these outfalls to prevent damage and

impacts to water quality.

6-157. Wastewater Treatment. Coordinate with the Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside to develop a

retrofit strategy to manage impacts from sea level rise-related coastal flooding to ensure 32

Planning Commission – LCLUP Study Session Attachment 1 October 8, 2019

7

continued function of the facility while minimizing risks to sensitive coastal habitats and

water quality from damage or overflows.

Potential Safety Element Policies:

7-2. Climate Change Agency Coordination. Coordinate with San Mateo County and other local, regional, and State agencies on efforts to study and implement climate change adaptation measures and resiliency planning including, but not limited to, green infrastructure, managed retreat, water conservation and reuse, and wildland fire prevention.

7-3. Climate Change Research. Consider, support and contribute to climate change research

efforts including USGS coastal erosion modeling, as well as on-going analysis by the California Coastal Commission, Coastal Conservancy, Ocean Protection Council and other agencies working to further the understanding of climate change impacts on coastal communities.

7-4. Climate Change Education. Provide and support climate change education throughout the community, including through the community college and local school district, the library, and City Parks and Recreation programming.

7-5. Climate Action Planning. Prepare a climate action plan with performance measures to document and track the city’s greenhouse gas inventory and efforts to meet State greenhouse gas reduction targets over time.

7-22. Blufftop Development Relocation Program. Develop a relocation program, in conjunction

with state and federal agencies, to provide incentives to relocate development out of

hazardous areas and to acquire oceanfront properties that have been or will be damaged by

coastal hazards in situations where relocation of development to a safer location on the site,

or additional protection measures, are not feasible.

7-41. Interagency Coordination. Coordinate with federal, state and local jurisdictions, and agencies

involved in the mitigation of flood hazards from dam inundation, tsunamis, sea level rise, and

major flood events (e.g. SFWD, NOAA, Cal OES, FEMA).

7-42. Emergency Warning System. Update, maintain, and improve the City’s emergency warning

system as consistent with local, state, and federal standards.

7-62. Fire District Coordination. Work with the CFPD to provide fire prevention services and

programming and ensure adequate emergency response services. Request updates from the

District regarding training and fire prevention programs to ensure that the City is supported

adequately through best practices.

7-64. Fire Prevention Programs. Coordinate with the CFPD to ensure the continuation of fire

prevention programs such as weed abatement and enforcement of Uniform Fire Code

Requirements, and ensure consistency with and implementation of applicable fire protection

plans such as the City and County’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plans, Cal Fire’s CZU Unit Plan,

and the Cal Office of Emergency Services Plan. Support the District in their efforts to provide

community education about fire prevention and fire safety.

33

Planning Commission – LCLUP Study Session Attachment 1 October 8, 2019

8

7-76. Fire Flow Upgrades. Work with the CFPD and Coastside County Water District to establish

and maintain a priority list for upgrading fire flow capabilities in neighborhoods that may

have inadequate fire flows. Fire flow upgrades may require upsizing water mains solely for

the purpose of establishing and maintaining adequate fire flow to protect existing

development; and not for accommodating future growth. This distinction shall be

acknowledged and documented for each such upgrade and restrictions limiting future use of

expanded capacity to fire protection shall be implemented.

7-81. Interagency Cooperation. Continue to work with other state and local jurisdictions to address

sea level rise issues.

7-84. Outreach and Education. Encourage public outreach and education addressing climate

change and sea level rise impacts on the City’s coastal resources, development, and

infrastructure. Provide public information and guidance through workshops, signage, and

other outreach tools.

7-101. Rolling Easements. Establish a program of rolling easements to allow coastal lands and

habitats, including beaches and wetlands, to migrate landward over time as the mean high

tide line and public trust boundary moves inland with sea level rise.

7-102. Relocation Incentives. Provide incentives to relocate development out of hazardous areas.

Consider creating a relocation fund through increased development fees, in lieu fees, or other

funding mechanisms.

7-103. Acquisition and Buyout Programs. Establish an acquisition plan or buyout program to acquire

property at risk from flooding or other hazards. Acquisition includes the acquiring of land

from the individual landowner(s). Structures may be demolished or relocated, the property

is restored, and future development on the land is restricted.

