Mid Coast Community Council forms working group to respond to county's proposed LCP changes after residents raise safety concerns

The Mid Coast Community Council spent the bulk of its June 24 meeting weighing how to respond to a county planning department public forum scheduled for June 30 about proposed Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendments. Council members and multiple public commenters said they had not been given alternatives in advance and said that, if planning moves forward, the Council must document whether the LCP's infrastructure and policy conditions have been met before any change is implemented.

Kimberly, speaking for the Council during the discussion, said she had been told planning would "present on a public forum" on June 30 and then bring comments back. Council members and residents worried the department had scheduled the meeting on short notice and might not return for additional consultation. Claire said she was "not sure that I trust them to confer with us further after this meeting," and multiple speakers urged the Council to press planning to provide documented alternatives and supporting analyses.

Public commenters focused on evacuation, traffic and stormwater capacity. One resident warned that the coast is "among the Bay Area's most difficult regions to evacuate during wildfire," and another said, "The answer to the issue is less building on the mid coast, not more," arguing that increases in permitted units would worsen public-safety and infrastructure risks. Commenters repeatedly asked the Council to reference the Coastal Commission's LCP findings and to press planners to demonstrate that policy requirements (including the transportation-management elements of policy 2.53 and IPS/stormwater capacity tests) are met before allocations are changed.

Council members debated next steps. Some favored waiting to see what planning presents on June 30; others argued the Council should prepare a formal, fact-based statement now in case the department proceeds without adequate MCC input. The Council agreed to assemble a small working group to draft a letter that cites LCP criteria and supporting evidence; the members named to the working group were Kimberly, Gus and Claire. The Council scheduled a special meeting for the following Monday at 7 p.m. to review and, if approved, finalize the statement so it could be delivered or submitted promptly around the June 30 forum.

Council members also said they plan to attend the June 30 planning meeting and submit individual public comments if the Council has not yet adopted a group position. Several members urged that the draft be evidence-based and cite specific LCP requirements (transportation management, stormwater/IPS capacity, and the Coastal Commission record) rather than general opposition to growth.

A secondary discussion addressed a facilitator-contracted stakeholder process for parking and outreach; Council members asked the contractor to provide a written update or appear at the next meeting clarifying deliverables and any remaining tasks before additional payment.

Next steps: the working group will draft a fact-based statement referencing LCP policy and technical criteria; the Council will meet Monday at 7 p.m. to consider the draft; Council members plan to attend the June 30 forum and may provide individual comments if the Council finalizes nothing beforehand.