Okay, thank you everyone we are gonna get started it is now officially nine
o'clock so thank you very much we'll call this meeting to order and begin
with a roll call please. All right good morning
Commissioner O'Malley. President. Commissioner Escalante, I don't think is
on a commissioner heart to be present no commissioner Jackson today commissioner
Kelly is on her way I believe commissioner Lee here commissioner Lopez
here mr. Smith present commissioner presciado present commissioner Wilson
Giving you a second present day
Commissioner Brownfield
here
Commissioner Eckery
here
Commissioner Williams here
Chair Harmon here. We have a quorum great. Thank you very much. And to my colleagues just be mindful of quorum this morning
We're right on the bubble. Thank you. Okay with that. We will move to the virtual meeting procedures procedures, please
Good morning. This coastal commission meeting is it's occurring both in person and through zoom
This meeting is also being webcast and can be viewed online at Cal dash span
Or if you have internet access and wish to watch or listen to the meeting only and not speak on an item
We recommend you use the Cal span website
Those who wish to address the commission today can do so in person through the zoom platform or by phone
The speaker request forms may be found on the commission's web page
Paper forms and a scannable QR code for paperless and middles are available on the commission staff table just outside the meeting room
For those on zoom we have posted virtual hearing procedures on the Commission agenda web page
Which is a guide on providing comments via zoom or by phone?
Member of the public speaking during general public comments may be given up to two minutes to speak at the discretion of the chair
Request to speak during the general public comment period will not be accepted after 9 a.m. On each day of the meeting in
Order to provide the opportunity for the broadest range of public participation
You may speak on a specific topic one time only each month
Those speaking on a agenda item that is not general public comments are typically allowed two to three minutes to speak at the discretion
of the chair
We will accept a request to speak on a regular agenda item until the chair
Opens the hearing on that particular item if you have internet access
Please go to the Commission webpage and click on the link to fill out a speaker request
If you do not have internet access or prefer to testify by phone, please call the Commission staff at five six two
four seven seven nine zero eight nine
again, that number is five six two four seven seven nine zero eight nine
Staff will provide you with a telephone call-in number and instructions on how to participate and provide testimony by phone
We will manage speakers coming in and out the meeting through a meeting organizer
when it is your time to address the Commission the organizer will invite you to turn on your video and
Microphone or provide instructions on how to unmute the phone. Madam chair that concludes the virtual hearing procedures. Great
Thank you very much Simone and now we will go to agenda changes, please
Yes, thank you chair Harmon and good morning commissioners
The post of the agenda changes memo is all accurate all told there are three agenda changes for today
Item 7a has been moved to consent
Item 9a has also been moved to consent and item 11 a has been postponed and that
Concludes the agenda changes for today. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much now to general public comment, please
For members of the public, I will be announcing the names of the upcoming speakers and invite you to speak
When is your turn each speaker will be allowed two minutes during general public comments at the discretion of the chair
In order to allow for live video testimony on zoom
We'll be bringing you in as a panelist as we bring you in your zoom will reload
This may take a moment to speed up the process
We will bring several people in at a time
But please remain muted and keep your video off until we ask you to speak
At this time, after your time is up, you will be moved back to attendee mode.
For members of the public present in the room, I will call your names in the order that they
appear on our sign-up list.
When you hear your name, please line up behind the podium and introduce yourself when you
approach to speak.
There is a raise hand function that will help us find you in the attendee list.
If you are using a phone for audio, you can raise your hand by dialing star nine.
If you are participating by Zoom, you should see a button on your Zoom screen.
If you have signed up to speak for this item and are able to do so, please raise your hand
now.
When it is your time to speak, we will invite you to unmute and turn on your camera.
You can unmute yourself on a phone by dialing star six.
So in person we have Adam Levers, and then we'll go to Zoom, followed by Jeff Edwards.
Cynthia Rplogie, I apologize if I said that wrong.
Good morning.
I have a couple slides.
Another small venue makes me glad I got up so early to drive to be here.
If I have my slides coming up, Chris.
On the left here is a section of Newport Beach Harbor Code.
It provides that 7% of the number of offshore mooring permits, they can also hold a live
aboard permit that equates to approximately 51 units of affordable housing in the coastal
zone.
I told Newport Harbor is about 880 acres.
Density wise, that works out to one unit of housing per 17 acres, which is very low density
and low impact.
I've been involved, as many of you know,
trying to protect mooring permit holders
from losing their coastal access
to different city plans for several years.
And having interacted with a lot of these people,
the math didn't add up to me.
So in April, I asked the Harvard apartment,
how many live aboard permits are actually issued right now?
Having not received an answer in about a week's time,
I emailed the city clerk to ask the same question.
Next slide, please.
About three weeks later, I got the total number,
which is 44.
That means there are seven available, code allowed,
heavily regulated affordable housing units
in Newport right now, and I know people waiting for these
and have been on a wait list for a period of time.
The city though is trying to eliminate this form
of affordable housing, and as evidence surveyed
they're circulating right now, what should they do
with the live aboard program?
One of the responses is to end it.
the deputy harbor master was asked over a half a dozen times,
like when can these people apply and get their inspections
and be permitted?
And after that, he said they're not issuing anymore right now
until the Harbor Commission has opportunity
to review the program.
I've heard at many of your meetings
the difficulties and challenges of affordable housing
in the coastal zone.
The city of Newport Beach, as I've
said at some other meetings, keeps
eliminating affordable housing rather than
keeping it or even adding to it. And I just, these things exist.
They're lawfully allowable.
I hope the city can allow people that are waiting for housing to get them.
Thank you.
Thank you. Next we'll be going to zoom. Jeff Edwards,
followed by Cynthia Replogle, followed by Jesse Fleming.
Thank you. Good morning. I do have a PowerPoint presentation. Okay.
Thank you. Good morning. My name is Jeff Edwards. And please take the chance to review this
PowerPoint at your convenience, given the limited time this morning. I would say now
is the formative time. The ODSVRA is not closing and the status quo is unacceptable. Slide
please. The 1982 CDP special condition of approval 1B requires permanent access and staging to be
established at a southern entrance. That option is available now. It's time to close Pier Avenue
to vehicle access and avoid a Royal Grande Creek crossing. Next slide please. It's time to resolve
ownership issues within the ODSVRA engage with Native American tribal leaders, review
all conservation plans including the federal HCP approved recently and the Air Pollution
Control District stipulated order of abatement, target 1,500 acres of rioting and camping
area and establish a primary access to the ODSV at the closed refinery at Phillips 66.