34

Planning Commission – LCLUP Study Session Attachment 2

October 8, 2019

Venice Beach

Site Area 44 acres gross, estimated 31 acres net

Potentially Allowed

Uses

Residential, commercial recreation, agriculture, equestrian, public

coastal access and recreation

Estimated Maximum

Development

- Minimum 10 acres of agriculture or outdoor visitor-serving

recreation north of Venice Boulevard; and either

- 62 residential units (22 additional units with affordable housing

density bonus); or

- 42 residential units (15 additional units with affordable housing

density bonus) and an additional 10 acres maintained in outdoor

commercial recreation or agritourism uses

Development (2018) 4 residential units; non-agricultural equestrian operations

Natural Resources Much of the PD is identified as potential ESHA with suitable habitat

for CRLF and SFGS; adjacent to State Parks coastal lands including

dunes, wetlands, and other sensitive areas; Frenchmans Creek and

its riparian area along north side of the PD including past monarch

butterfly overwintering site and presence of steelhead; dusky footed

woodrat nest previously sited

Coastal Access Venice Boulevard

Coastal Recreation Adjacent to State Parks beaches

Agriculture Equestrian operations, mostly prime soils

Hazards Potential localized flooding from Frenchmans Creek; fire hazard

associated with eucalyptus forest habitat on both sides of the

riparian corridor

Visual Resources Broad ocean views across the site from Highway 1; expansive views

of foothills from Coastal Trail and Beach; Frenchmans Creek riparian

corridor and significant tree stands

The Venice Beach area is a partially developed area totaling about 44 acres. It is bordered on the north by Frenchmans Creek and on the south by the Casa del Mar subdivision. Venice Boulevard, an unimproved road to Venice Beach, bisects the area. An old, primarily unimproved subdivision known as Venice Beach encompasses 5 acres on both sides of Venice Boulevard; several old substandard lots have been developed for 4 homes, with approximately 94 vacant lots remaining. North of the subdivisions, there are two parcels totaling almost 9 acres; most of this area is used for a commercial equestrian operation, providing stables, rentals, and trails to the equestrian trail adjacent to the Coastal Trail and State Beach. South of the subdivision, three parcels totaling 14 acres are developed although they may have been used in the past to raise hay or barley. Drainage conditions, as in the Surf Beach/Dunes Beach area, are considered poor. It is anticipated that stormwater

35

Planning Commission – LCLUP Study Session Attachment 2

October 8, 2019

2-2

management using green infrastructure measures will require additional land area to be effective in the Venice PD.

This Land Use Plan update confirms the land uses proposed for this PD in 1993: residential and commercial recreation use, while also emphasizing potential for agricultural uses. Similar to other PD areas, the proposed buildout is lower to reflect realistic carrying capacity of the site and Highway 1. Past biological resource evaluation of the western and southern portions of the PD indicate that these areas may be especially important as part of a habitat corridor and are characterized by Central Coast Scrub which has been less disturbed by than other portions of the PD. Several sitings of CRLF have occurred in this area as indicated in Figure 6-3. The northern portion of the PD is fully developed with recreation equestrian uses. The net developable land for residential development includes approximately 20 acres within the middle of the PD, bisected by Venice Boulevard. With a base density of 2 residential units per acre, maximum residential development is 40 units, which could be increased to 54 units pursuant to a density bonus. Smaller units are specified by policy.

Similar to the Surf Beach/Dunes Beach PD, Venice Beach PD offers a bi-directional viewshed with broad ocean views across the site from Highway 1 and expansive views of the foothills from the Coastal Trail and Beach. Venice Boulevard is a designated coastal access route and view corridor. Because the most developable portion of the site for a residential neighborhood is centrally located around Venice Boulevard, policy directs clustering development either towards Highway 1 or on either side of Venice Boulevard to maintain distance from potential habitat areas as well as to keep development setback from Venice State Beach. The 1993 Land Use Plan specified a 15-foot height limit for Venice Beach PD and other visual resource areas on the west side of Highway 1. This requirement is brought forward and allows for increased heights in cases where they would not obstruct public views to the ocean from the highway that and provide for better clustering of development.

