The final verdict is still up in the air. Thursday’s action kicks off a lengthy review process, and the ball is in the county’s court to respond to the commission’s decision.
Staff members at the county and commission worked through 2009 to reach consensus on a number of major changes to the LCP. Of 20 key subject areas on the table, both sides came to terms on all but seven before the commission meeting last week. The commission approved its own modifications in those areas.
|
|
** Reducing the annual growth rate on the Midcoast from the current 125 new units per year to 40 units per year.
** Prohibiting new private wells until the county develops a comprehensive Midcoast groundwater management plan.
** And re-zoning the Burnham Strip in El Granada to conditionally allow for community centers such as a library or performance venue, as well as public parking, bathrooms and trails.
By instituting allowances and limitations on infrastructure build-out and residential growth, the program will steer Midcoast development for decades to come. Both sides say the revisions constitute the most extensive LCP update in the past 20 years.
Given that both bodies have thoroughly evaluated each proposed policy change and meticulously carved out their respective stances on those policies, the county’s next move hinges on the costs and benefits of waging a fight over the plan.
“I think one of the serious challenges is, if we reject this, then we operate under the current Local Coastal Plan, and some of the beneficial changes that the board supported would be lost,” or further postponed, said county Supervisor Rich Gordon. “There would then be a discussion of, would we want to resubmit and go through another whole process, with more staff costs and staff time?”
The predicament also merits a discussion of the philosophical differences between each side’s duties and principles, Gordon said. The board’s responsibilities are relative to the county’s local land-use planning, whereas the commission’s primary duty is to uphold the merits of the Coastal Act.
“There will be some opportunity for conversation at the county level about what the commission did and how they see their mandate at a state level, and how we see our responsibility at a local level,” Gordon said.
The county has six months to respond, during which the board will entertain public comment, Gordon said.
At the same meeting, the commission approved two additional regulations pertaining to Midcoast development. The first is an ordinance requiring new radio and cell phone towers to be placed on the east side of Highway 1, out of public view and away from wildlife habitat. The second requires that drought-tolerant landscaping be applied to Midcoast residential design standards.
w