Next slide, please. There's a direct five-mile... Next slide, please. There is an immediate
five-mile direct access from Willow Road and Highway 101 interchange. The last alternative
access study was completed in 2006, and it's been 44 years since the CDP contemplated a
southern entrance. It's time to free Pier Avenue from vehicle access and the community of Oceano,
open Phillip 66 to a southern entrance to the ODSVRA, and re-envision the park via an amendment
to the CDP. Thank you. Thank you. Cynthia Replogle followed by Jesse Fleming, Patty Judd.
Hi, I'm Cynthia Replogle, a Pismo Beach resident, and may I spoke against the CDP
project. I want to explain why
this project is so important
for the city waver for the
city's mechanical beach grooming
program. It's not up for
renewal for five years, but I'd
like to explain why they
shouldn't have been a waiver at
all. And what I've learned
through subsequent CPRA requests.
Coastal Act Section 306 to 4.7
permits a waiver only where a
project has no potential for any
adverse effect. But the waiver
notice itself imposes
mitigation measures conditions
continuously require mitigation and have no potential for effect, that inconsistency should have routed this to a full CDP.
Responses to my CPRA request confirm that factual assertions on which the waiver relied are unsubstantiated.
First, the city has no baseline trash load data for manual cleaning,
so it used visitor numbers as a proxy, and the city has confirmed in writing that it has no source for those visitor numbers.
I note also that without trash load data before grooming, at renewal there will be no way to
gauge the machine's relative effectiveness or necessity. Second, I asked your staff for the
basis of their claims in the addendum that Pismo Beach is one of the most highly visited beaches
in the central coast and that manual cleaning has limited effectiveness. Your office confirmed that
there are no responsive records for either assertion. Staff verbally represented at the
the main meeting that they had processed a number of these waivers before, so I asked
to see them. I received one thin 2012 waiver for Monterey, a heavily used urban beach,
unlike Pismo Beach. I realize a Pismo Beach waiver can't be undone, but when a caution
commissioners about the points raised, which I have no reason to believe are isolated to
this instance. Thank you.
Thank you, Jesse Fleming, Patty Judd, Sandra Holloway.
Hello, I have slides as well.
Yes we're pulling them up. Thank you. Hi my name is Jesse Fleming my husband and I
have lived on the waters of Newport Beach Harbor for over 40 years. We work
captaining and entertaining while providing coastal access for many
others. The income from this doesn't allow us to own a home where we work.
This first slide is from a recent article described how out of whack home pricing
is here in Southern California. I think we're all aware and well understand the
challenges of affordable housing particularly in the coastal areas. Next slide please.
There's an article from this past week that notes a home selling here in Newport Beach for
48.5 million dollars. Even an average home here is seven to eight million and far beyond the
reach of many. We live here on our boat we care about the harbor we are often the first on the
seen in crisis. It is common for liveaboard's to save vessels from crashing, palo borders
from drowning, thefts from happening, and identify harbor issues early on. For the city and the state
land to eliminate our last means of affordable housing and coastal boating access in Orange County,
the only opportunity many have to provide for themselves their own home that runs counter
the logic. Boats are here on the moorings anyway. We pay rent and we use the space. These spaces are
already rented and occupied. Why not allow these already occupied spaces to
continue to offer affordable housing in the coastal access areas? How can the
city and the state lands think is helpful during this incredible housing
crisis to eliminate the existing program that provides a very limited number of
affordable housing opportunities? We have 51 live-abords here in this large
harbor. These boats are not anchor outs or house boats. They are annually
inspected, highly regulated, and closely monitored daily. It is not a good idea
to use the space as occupied with boats anyway to also provide housing for
people that can afford it. Is it not a good idea is what I'm trying to say? And
consider please that as we'll be losing our homes as well as living in these
areas for decades. Thank you. Thank you Patty Judd, Sandra Holloway,
Hyne Austin. Hi, my name is Patty Judd. I'm a coastal resident and I'm here today
regarding the approved development at 501 Sandpoint Road and whether the
construction required to build it belongs anywhere near the Carpendaria
salt marsh. Ooh, the fonts aren't working. Okay, next slide. Have you stood there? Have
you actually stood and looked at this site, not on a map, but stood there? Because when
you do, you notice something, there's an empty land waiting for a project. It already exists.
California once had wetlands up and down the coast and most of them are gone. And this
This is one of the last.
And once a place like this changes, you don't get it back.
Next slide.
This marsh does real work.
It's not empty land.
It shelters birds, filters water, buffers,
storms, supports marine life,
and now it's nothing from except the chance
to keep doing what's always done there.
It's not empty land, it's living ecosystem.
And it's still doing exactly what it was meant to do.
Next slide.
Now think about the construction.
Deep foundations, drilling rigs, concrete trucks,
still deliveries, cranes, months of heavy construction,
all moving down one narrow lane with a fragile march,
just feet away, and natural habitat around.
The plans show the finished development.
They don't show what it takes to build it.
Next slide.
Places like this don't get a second chance.
I'm simply asking you to take one more careful look
at what it takes to build this project
and what this means for California
last remaining coastal salt marshes.
We have the opportunity to get it right.
Next slide.
Thank you, Zandra Holloway.
Hi, Austin, and then Anna Critchiston.
We have about seven speakers left.
Good morning.
Can you hear me okay?
Yes.
Thank you.
Good morning, commissioners.
My name is Zandra Holloway, a San Diego resident.
I speak today regarding serious ongoing permit violations
at the San Onofre Nuclear Storage Site.
At a recent commission meeting,
Commissioner Knothoff explicitly warned this body
that the existing coastal development permits conditions
at San Onofre were not being fully complied with.
She directly asked staff
what enforcement actions were being taken.
Shockingly, staff completely ignored her directive
failed to provide any answer regarding San Onofre. Because the Commissioner openly states that it
relies substantially on the public's help to catch Coastal Act violations, I'm here to give you the
answers that your staff withheld. Southern California Edison is violating Special Condition
7CDP of 9-15-0228 and Special Condition 19 of CDP 9-19-0144.
Both conditions legally mandate a strict inspection and maintenance program to ensure the structural
integrity of 73 damaged, scratched, and gouged nuclear waste canisters. Instead, Edison is using
a flawed math method that deliberately underestimates the depth of canister damage.