Venice Boulevard is the primary vehicular point of access to the PD. The 1993 Land Use Plan considered shifting Venice Boulevard north to align with Frenchmans Creek Road. The 1993 plan also included an inland route (“Foothill Boulevard”) which was to connect Highway 92 to Frenchmans Creek Road as a parallel bypass of Highway 1. This circulation option is no longer desired or feasible. Thus, the volume of traffic on Frenchmans Creek Road is not expected to increase significantly over time and does not justify establishing a significant intersection improvement at that location. Retention of Venice Boulevard in its current location is preferred because it delineates the developed north side of the PD from the south side which has potentially high habitat value. Instead of realignment of Venice Boulevard, a Class 1 bicycle and pedestrian path could be established on this alignment to connect the Naomi Patridge Trail to the California Coastal Trail. This alignment would also serve as a buffer between the new residential neighborhood and existing or future commercial recreation or agricultural uses.

1993 Land Use Plan also anticipated the potential for a frontage road to handle the traffic; however, a frontage road would impinge upon the Naomi Patridge Trail and is likely not needed for this level of development. Round-abouts or other intersection improvements are contemplated for both the Nurserymen’s Exchange and Surf Beach/Dunes Beach PDs should

36

Planning Commission – LCLUP Study Session Attachment 2

October 8, 2019

2-3

they, but in both of those cases, the improvements would address access needs for both sides of Highway 1. This is not the case for Venice and would also result in an intersection improvement in close proximity to the signalized intersection of Ruisseau Francais Avenue. The paper subdivision also anticipated extension of Pilarcitos Avenue from the Casa del Mar neighborhood as a primary roadway in a future development. This alignment conflicts with ESHA and further study of this area for this Land Use Plan update confirms that vehicular access between Casa del Mar and a future neighborhood in the Venice PD is precluded by existing development and the need for habitat protection. Site access will be a primary challenge for planning this PD and may necessitate reduced buildout if it cannot be accomplished without conflict with the needs of agriculture circulation on the other side of the highway.

37

Planning Commission – LCLUP Study Session Attachment 2

October 8, 2019

2-4

Venice Beach Policies

2-1. Venice Beach Master Plan. Require that a specific plan be certified for the entire area

to establish a new neighborhood. The specific plan shall incorporate all of the

conditions below and conform to all other policies of the Land Use Plan. The specific

plan must show the locations of infrastructure and structures, and indicate the

location, amount, and type of public and private recreation facilities and open space.

The specific plan will be subject to Environmental Review pursuant to the California

Environmental Quality Act and City CEQA Guidelines. The specific plan shall

incorporate all of the following requirements:

a. Development Type and Estimated Maximum Buildout. Development may include:

i. Residential. 42 residential units (15 additional units with affordable housing density bonus): and in-lieu of the ten acres of commercial recreational uses north of Venice Boulevard, an additional 62 units (22 additional units with affordable housing density bonus). Additional buildout restrictions apply as follows:

1. Residential units shall consist of a mix of unit types including single-family detached, single-family attached, cottages, or duplexes.

2. Maximum and average home sizes established in the specific plan shall be consistent with the Land Use Plan’s provisions for housing affordability in Policy 2-91.

3. Accessory dwelling units associated with a primary unit shall not be counted toward the total buildout.

ii. Priority Uses. At least ten acres of any combination of the following:

1. Commercial recreation. Outdoor commercial recreation including equestrian uses; or

2. Visitor-serving commercial businesses. Agri- or ecotourism businesses, without overnight accommodations.

b. Development Phasing. The PD may be developed in at most three phases including one phase for the residential development and up to two phases for commercial recreation or agricultural uses.

c. Development Location. Residential development shall be sited so as to maintain Venice Boulevard as a view corridor, preferably clustered either near Highway 1, or on either side of Venice Boulevard.

d. Dune and Bluff Protection and Buffers. Require suitable landscaping, fencing, and other means to ensure that direct pedestrian access to the State Beach property is controlled and limited from the new residential development.

e. Vehicular Access. Primary access shall be provided from Venice Boulevard. If intersection improvements are determined to be necessary, they shall be consistent with the Town Boulevard concept to maintain circulation safety and

38

Planning Commission – LCLUP Study Session Attachment 2

October 8, 2019

2-5

service levels. Up to one additional access point north of Venice Boulevard shall be provided for the commercial uses. If an intersection improvement at Venice Boulevard is found to be necessary, a frontage road between Venice Boulevard and the north access point shall be provided parallel to the Naomi Patridge Trail. Access and egress to the development shall be subject to review and approval by the City and Caltrans, and shall be designed in such a manner as to be safe, convenient, and not conflict with any existing or future development permitted in the area.

