Council Rallies Against County Bid to Weaken Mid Coast Housing Cap

The Midcoast Community Council turned a routine Tuesday night into a defense of the 40-unit annual housing cap, pushing back hard against a county proposal to retroactively recount a decade of unused building permits — a move members and residents said would reward developers at the expense of overtaxed roads, water, and sewer systems. The council also locked in at-large election rules for November and launched a candidate recruitment drive with a July deadline looming.

• Council unanimously opposes county plan to retroactively average unused housing permits back to 2013, directing three members to draft a formal opposition letter to the Board of Supervisors and Coastal Commission

• Residents blast the proposal on infrastructure grounds, citing evacuation failures, sewer overflows, water shortages, and unfunded transportation plans

• County planning official reveals long-term goal of raising the cap to 75 units per year, drawing sharp pushback from the council

• At-large election resolution approved unanimously after the council votes 3-2 to reject candidate statement reimbursement

• Safe Parking program for RV dwellers faces June funding cliff; advocates urge MCC to help sustain wraparound services that have returned 38% of participants to housing

The 40-Unit Cap Fight: County Wants a Do-Over on a Decade of Permits

The centerpiece of the meeting — consuming more than 80 minutes of debate — was a county proposal to change how the Mid Coast's 40-unit annual housing cap is calculated, a move that would effectively erase the impact of the massive 102-unit Cypress Point project approved in 2025.

The basics: San Mateo County Local Coastal Program (LCP) Policy 1.23 limits new residential construction on the Mid Coast to roughly 40 units per year, with a three-year forward-looking average to smooth annual fluctuations. The Cypress Point project consumed 102 of those permits in a single year, freezing new construction through at least 2027 and potentially creating a backlog through 2032.

Why it matters: If the county succeeds in switching to backward-looking averaging — counting 166 permits it says went unused since 2013 as a "surplus" — it could immediately resume issuing building permits and eventually pursue raising the cap to 75 units per year. That would fundamentally reshape growth on a stretch of coast with one main road, limited water, and aging sewer infrastructure.

County's Pitch: A "De Minimis" Fix

Planning Services Manager Bharat Singh presented the proposed amendment, framing it as a narrow technical adjustment. "If we amended the averaging method to look backwards rather than forwards, that might be an easy way to be able to alleviate this issue while maintaining the 40-unit cap," he said.

But under questioning from council members, Singh acknowledged the county's larger ambition. "We hope to go back to what we had in the past because we believe that what was asked for in the LCP in terms of coming up with a transportation plan and other pieces of infrastructure that needed to be improved, which we believe has been done," he said, confirming the goal of eventually restoring the cap to 75 units.

Singh also acknowledged a notification failure, admitting the Midcoast Community Council (MCC) — the only community council directly affected by the cap — was not informed before the Planning Commission hearing held the morning of this meeting. "It was an oversight. The notice should have gone to you sooner," he said. "It was not intentional."

The amendment passed the Planning Commission 4-1 that same day and could go to the Board of Supervisors as soon as June 23.

Council Fires Back

Every council member present pushed back.

Vice Chair Scott Bollinger challenged the fundamental logic of the retroactive count: "You could say, why not go back to prehistoric times and say there was nobody here. It seems ridiculous to me that you would go back in time and say, oh, we have a surplus."

Member Claire Toutant raised three objections — the rate of growth matters even if total units eventually equalize, infrastructure has not improved, and the MCC was blindsided. "We were shocked to see that this was on the Planning Commission's agenda today because the Mid Coast Community Council and the Mid Coast in general was not notified of this," she said. "We're the only people in this whole county that this thing affects."

Chair Kimberly Williams was bluntest about the scheduling: "Slipping this into an agenda before a holiday weekend when people are not going to be paying attention seems to me egregious in terms of being a public servant who the county is supposed to be serving, the whole community, not just the building community."

Member Connie Santilli pressed on criteria, asking how the county determines acceptable unit allocations: "How do you determine how many units it is acceptable to allocate to this area? What are the criteria that you use to determine that?"

Public Commenters Pile On

Five public commenters spoke against the amendment, grounding their opposition in concrete infrastructure concerns.

Sid Young acknowledged sympathy for small property owners caught in the permit freeze but challenged the county's claims of improved infrastructure. He noted Connect the Coastside remains unfunded, the Moss Beach corridor won't be completed until 2030, no bike paths exist in Montara or Moss Beach, and SAM does not handle stormwater.

Greg Diego delivered the sharpest critique, citing the December 2024 tsunami warning as evidence of evacuation failure and calling out noncompliance with state evacuation laws AB 747 and SB 99. "No further growth is safe under current conditions. Why do people who want to profit get priority over the people who live here and their health and safety?" he said. "I would note there's a financial incentive for the planning department to approve permits. That's a portion of their revenue and funding stream."

Chris Johnson called the backward averaging approach a backfill of the law. "I'm sorry if the county went ahead and approved a big project without thinking ahead of what this problems that this would cause. But the infrastructure is not there, as many people have said."