An independent third-party report required by this commission explicitly recommended that Edison use
only the accurate calculation method, warning that Edison's current math corrupts the safety data
To make matters worse, Edison is claiming to the public that this commission approves of these
faulty calculations. Furthermore, Edison has restricted public transparency by withholding
the required exclusion area plan during their demolition permit process. Utility repairs have
already funded billions of dollars to clean up after this facility. We have an absolute right
to full transparency and public safety. I'm formally requesting that this commission direct
its enforcement program to immediately open a full investigation into Edison's permit violations
and I demand a formal public response to the question commissioner not half asked
asked weeks ago. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Hain Austin Anna Christensen, Leslie Kashiwata.
Can you bring up my slide please? Yes. Good morning commissioners. My name is Hain Austin and I'm once
again asking the commission to require the city of Newport Beach to obtain a coastal development
permit before further implementing its program to replace long-standing private mooring permits
with city-controlled mooring licenses. This morning license program poses a structural
change in how affordable recreational boating access has historically been provided in Newport
Harbor. It raises serious questions regarding public access, lower cost recreational opportunities
and long-term coastal access under the coastal act including public resource code section
30210, 30213 and 30220. For decades under the management of the city and state lands the only
way to obtain a marine permit was through a required transfer process. Permit holders accepted
the costs and obligations imposed by the system including transfer fees maintenance responsibilities
and ongoing permit fees. State Lands report 105 acknowledges that many permit holders acquired
their permits with the expectation that they could later transfer them and recover a portion
of their costs. Staff also stated that it was not taking a position on whether compensation
should be provided if those expectations are eliminated. This slide shows that in 2022
the city first promoted a voluntary buy-back program. Now the city wants to confiscate all
mooring permits, convert them into city-owned mooring licenses, and raise them mooring fees by
500%. The Coastal Act is built on public participation and protecting coastal access,
so we respectfully ask again the commission to ensure this significant policy change proceeds
leads through the open, transparent process that California law requires.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We don't see Anna Christensen right now so we'll go to Leslie Kashiwada, followed by
Leslie Purcell and then Karen Baker.
Leslie.
Thank you.
Can you hear me?
Yes.
Thank you.
Good morning.
My name is Leslie Kashiwada and I'm honored to speak before you and to the general public.
I'm here to tell you about some findings by Project HERE, which was funded by the DTSC
to educate the community of Fort Bragg and the Mendocino coast about the status of remediation
on the former Georgia Pacific mill site.
Next slide, please.
On May 7th, Project HERE held a community meeting led by our technical assistant, Stephanie
Aguilar, and she spoke about four main topics, as shown here.
A video of this presentation is on our website.
I'm here to tell you a little bit
about our citizen science efforts,
sampling mussels adjacent to the old mill ponds
under a Fish and Wildlife Scientific Collecting Permit.
Next slide, please.
As shown here, our sample sites included two
at Soldier Bay and one north of Fort Bragg at Bruhill Point,
which is just south of Blues Beach
where Caltrans just concluded two years
of roadway stabilization work.
Next slide, please.
Our methodology was to collect mussels
at these three sites on two occasions.
One was in October of 2025
and the other was in February of 2026.
Next slide please.
The photo on the left shows the muscle bed at Bruhell Point.
The photo on the right shows bagged muscles
at Soldier Bay South.
Next slide please.
Analysis of PCBs shows their presence
at all three sites on both dates.
However, the concentration of PCBs is significantly higher
in the sites adjacent to the mill ponds
compared to the reference.
Next slide, please.
Analysis of dioxin shows a significantly higher TEQ
in the sites adjacent to the mill ponds
compared to the reference.
Notice that mussels at Soldier Bay
appear to be too contaminated to consume,
as indicated by the upper red line.
Next slide, please.
This is a view east from the Soldier Bay South site
showing Pond 8 spillway and a beach
which continues to be fenced off from the public.
Next slide, please.
In conclusion, we sent this information
to your North Coast staff and other agencies,
to the city, to the land that is in local preliminary.
And we're going to continue trying
to understand what these data mean.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Leslie Purcell, followed
by Karen Baker, and Christiasson.
Still don't see her.
So it was about three more speakers, and that's it, or two.
really. Leslie Purcell, are you going to meet yourself? Good morning commissioners. I just
had a couple things I wanted to bring to your attention relative to future coastal issues.
So in Ventura, we have Caltrans is proposing to change the off ramp from the 101 where
it now ends at California Street going north. And California Street is the one that comes
down to the promenade where the Crown Plaza is and create three lanes in the off-ramp going to
the next intersection at Oak Street. It's going to be a huge project and I just can't imagine how
it's going to affect traffic while they're doing it. And they're having a hearing on that the 27th
of this month at the Museum Ventura County so we'll learn more about it then but I just wanted
to bring that to your attention. Also I was driving down to Santa Monica yesterday afternoon
on PCH. I was amazed and shocked to see the damage. Well, the fact that so many houses right
along the edge of the coastline there are gone from the fires. I had no idea. And what it shows
you is how absolutely narrow and tiny that strip of so-called land, which a lot of it's
just riprap rock, and then pilings. There's no even land there. There's just pilings left
where some of these houses were burned. But what's noteworthy also is our for sale signs
all along the highway. Different realtors, different signs at each different location and
honestly it's almost impossible to imagine how they could sustainably rebuild on these sites
and I'm guessing that that would be coastal development permits would be required so please
think about it. Thank you. Thank you Karen Baker. Karen I see you unmuted. Karen can you try to
speak for us? Okay she muted. Okay let's unmute you again, unmute yourself. Okay we can't see
or hear you. Okay Karen Baker's having some technical difficulties right now. Anna Christensen
if you're available. Okay no Anna Christensen. Karen Baker you want to try one more time for us?
I see you unmuted.
I'm sorry, Karen Baker.
We'll have to try you another time or another hearing, OK?
Or please submit your public comment
and they can look at it for you.
Thank you.
Sorry.
No more speakers.
OK, thank you very much.
And thank you to the public for your testimony.
I'll return to my colleagues.
Any questions, comments?
Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks.
I'm just wondering if, Director Hucklebridge,
you could clarify for the speaker
regarding the coastal development exemption,
permanent exemption in Malibu.
So which, unfortunately, the speaker was just saying,
I'm assuming all of the houses that burned in the fire
on the small strip of land are subject
to coastal development permits,
I just thought we should clarify.
That's right.
So per the executive order from Governor Newsom,
they're all rebuilds in Malibu and house aids in areas
that were affected by the fires have been exempted
from permitting requirements,
given there's some restrictions around what that looks like,
but yes, they do not require coastal development permits
if it is a rebuild of a structure
that's damaged in the fire.
Thank you very much.
Commissioner Wilson.
And just to note that that mimics what was already
in terms of the Coastal Act, right?