f. Bicycle and Pedestrian Access. Class 1 bicycle and pedestrian facilities shall be

provided in approximate alignment with Rousseau Francais to connect the

Naomi Patridge Trail to the California Coastal Trail and to provide a buffer

between residential and commercial or agricultural uses.

g. Special Site Planning and View Provisions. Structures shall be clustered,

maintained low in height, or constructed at low elevations to the maximum

extent feasible and specific view corridors shall be established (including the

Venice Boulevard right-of-way) and protected by easements so as to maintain

views of the ocean from Highway 1. Specific requirements include:

i. Height. Structures shall have a maximum height of 15 feet unless an increase

in height would not obstruct public views to the ocean from the highway or

would facilitate clustering of development so as to result in greater view

protection;

ii. Setbacks. Generally, structures shall be setback 100 feet from Highway 1, the

western side of the site abutting State Parks Beach lands, and 100 feet from

Venice Boulevard.

iii. Neighborhood Park. Concurrently with the residential development, a

neighborhood park available for public use of at least 1 acre in size shall be

provided; preferable on the north side of the neighborhood connected to the

bicycle and pedestrian Class 1 trail and to provide additional separation

from the commercial uses.

iv. Sweetwood Group Camp Considerations. Noise, lighting, and other visual

and use impacts shall be considered in the specific plan to maintain the

remote and quiet character of the Sweetwood Group Camp northwest of the

PD.

39

Planning Commission – LCLUP Study Session Attachment 3 October 8, 2019

PACIFIC GROVE: DRAFT POLICIES

BIO-1. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas, or “ESHAs,” are defined as any area in which plant

or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special

nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human

activities and developments. In Pacific Grove these areas include, but are not limited to,

dune, wetland, streams, coastal bluff, sandy and rocky beaches, intertidal and subtidal

zones, tide pools, kelp forests, offshore reefs, rocks, and islets, and rookery areas.

BIO-2. Development in Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas, as defined in BIO-1 and Coastal Act

§30107.5, shall be limited to uses dependent on the resource (e.g., habitat restoration,

scientific research, and low-intensity public access and recreation), and shall be sited

and designed to protect against significant disruption of habitat values including to rare and

endangered species. Other stabilizing native dune plants shall also be protected, relocated,

or replanted with similar native plants.

The City will determine and designate other areas in the Coastal Zone which have high

biological sensitivity and establish appropriate protections for those areas.

Notwithstanding, one house may be constructed on legal lots of record within the Asilomar

Dunes Residential Area provided that the development area is limited in size and located in

the portion of the lot that results in the least impact on sensitive habitat.

BIO-3. Applications for development within and near Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas,

including wetlands and streams, shall be accompanied by a habitat assessment prepared by

a qualified biological and a botanical survey by a qualified expert prepared at the owner’s

expense, prior to consideration of a project within the City.

The habitat assessment and botanical survey shall, at a minimum, identify and confirm the

extent of the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area, document any site constraints and the

presence of sensitive species, recommend buffers and development setbacks and standards

to protect the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area, recommend mitigation measures to

address any allowable impacts, and include any other information and analyses necessary to

understand potential Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area impacts as well as measures

necessary to protect the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area resource as required by the

Local Coastal Program.

40

Planning Commission – LCLUP Study Session Attachment 3 October 8, 2019

BIO-4. Preserve and maintain wetlands in the Coastal Zone as productive wildlife habitats and

protect wetlands against significant disruption of habitat values. The only allowed uses

within wetlands shall be those specified in Coastal Act §30233 (see also MAR-2).

Development shall be set back from wetlands a minimum of 100 feet. A wider buffer may be

required based on the results of a site assessment that finds a buffer greater than 100 feet

in width is necessary to protect wetland resources from the impacts of the proposed

development, including construction and post- construction impacts. Existing development

may be redeveloped provided it does not create new impacts nor increase impacts to

wetlands.