Another public commenter argued the Mid Coast has already exceeded its carrying capacity in water, traffic, and sewer, calling the prospect of 75 permits "absurd" and noting unrealized permits from past years are gone, not banked.

Dr. Evelyn France offered the only sympathetic note toward building — as a coast-side resident trying to develop a home on a vacant lot who is personally affected by the freeze, she asked whether the county could distinguish between large projects and small single-family homes or ADUs when permits reopen.

What's Next

Decisions: The council directed Chair Williams, Member Santilli, and Member Toutant to draft a formal opposition letter to the Board of Supervisors and the Coastal Commission.

Williams urged individual action from residents: "The public really does have to send in written and verbal comments. We have to see more of those because after a while, if there aren't very many, the supervisor then says, well, I didn't see very many individual comments."

The amendment could reach the Board of Supervisors as early as June 23, with potential Coastal Commission review to follow. Singh said the county is developing a waitlist system for permit applicants that should be available within about a month.

Election Rules Set: No Reimbursement, At-Large Voting, Outreach Blitz Underway

With up to four seats open on the volunteer advisory council this November, the MCC spent considerable time finalizing election mechanics and plotting how to attract candidates.

Why it matters: The council has historically struggled to field enough candidates. The rules adopted and the outreach push in the next few weeks will determine whether the November election is competitive.

Where things stand: Member David Santoro presented three resolution options varying by whether the MCC would reimburse candidates for their $0 filing fee (positions are unpaid) and their 200-word candidate statement costs. A straw poll on including reimbursement failed 3-2, with Vice Chair Bollinger and Member Santilli in favor and Member Toutant, Member Santoro, and Chair Williams opposed.

Chris Johnson argued against reimbursement from the audience: "Paying people to run for the MCC is a bad precedent. It's not what this public service is about." Sid Young suggested a compromise of reimbursing only after the election, since unopposed candidates receive refunds from the county regardless.

Decisions: The council then unanimously adopted Resolution Option 1 — at-large election with 200-word candidate statements paid by candidates, no MCC reimbursement. (For: Bollinger, Toutant, Santoro, Williams, Santilli; Against: none.)

The council also adopted an outreach plan with specific assignments: Bollinger and absent member Tony to finalize a flyer; Santoro to table at the farmer's market; Toutant to post to Coastside Buzz; Williams to update the website; and Bollinger to appear on KHMB's Coastal Windage radio show on June 5. The candidate filing window opens approximately July 13 and closes around Aug. 7.

Safe Parking Program Faces Funding Cliff

Joanne Rakowski used public comment to spotlight the Pacifica Safe Parking program for people living in RVs — a program born from an ACLU lawsuit settlement and administered by the Pacifica Resource Center with partners including the Coastside Homeless Outreach Team, Abundant Grace, and Coastside Hope.

Why it matters: The program provides trash pickup, gray and black water disposal, and wraparound case management. "Since its inception, 27 individuals or 38% of the participants have in fact returned to housing and are no longer in RVs," Rakoski said. "But this program is going to expire at the end of June unless there's continued funding."

Sid Young added context from the point-in-time homeless count, reporting roughly 120 RV dwellers countywide with concentrations in Princeton and Moss Beach. He suggested pump-out vouchers for black water disposal to prevent illegal dumping.

What's next: Chair Williams said the council would explore inviting Anita Reese of Pacifica Resource Center to a future meeting and potentially placing the topic on a coming agenda.

Minor Items

• Consent agenda: May 13 meeting minutes approved unanimously. Retreat minutes delayed due to a technical issue. (For: 4, Against: 0, Absent: 3.)

• Caltrans signal fix: David Pain from the supervisor's office reported that after lobbying with press releases and coordination with Half Moon Bay and state legislators, Caltrans reprogrammed the Frenchman's Creek traffic signal on Highway 1 over the holiday weekend. The fix addressed timer-based signal operation caused by Caltrans' painting project, which destroyed in-ground traffic detection loops. Community members confirmed the improvement.

• Items tabled: Stakeholder meeting participation and MCC retreat report both tabled to the next meeting on a 4-1 vote. Member Toutant dissented, wanting to complete the items that night.

• Burnham Strip: Member David Santoro reported the Granada Community Service District revised the Burnham Strip plan, removing the dirt lot area near the gate ramp due to excessive red tape.

• Article 34 ballot measure: The Board of Supervisors is discussing an amendment to Article 34 for the November ballot that would give the county broader authority to acquire property for affordable housing without project-by-project voter approval.

• Coastal Commission parking determination: The Coastal Commission released its determination on the replacement of 75 parking spaces affected by Caltrans. Chair Williams plans to agendize the topic.

• Scarper Ridge construction: Unidentified construction on Scarper Ridge / El Granada Boulevard was confirmed to be PG&E building road access.

• Pacific Coast TV open house: Astro Carlyle of Pacific Coast TV invited the community to an open house on Saturday featuring studio tours, podcasting, musical acts, and artist vendors.