The details, there's a couple of different details
that are different in the executive order,
but yes, there is an existing exemption in the Coastal Act
for rebuilds of fire-damaged properties, that's correct.
So this is the time when I'd like to take a moment
to thank the city of Ventura for having us and hosting us.
One of the most coastal accessible communities
that we have probably been in, this beach is amazing.
The break is out of control.
I know you're not supposed to talk about awesome surf breaks, but I think this one's pretty
much known.
You can see it from everywhere.
There's no secret to it, so I'm not, I don't think I'm letting this one out of the bag,
but it is amazing, and there's multiples of them, so there's, and I was just, it was just
the promenade or the waterfront walkway is wide and great.
downtown is super fun I want to say really accessible extremely walkable
family-friendly but also nightlife friendly as well got all the things it's
just a wonderful town and we've spent here in downtown at the at the Crown
Royal which has been do I have that right Plaza sorry I did that last time
we stayed at one of these places but anyways what I'm getting at the Crown
Plaza. The hotel's been great, the staff's been wonderful, the location is
amazing. So shout out to that. We also stayed in the southern of Ventura a few
months ago, kind of more in the in sort of in more of an industrial zone and
harbor zone. Also really fun and cool and I want to say the breweries down
there were great and the dining was cool. Really amazing spots actually. The
architecture was really interesting. So what I'm just getting at is thank you
Ventura for hosting us we had a wonderful time we got a chance some of
us got a chance to walk in your awesome Botanical Garden which was really cool
if you're into hummingbirds especially and the views were amazing and so I just
shout out to Ventura thank you so much for having us what a wonderful wonderful
city great community and just from a coastal access perspective just you
really got it going on. Thank you so much. That was lovely. Okay, with that we
will move on to the consent calendar. Those items that have been removed from
the regular calendar please. Yes, thank you Chair Harmon. As I described earlier
today we have two items that have been moved to the consent calendar for today
which I will quickly identify. Item 7a this is the Mellon single-family home
improvements in Seadrift in Marin County and item 9a this is the city of
Capitola LCP amendment related to adaptation planning and resiliency,
especially for their cliff drive corridor. I would note that we received
comments from the Surfrider Foundation regarding item 9a, the Capitola LCP
amendment. Those comments raised a series of potential concerns and we
subsequently worked closely with the city and Surfrider to reach an agreement
on modifications that could be made to address concerns and those modifications
are reflected in the addendum we distributed earlier.
With the addendum, it's our understanding that all parties are in agreement with the
staff recommendation, and as to the other case, the applicants are in agreement with
the staff recommendation, and we aren't aware of any objections.
Thus, we continue to recommend that the Commission approve these two items through the consent
calendar.
Great.
Thank you very much.
Any ex partes?
Seeing none, any public comments?
Only available for questions.
Great.
Thank you.
I move to adopt the consent calendar.
Turn on the mic, ma'am.
Thank you.
Yeah, good morning.
Talking about awesome surf breaks is OK, by the way.
It is beautiful here.
So I did drive down from Capitola.
So thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Good morning, Chair and commissioners.
My name is Leslie Nielsen.
I own property immediately adjacent to the Cliff Drive
Resiliency Project in Capitola.
And I'd like to thank the commission staff
and the city of Capitola for the extensive work reflected
in this local coastal program update.
I especially appreciate the recognition
that shoreline planning must now account for sea level rise,
evolving coastal science, and that the preferred
long-term objective is a continuous shoreline
stabilization system.
I also want to make the commission aware
that the adjacent property owners
have expressed our desire to work collaboratively
with both the city and the commission staff.
Earlier this year, we submit a proposal
offering a significant private financial contribution
toward an integrated solution that could improve continuity
of shoreline protection and potentially provide
additional public benefits if mutually acceptable
implementation agreements can be reached.
Whether that collaborative opportunity
ultimately moves forward or not,
I respectfully ask that as future permits are considered,
the shoreline continue to be evaluated
as one connected coastal system
rather than as isolated property segments.
Careful evaluation of endpoint effects
and potential flanking erosion will
be important to protecting both public infrastructure
and adjacent properties.
Thank you for your consideration.
And I appreciate the commission's continued leadership
in helping communities adapt to California's changing
coastline.
Thanks.
We also have Mitch Silverstein.
So I didn't see you, Mitch.
He's on Zoom.
Thanks Simone. Good morning Chair, Commissioners Mitch Silverstein with Surf Fighter Foundation.
Here in support of the Capitola LCP amendment we're asking you to approve it and I want to
explain briefly why we're pleased to with where it landed. Capitola's road along the shoreline
cliff drive is eroding and the city's grappling with how to protect it while maintaining public
access. Their current strategy is stabilization which as you know Surf Fighter is not a fan of
because when you stabilize a bluff, you lose your beach every single time.
But this amendment sets ground rules for that process.
As originally written, one policy could have been read to let a project along that road
skip past the City's own updated rules for when shoreline armoring is allowed.
Staff caught that and the modifications in front of you fix it.
Any armoring there now has to clear the same tests as anywhere else.
It has to be the least damaging option available, and any impacts on the beach and on public
access have to be fully mitigated. Staff also confirmed something important in the findings.
The Coastal Act allows armoring to protect structures that existed before the Act
took effect in 1977. Staff made clear in the addendum that's how this LCP will be read,
consistent with the courts, and that roads and parking lots generally don't qualify for
armoring on other grounds. That clarity matters not only for Capitola, but statewide.
I want to thank Rainey, Graven, and Kiana Ford. They were already pushing the city. That's your
central coast staffers who worked on this. They were already pushing the city on most of this before
surf rider ever rode in and I think our suggestions reinforced their work and they took time to sit
down with us and the city to get these right. This is a first phase. The bigger questions including
how long armoring should last and when it needs to come out are going to the city's next update
which will address coastal hazards across the city as a whole and we look forward to working
with staff and the city on those. Thank you. Okay no more speakers. Great thank you very
much thanks to our speakers okay I'll return to the Commission comments
questions the motion I move to approve the consent calendar items second that is
a motion by Commissioner Kelly a second by Commissioner Wilson any objections to
unanimous consent seeing none the motion carries thank you very much okay now we
will move on to item 6 the deputy directors report for the north central
coast district please thank you chair Harmon in the north central coast
District Director's report this month. We are reporting one waiver and two
emergency permits. We're not aware of any objections or controversy regarding
these matters and so the question is whether four or more commissioners
object to the waiver and if not then the Commission will concur. Thank you very
much. Any expertise? Any public comments? Only two available for questions. Great.
Do four or more commissioners object to any item in the Deputy Director's report?