BIO-5. Preserve and maintain coastal streams, and limit development within streams to those

specifically allowed per Coastal Act §30236. Development shall be set back from streams

through buffers of a sufficient width to protect streams from the impacts of adjacent uses,

including impacts from construction and post- construction activities, and such buffers shall

be maintained in a natural condition. The only development and uses allowed within the

buffer are those that help to protect stream resources, such as plantings for screening,

buffering and habitat continuity/enhancement. The buffer shall be the following, whichever

is wider on both sides of the stream:

a. The area extending 50 feet from the outer edge of the riparian vegetation (measured

perpendicularly from the direction of the stream itself); or

b. The area extending 100 feet from the top of the stream bank (measured perpendicularly

from the direction of the stream itself); or

c. Wider setback distances as recommended by a site-specific biological site assessment.

MORRO BAY: DRAFT POLICIES

Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas, or “ESHAs,” are defined as any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem, and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments. In the Morro Bay coastal zone, these areas include, but are not limited to:

a. Aquatic Resources and Wetland Habitats, which include all year-round and seasonal rivers and streams, wetlands (including fresh and salt water marshes), and riparian vegetation;

b. Sensitive Natural Communities, which include foredune, backdune/dune scrub, coastal bluff faces, and coastal strand environments; and

41

Planning Commission – LCLUP Study Session Attachment 3 October 8, 2019

c. Breeding and Overwintering Sites, which include all roosts, nests, and rookeries for such

species as herons, egrets, cormorants, and peregrine falcons, and all documented monarch butterfly overwintering roosts.

Development in ESHA. Development in ESHA (as defined in Policy C-1.1 and Coastal Act Section 30107.5) shall be limited to uses dependent on the resource (i.e., habitat restoration, scientific research, and low-intensity public access and recreation), as well as the uses specified in Coastal Act Sections 30233 and 30236 for wetlands and streams, respectively. All allowable development in ESHA shall be sited and designed to protect against significant disruption of habitat values, including to rare and endangered species. Development in areas adjacent to ESHA shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitats.

Biological Site Assessments. A biological assessment shall be required for any development proposed on sites that include or are within 100 feet of mapped ESHA in Figure C-2, on all other sites with natural vegetation regardless of whether ESHA has been mapped in Figure C-2, and for all other projects for which evidence indicates that ESHA may be present either on or adjacent to the site. Such assessment shall be prepared at the owner’s expense by a qualified biologist approved by the City and shall, at minimum:

a. identify and confirm the extent of the ESHA,

b. document any site constraints and the presence of sensitive plant or animal species;

c. recommend buffers and development setbacks and standards to protect the ESHA;

d. recommend mitigation measures to address any allowable impacts; and

e. include any other information and analyses necessary to understand potential ESHA impacts as well as measures necessary to protect the resource as required by the Local Coastal Program.

If the site contains the potential for monarch overwintering or rookeries due to the presence of appropriately sized trees and groves, a seasonally timed survey appropriate for detecting the target species must also be included in the study.

ESHA Buffers. Development shall be set back from ESHA through buffers of a sufficient width and design to protect ESHA resources from the impacts of adjacent uses, including impacts from construction and post-construction activities, and such buffers shall be maintained in a natural condition, with the only allowed uses being the ones allowed in the ESHA itself. For aquatic resources and wetlands, the buffer shall be the following, whichever is wider, on both sides of the stream:

a. For rivers, streams and riparian areas, the required buffer shall extend at least 50 feet from the outer edge of riparian vegetation on both sides of the river, stream, and/or riparian area (or 50 feet from the top of the river, stream, or riparian area bank for areas without riparian vegetation).

42

Planning Commission – LCLUP Study Session Attachment 3 October 8, 2019

b. For wetlands, the required buffer shall extend at least 100 feet from the edge of the

wetland.

c. For all other ESHA, the buffer shall be a minimum of 50 feet.

These widths may be adjusted by the City as appropriate to protect the ESHA habitat values, but shall not be less than 25 feet, and shall only be allowed if the reduced buffer provides the same or greater protection to the ESHA than the required buffer. Such buffer adjustment shall be made on the basis of a biological site assessment supported by substantial evidence that includes but is not limited to:

a. Sensitivity of the ESHA, including any sensitive species, to disturbance.

b. Habitat requirements of the ESHA, including the migratory patterns of affected species and tendency to return each season to the same nest site or breeding colony.

c. Topography of the site.

d. Movement of stormwater.

e. Permeability of the soils and depth to water table.

f. Vegetation present.

g. Unique site conditions.

h. Whether vegetative, natural topographic, or built features (e.g., roads, structures) provide a physical barrier between the proposed development and the ESHA.

i. The likelihood of increased human activity and disturbance resulting from the project relative to existing development.