Seeing no objections the Commission concurs. Thank you. Now on to item 7B
please. Yes and we have a presentation. Okay good morning commissioners, item 7B
is a proposed Hyatt Hotel project in the city of Half Moon Bay where slide 1
shows a rendering of the project on the project site roughly outlined in red
between Highway 1 and Main Street with renderings of hotel buildings and other
amenity shun. Before getting started I note that we distributed an addendum
yesterday that responds to comments received and that makes some minor
modifications to the staff recommendation. You'll recall that this
project was originally approved by the City of Half Moon Bay and appealed to
the Commission last year and the Commission found substantial issue at
the time related primarily to public view and lower cost accommodations
concerns. In the time since staff has worked with the applicant on a modified
project intended to address the concerns raised by the Commission. The revised
The minimized hotel project now includes 110 rooms that have been oriented in a different configuration to minimize view impacts, where 22 rooms will be provided at lower cost rates.
The project also includes substantial open space, landscaping, and ADA compliant public trails in the area between Highway 1 and the hotel, as can be seen on this slide.
Slide 2 gives you a regional orientation to the area with Half Moon Bay city limits noted
here in white and Pillar Point Harbor, El Granada, and Moss Beach areas noted to the
north.
The project site, indicated in red here, is located in the southern half of Half Moon Bay
at the southern gateway to the city where Main Street hits Highway 1.
The site is made up of a roughly 5-acre undeveloped property to the south and a roughly 2.5-acre
property developed with an auto dealership to the north.
The subject site is within the designated Highway 1 Scenic Corridor, which extends
200 yards from either side of the right-of-way, and inland views in the area show the Santa
Cruz mountain range foothills and ridgelines a visual resource the LCP aims to protect
by requiring obstructions into the ridgeline by new development to be minimized.
Slide 3 zooms in and shows the project site from above, showing all three affected property
areas with Highway 1, Main Street, and Seymour Street all noted.
Parcel 1 is a roughly 5-acre undeveloped property where the hotel would be located
and parcels 2 and 3 make up the existing auto dealership property spanning Seymour Street.
The lot line adjustment would affect the boundary between lots 1 and 2, leaving a 4.5-acre area
for the hotel, and the 4-lot subdivision would occur on lot 3, leading to 4 lots there.
Slide four focuses on the land division aspects of the project.
At the top, the property north of Seymour Street would be subdivided into four lots,
shown in red.
At the bottom, the existing property with the auto dealership is shown in yellow and
it would be expanded onto the vacant parcel by approximately half an acre where the expanded
area is shown in green.
The rest of the site extending to the south and off this slide, shown in blue, would be
the four and a half acre undeveloped site where the hotel is proposed.
Next slide please.
Slide five shows the proposed Host Hill site plan.
In this view, the hotel buildings are shown in light green with the parking lot between
them and Main Street at the bottom of the slide.
At the top of the slide, the darker green shows the vegetated open space area with the
public access pathway system seen snaking through and Highway 1 just above that.
The hotel includes about 70,000 square feet with 110 guest rooms and three main buildings
spread across the site with two connected buildings and a third detached building further
to the south or left in this image. The northernmost structure, to the right, would be 3 stories
and 36 feet tall. The middle building would be 1 story and 25.5 feet. The southernmost
building would be 1 story and 22 feet. For reference, that means that most of the buildings
are lower than the 36-foot maximum allowed by the LCP. 88 of the rooms would be offered
at market rates with 22 offered at lower costs using the Commission's lower cost methodology.
The main street side of the site would be developed with a 114-space surface parking
lot with 102 standard spots, 5 ADA spaces, and 7 EV charging stations.
And finally, an approximately 2-acre portion of the site, fronting Highway 1, would be
retained as open space, and this area would support native landscaping and be improved
with publicly accessible and ADA-compatible pedestrian and bike paths with access to a
public restroom, benches, and interpretive signage.
As indicated earlier, the Highway 1 corridor is an LCP designated scenic corridor to which
certain siting and design rules apply, and the Commission's substantial issue was driven
primarily by public view concerns.
Slide 6 provides a visual rendering of the hotel project as approved by the city as seen
from the Naomi Partridge Trail, just seaward of Highway 1.
As you can see, the project would have resulted in a large structure in Linde of Highway 1
that would, from certain vantage points, have blocked views of upland slopes and foothills
to the east, where the LCP would require these intrusions be minimized.
The only portion not blocked is at the 32-foot wide breezeway between the two hotel buildings
in this view, roughly at the center of this image.
Slide 7 shows additional views of that prior project here as seen from the northbound lane
of Highway 1, approaching the site from the south.
From these perspectives, the structure has not yet blocked any views of the upland slopes
or ridge lines.
In the time since the Commission took jurisdiction over the permit, the staff and the applicant
have coordinated on a project reconfiguration intended to reduce public view impacts.
In that regard, slide 8 shows the currently proposed hotel configuration from a similar
perspective just seaward of Highway 1 directly in front of the hotel.
The building on the right has been reduced to one story at 25 and a half feet in height
and that building no longer obtrudes into the ridgeline views in this vista as they
can now be seen over that building's roofline.
The larger northern building, which is three stories and would contain most of the guest
rooms, still impacts the ridgeline views but the gap between the two buildings has
been widened, more than doubling the distance between buildings nearest Main Street and
increasing such distance by 50% in this view nearest the highway.
In addition, the applicant has introduced additional design features, windows and articulation
to help reduce the wall-like massing of the prior version of the hotel.
In addition to reconfiguring the buildings to lower rooflines and spread development
across the site, impacts to public views for the newly proposed project are tempered by
the fact that the hotel buildings would be set back between about 40 to 118 feet from
Highway 1 across the frontage with the largest building to the south the
furthest setback. The buildings are also fronted by open and landscaped areas to
help reduce and soften perceived visual impacts of the structures where this
area will be required to be maintained and deed restricted so that it will
continue to function in this way for as long as a hotel is here. As you can see
on slide 9 the ridgeline views still dominate across the site over the
rooflines for a majority of the site from this vantage point and the
southernmost building which is closest to highway one is only one story does
not obtrude into the bridge line and mostly disappears behind the Half Moon
Basin which demarcates the city's southern gateway entrance. In the larger
context of the surrounding development this project is located in the town
center area where the LCP encourages commercial development to be clustered
and where some larger structures already exist including the city's coastside
fire station with its four-story fire training tower across the street from the hotel site.
Further conditions of approval require the final design to fit with the surrounding coastal
agricultural aesthetic and blend in with similar design choices. Overall, staff believes that the
newly proposed project minimizes impacts to visual resources, preserves community character,
in a way that upholds the intent of the LCP's protections. Next slide, please.
With respect to LCP requirements for lower cost overnight accommodations, the prior City
Approved Project was a moderate cost hotel project with 96 moderate cost rooms and six
lower cost rooms, something which the Commission took issue with at the substantial issue phase.
In the time since, staff has worked with the applicant to increase lower cost lodging
opportunities, including to meet the LCP requirements that lower cost rooms
be provided at a rate of 25% of the number of higher cost rooms, and here the applicant has met
that requirement with 22 lower cost rooms. In addition, the applicant is also offering a robust
package of public amenities, including public restrooms, benches, and bike rentals, and will
specifically develop a system of public bike and pedestrian trails that are ADA compliant in the
open space area where native landscaping will also occur. These public pathways will link up the
the hotel's open space to the southern gateway to the city and will also provide public amenities
such as park benches and interpretive signage to guide and inform the public.
The project also includes a set of transportation demand management or TDM requirements.
Onsite parking includes both ADA options and EV charging at the LCP prescribed rate, with
the parking lot essentially hidden from Highway 1 views.
Tribal and cultural resources were not found on the site, but based on requests by tribes
through the consultation process, a tribal monitor is required to be present during all
ground disturbance, and stop work and consultation requirements are in place should resources
be found, assuring that any cultural resources that might be identified are protected.
The project is also conditioned for a plastics reduction program to minimize, to the maximum
extent feasible, the use of single-use plastics in all aspects of hotel operations.
Next slide please.
In short, the project should result in the development of a higher priority visitor-serving
hotel with both free public access features and lower cost rooms at a location capable
of accommodating it.
Although the hotel structures are fairly large, they also sit on a large site that the LCP
targets for this use, and the project has been modified from the version that the Commission
last reviewed the better spread out massing and to increase articulation in a
way that helps to minimize view impacts. For the reasons discussed, staff is
recommending approval of the CDP with required conditions and the single
motion and resolution to do so is found on page 5 of the staff report. This
concludes the staff presentation. Thank you. Great, thank you very much.
Appreciate it. Any ex partes to report? Okay, seeing none, we will turn to the
Applicant good morning
We're getting your power now. There you go. Thank you, and I believe you've asked for ten minutes on the clock
Well, he did such a good job. It won't take that long
Good morning chair commission and staff. I thank you for having us here today. My name is Greg Jameson
I am a resident of Half Moon Bay. We've we have a small Ford dealership
That's adjacent to this property and we've been there now for over 40 years
So we'd like to spend a lot of time in our community
And I spent many hours going to meetings and to try to support our community
This project now has been in the works for some time. I do have a small slide show
But I'm only gonna use a couple of the slides. So if you could just
jump to slide four
Okay, so that is the latest plan that you saw already
I would like to say that I'd like to pay tribute to
Stephanie Rexing and Isabel Cooper for doing such a good job in
Coming up with some of the design changes we worked for several months to get to this point
but it did solve a lot of issues as the middle building used to be two stories and
through all the planning we were able to convert that to one to get it below the ridge line and that building was like
177 feet long so that much more of the view has improved since the original plan and then the south building
Is a one-story already, so it has no effect on the views
Between the building the buildings and the highway is all native landscaping and bike paths and walking paths for the pedestrian
And so we're able to enhance our southern gateway where we're located, and it's very
inviting for the public when they're coming into Half Moon Bay.
We can jump up to slide seven.
So for the community benefits, there's many, but as the list shows there, one of the biggest
ones is the TOT tax that will help support our city.
We have a lot of downtown shops and restaurants that this will majorly support.
We don't have many hotel rooms downtown, so that will be a very good thing for our community
and tourism.
We have a lot of people come to Half Moon Bay, but not necessarily spend money there.
They don't really even know downtown exists, so this will help draw them to downtown to
support that as well.
Those are pretty much all my comments, and I want to thank you, and I'm available to
to answer any questions later if necessary.
And also, my team is here as well.
Great, thank you very much.
Thank you.
So we'll reserve seven and a half minutes
for rebuttal in the event you'd like to follow up
after public comment.
OK, thank you very much.
With that, Simone to you.
We have Anne Blenker available for questions.
And then we'll move on to Mayor Debbie Ruda.
She is on Zoom.
You're on mute.
You're still muted.
there you go.
Good morning, Chair and commissioners.
The city of Half Moon Bay supports
the Hyatt Place Hotel Project.
The city believes the approved project
appropriately balances
protection of the city's coastal resources
with the Coastal Act's mandate
to prioritize visitor serving uses.
And the important word here is balance.
The Coastal Act, as you know,
is not intended to stop or prevent development,
but to balance development in the coastal zone
with coastal resource protection measures
and protecting coastal public access.
I point that out only because many of the project opponents
do not understand this.
The proposed 110 room hotel advances
one of the central objectives of the California Coastal Act
by expanding visitor serving accommodations
within the coastal zone.
Coastal Act section 30222 establishes
that visitors serving commercial recreational facilities
on suitable private lands should receive priority
over other forms of development.
This project directly implements this policy
by providing overnight accommodation
in an area appropriate
for visitors serving commercial uses.
Additionally, a portion of the hotel room satisfy
the commission's definition of low cost affordable rooms,
broadening access to the California coast
for lower income visitors.
This is particularly important for me as before retiring,
I was the legislative analyst
for the California Coastal Conservancy
and participated in drafting AB 250
which established the state's
lower cost accommodations program.
The project provides public benefits
beyond hotel accommodations.
The approved design includes more than two acres
of publicly accessible open space, native landscaping,
wetland buffer enhancements, outdoor seating,
interpretive signage, pedestrian and bicycle pathways,
and bike rentals.
These improvements transform what is currently
an undeveloped site into a public amenity
that expands opportunities for recreation
and appreciates the fantastic development.
Thank you.
I wish you 50 more years of success.
Thank you.
Next is Leslie Laco, followed by Matthew Chadster.
I'm Leslie Laco.
I'm the Community Development Director
for the city of Half Moon Bay.
And Luke did such a good job presenting
that I will keep my comments very brief
and say that this project has undergone many changes
over the years and our city council did approve it
as consistent with the city's certified
local coastal program on January 30th, 2025.
Over the past year and a half,
I know the applicant has worked closely
with Coastal Commission staff to make even more changes.
The reduction in the height of the buildings
and the addition of the more affordable rooms
to be specific.
City staff reviewed the changes to the project
and it is our opinion that it remains consistent
with the city's local coastal program.