MARIN COUNTY: CERTIFIED POLICIES

C-BIO-1 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs).

1. An environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) is any area in which plant or animal life or their

habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and

which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments.

2. ESHA consists of three general categories: wetlands, streams and riparian vegetation, and terrestrial

ESHAs. Terrestrial ESHA includes non-aquatic habitats that support rare and endangered species; coastal

dunes as referenced in C-BIO-7 (Coastal Dunes); roosting and nesting habitats as referenced in C-BIO-10

(Roosting and Nesting Habitats); and riparian vegetation that is not associated with a perennial or

intermittent stream. The ESHA policies of C-BIO-2 (ESHA Protection) and C-BIO-3 (ESHA Buffers) apply to

all categories of ESHA, except where modified by the more specific policies of the LCP.

43

Planning Commission – LCLUP Study Session Attachment 3 October 8, 2019

C-BIO-2 ESHA Protection.

1. Protect ESHAs against disruption of habitat values, and only allow uses within those areas that are

dependent on those resources or otherwise specifically provided in C-BIO-14 (Wetlands), C-BIO-15

(Diking, Filling, Draining and Dredging) or C-BIO-23 (Coastal Streams and Riparian Vegetation).

Disruption of habitat values includes when the physical habitat is significantly altered or when species

diversity or the abundance or viability of species populations is reduced. The type of proposed

development, the particulars of its design, and its location in relation to the habitat area, will affect the

determination of disruption.

2. Accessways and trails that are fundamentally associated with the interpretation of the resource are

resource dependent uses that shall be sited and designed to protect ESHAs against significant disruption

of habitat values in accordance with Policy C-BIO-2.1. Where it is not feasible to avoid ESHA, the design

and development of accessways and trails shall minimize intrusions to the smallest feasible area and

least impacting routes. As necessary to protect ESHAs, trails shall incorporate measures to control the

timing, intensity or location of access (e.g., seasonal closures, placement of boardwalks, limited fencing,

etc.).

3. Avoid fence types, roads, and structures that significantly inhibit wildlife movement, especially access

to water.

4. Development proposals within or adjacent to ESHA will be reviewed subject to a biological site

assessment prepared by a qualified biologist hired by the County and paid for by the applicant. The

purpose of the biological site assessment is to confirm the extent of the ESHA, document any site

constraints and the presence of other sensitive biological resources, recommend buffers, development

timing, mitigation measures including precise required setbacks, provide a site restoration program

where necessary, and provide other information, analysis and modifications appropriate to protect the

resource.

C-BIO-3 ESHA Buffers.

1. In areas adjacent to ESHAs and parks and recreation areas, site and design development to prevent

impacts that would significantly degrade those areas, and to be compatible with the continued viability

of those habitat and recreation areas.

2. Provide buffers for wetlands, streams and riparian vegetation in accordance with C-BIO-18 and C-BIO-

23, respectively.

3. Establish buffers for terrestrial ESHA to provide separation from development impacts. Maintain such

buffers in a natural condition, allowing only those uses that will not significantly degrade the habitat.

Buffers for terrestrial ESHA shall be 50 feet, a width that may be adjusted by the County as appropriate

to protect the habitat value of the resource, but in no case shall be less than 25 feet. Such adjustment

shall be made on the basis of a biological site assessment supported by evidence that includes but is not

limited to:

44

Planning Commission – LCLUP Study Session Attachment 3 October 8, 2019

a. Sensitivity of the ESHA to disturbance;

b. Habitat requirements of the ESHA, including the migratory patterns of affected species and

tendency to return each season to the same nest site or breeding colony;

c. Topography of the site;

d. Movement of stormwater;

e. Permeability of the soils and depth to water table;

f. Vegetation present;

g. Unique site conditions;

h. Whether vegetative, natural topographic, or built features (e.g., roads, structures) provide a

physical barrier between the proposed development and the ESHA; and

i. The likelihood of increased human activity and disturbance resulting from the project relative to

existing development.

45