And even to a greater extent,
because of the reduction in height
and the addition of the affordable rooms.
So we really support the project.
We hope that we encourage you to approve it.
Thank you.
Thank you, Matthew Chistler.
Good morning, current commissioners.
My name is Matthew Chistler.
I'm the city manager for the city of Half Moon Bay,
and I'm grateful to have just a moment
to speak with you today.
As you heard, Mr. Jamison,
applicant is a long time half a resident very engaged in the community and has worked for many
many years to get this project to this point. I think the time that's been spent over the many
years working with our community planning commission or city council and now coastal
commission staff and the commission itself has really created a wonderful project for our
community. It is at the gateway the south gateway to our downtown and as you know we are a visitor
serving economy and our downtown plays a big role in that and we're excited to have this wonderful
new amenity welcome people into our downtown visitors and residents and hopefully provide
additional coastal access and bring in additional revenues additional jobs and again provide a
wonderful welcoming entry into our downtown. So we are in support of the project and we
encourage you to approve it as it's been proposed. Thank you. Thank you. Then we have two in-person,
Crystal Lynn Geit and Thomas Carey. If you guys are here, go ahead and come on up.
Followed by Norman Picker, David Klein, Emma Morrow-Witts, and David Schor. Thank you so much. I'm
Crystal Lynn Geit. I run the Half Moon Bay Coastside Chamber of Commerce and the Visitor Center.
So, having that first time interaction with visitors to our area, and we are located right
in the heart of downtown and not far from where this project is proposed, I can tell
you with very much heartened enthusiasm that this project will solve multitude of problems
that we face in serving our visitor community, one of those being the lack of rooms.
During the pandemic, we lost 54 rooms and we've had multiple smaller bed and breakfasts
close over time as they're aging out or being converted back into housing.
And so this would allow us to bring back some visitors that want to stay on our coast side
but don't have to your point in earlier discussions, affordable options.
It also helps us bring in those very important corporate groups that we currently turn away
quite often because we don't have the available services to them.
And the number one accommodations question I get in the visitor center is where can we
stay that's middle of the road.
We are very well known for our Ritz Carlton and we love them dearly, but they are not
for everyone.
And this project, again, solves a multitude of issues, both in the economic development
side of my job as the Chamber of Commerce, but also as the visitor-serving side.
And we appreciate the Jameson family and the city for all the work that they have done
and your staff for making this the most beautiful version that it could possibly be.
And we very much urge you to please, please, please approve this project for the betterment
of our community.
Thank you.
Thank you Thomas Carey and then we'll go to Norman Picker, David Klein our
memorals. Good morning. I'm a member of a family that's owned property and worked
the fields and done some small infill developments for over a hundred-plus
years before it was a city. I'm here to 100% support the confirmation of this
project going forward. This hotel will bring jobs and sales tax to support the
city's aging infrastructure of its roads, its parks, its sewers facilities, and
water. It will lift the activity to the downtown area businesses sorely need.
New visitors will now be able to bike, they'll be able to walk to downtown, and
spend money in our local area. It will take cars off the roads and give
visitors an adequate place to stay and bike and enjoy the city's life and
culture. Not many visitors can support and really stay at the Ritz, which is
900 to $1,000 a night. The visitors need a moderate-name hotel in the city to
stay and feel safe in. As a property owner and as a resident of the coast, I
could say it does not affect any view corridor in the city and it enhances the
city's entrance and improves the vitality and the life of the citizens of
the city of Hathamoo Bay. The city has become one that I love and I want to see
it maintain and grow and I want my future kids to keep with our family
heritage and keep the city moving forward. It is evolved into one that the
residents in the city will be proud of. More to the point, it's being led
by a local family on the coast. Greg Jamieson and the Jamieson family, I have
found them to be respectable and receptive to the communities and
interests of Half Moon Bay first. This project is what the community and the
city need. Please make this finally a reality. Ten years is way too long. Thank you.
Norman Picker, David Klein, Irma Moore-Whites, sorry if I did that wrong, and David Score.
Norman Picker. Hello, Coastal Commission. Thanks for giving me a chance to speak. I live
on Myrtle Street a few blocks away and I just hope you approve the project. There
lots of benefits that this project will bring. Not every project is worthy of approval. This one,
I believe, is perfect. Projects are impossible to create, and it's the enemy of good enough to seek
perfection. Ten years of planning has brought us to this moment of finally, hopefully, approving
the project. The sticking point for approval is whether the hotel significantly impairs views
of the hills. This, as you know, is what caused the CCC to take over the project a year ago,
the review of the project. The project has been redesigned again in response to this concern.
In fact, the owner and developer has changed the design multiple times in response to public city
staff and Coastal Commission staff input. He has consistently listened to input and work to address
it. The project shrunk nearly 50 percent. It was moved back from the highway, second and third
buildings lowered to one story. A substantial gap is provided between the north and south buildings
to allow a clear view of the mountains. Beautiful publicly accessible native landscaping and
pedestrian and bike paths have been added between the structures and the highway.
The parking was moved to the main street side so it's not visible from the highway anymore
and 22 lower-priced rooms are included. The design review, design changes, further review,
public meetings, etc has taken over nine years. The project partially impacts views of the
mountains as you've seen in some of the pictures, but less than a number of existing structures
along Highway 1. The owner, developer cares about the community. I think you've heard that loud and
clear. I just want to also say I care about the survival of our Main Street businesses and
we need smart development and this is a good development. We'll attract midweek visitors and
business travelers that will help our businesses thrive on Main Street without it. We don't have
enough business locally to support that and we're just going to miss out on a great opportunity
if you vote against it so please vote for it. Thank you. Thank you Irma Mora-Whites
followed by Davis Gore and Janie Smith. Irma, if you can unmute yourself. Oh sorry, sorry.
Okay, I'll put the video on to. Um, good morning. Um, this is what tourism has done to me personally
and many other folks. Irma Mormons. I'm a 30 year resident of Half Moon Bay. I disapprove of this
project. In the 30 years the traffic has increased tenfold. We used to see this kind of traffic only
on pumpkin weekends and dream machines. This is now a weekly occurrence and many times during the
week. In a full-on emergency we could have a catastrophe. There's no way emergency vehicles
could get there in time to save lives. A five-minute trip to the grocery store now takes me
30 to 40 minutes each way on weekends and I have a traffic light. This may not be important to you
but why keep building for tourism and not for locals who live here and have to pay high taxes
we don't even have a hospital or swimming pool.
The property could be used for a public space
for families that live here.
The Southern gateway to town is people's first impression
of our beautiful community.
The views of the inland hills route one
are legally protected by our rules and regulation.
The hotel project, even with revisions proposed
would be a massive looming structure
permanently blockling the hills.
and I know there's been revisions.
This is traveling North and South.
The project is out of compliance
with local coastal programs in that location.
Please help preserve our small town feeling.
That's why people come here.
We don't need another town.
And Greg Jamison, I want you to get your money,
but I think this is a wrong way.
And I work up at the Johnson House
and it's just beautiful to be up there.
It's been over there a hundred years.
Please, please, please do not build there.
Thank you.
Thank you.
David Score, followed by Janine Smiths,
followed by Melissa Light.
We're moving, guys, to panelists ahead of time
so we can keep rolling.
So please accept.
David Score, we can.
I see you.
There you go.
OK.
Considering that this project was accepted
by the Coastal Commission on Appeal,
I hope the developer would have meaningfully reduced
the size and bulk of the buildings
to address the concerns of the commissioners.
I don't believe that's the case.
As well, the developer has made numerous
misleading statements and representations
which have been incorporated into the staff report
and recommendations to you commissioners.
Perhaps the most glaring of these
is the slide in front of you.
Note at the bottom, the highlighted text,
the applicant states that the south building
will have no impact on the view corridor.
Please go to the next slide.
need to address the fact that to assess view impacts that must be done from the highway itself,
not from 80 feet further away as is done from the Patrick's Trail which minimizes the impact,
the visual impact of the hotel buildings. This is figure seven from page 17 of exhibits,
a rendering from the developer himself. It shows that there are impacts to the view ridgelines,
the views of the hillsides in there are significant. There is a gap between the buildings for 253 feet
to the left of that gap and 185 feet to the right of that gap. The protected hillside views are 100%
obstructed even by the reduced height 25 and a half foot tall south structure. This is a rendering
from the applicant. This view corridor obstruction extends for hundreds of yards of travel along Route
one when traveling both north and south. The developers' own renderings demonstrate clear
evidence of non-compliance with visual resource protection standards of the LCP and of continuing
CEQA's significant and unavoidable impacts. I understand that the Commission is under significant
political pressure to approve the project, but political pressure changes neither the words nor
the intent of the LCP. I urge a no vote on the resolution before you to preserve these views for
of thousands and thousands of visitors working,
living, and traveling through Half Moon Bay
for now and future generations.
The Hyatt is not needed.
We have adequate visitor serving capacity.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
Thank you, Janie Smiths, Melissa Light, Jim Mercusio.
I think I said that wrong, sorry.
But Jim, if you can use the raise hand function
so we know which item you're gonna use.
You have two, perfect, thank you.
All right, Janie Smiths.
Janie Smiths, I see you.
I see your hand up by the gym.
Thank you.
Hi there.
My name is Jeanie Schmidt.
My family and I have lived in Halfman Bay and looked on water house here and lived here
for several years now.
I'm urging a no vote on this resolution.
We actually have plenty of mid range hotels in a 56% occupancy.
This process, this what is brought before you, it still combines, it still contains
significant and permanent obstruction of the protected coastal hillside views.
There is no monetary price nor acceptable legal compromise of these
views and they must be preserved. The current modifications do not remedy the
violations that they were obligated to. The updated beautiful
development is not in compliance with the local coastal program nor the rules
and regulations that cover development here. The hotel is still just too big for
location. Specifically, the views are obstructed whether traveling north or
south on Highway 1. They don't just give a fleeting visual impact. They're not
remedied by the larger gap between the buildings in the revised plan. There's
not just a partial blocking of views. They're blocked a hundred percent from
realistic vantage points, not just the ones specific in the presentation here.
The staff report misinterprets LPC SINA corridor standards which protect all
parker. It's not just the
downtown of all portions, not
just the ridgeline, but the
hillsides too. It doesn't mean
blocking some of it is okay
just because it's for a few
seconds on a drive-by, as they
claim, which isn't true. The
vantage point changes upon
approaching buildings. It's not
okay because drivers are busy
driving and not looking out the
window. The protected view
belongs to everyone, drivers,
passengers, people walking and
cycling by. It cannot be sold or
It completely obstructs the hills and extends well above the ridge line.
The south structure has been reduced, yet it completely still blocks views of the hillside,
as shown in images in the report. Thank you. Thank you Melissa Light, Jim Mercurio,
sorry, Alec Hogg and Mike Alefano. Melissa, good morning. Thank you for giving me the opportunity
to share my support for this project. I am a Half Moon Bay resident and I agree with the staff
report that the project should be approved. I think there is virtually no impact to the view of
the hills. The new design with the lower buildings and increased gap between the buildings blends
seamlessly with the natural beauty of our small town, the native landscaping, the bike paths,
and the beautiful design are a lovely addition to our southern gateway. The visual impact of the
hills is fleeting as one drives up or down the highway and there is much open space that
surround the hotel. This project does finally bring mid-range branded hotels to the Half Moon Bay
Coast. Branded is an important call out here that they consistently have higher occupancy rates than
non-branded hotels and the Hyatt's presence will be a huge benefit to our downtown businesses
and the availability of bike rentals and bike paths I believe will reduce the automobile traffic.
I'd also like to call attention to what I see as one of the most important community benefits that
I think has not been talked about enough and that is the equity component that this project addresses
for our community members. Despite being in Silicon Valley with many folks working in tech,
the majority of families in our town are low income. Over 50 percent of students at our local
schools are from low-income families. Due to our unique geography, it is very difficult for
residents to have access to the employment opportunities across the Bay. The hotel industry
is renowned for fostering upward mobility, allowing entry-level workers to advance into executive
leadership, and branded hotels like the Hyatt have led the way with their professional development
programs. A Hyatt hotel in our community will give so many young people in our town the opportunity
to advance to executive careers across the globe. I urge you to approve this project
for Half Moon Bay. Thank you. Thank you Jim, Alex Hogg, Mike Alefano, and
Dan Haggerty. We have about 12 speakers. Seven are showing about available right now, so
that's half we're looking for. Go ahead Jim. Good morning, my name is Jim
Mecurio. My wife and I reside in Vacaville, California. It's about 65 miles east of Half
Blue Bay, and we'd like to go on record on supporting this project for a number of reasons.
We'd like to highlight a few of them here.
First of all, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that 10 years to get to this point is far
too long, and perhaps it's a topic better for another conversation, but given the stature
that you all have, I think if we can work better to try to get this type of projects
and this type of growth to not last 10 years, we'd be in a much better position.
The project was a good one from its inception.
But having said what I just said,
honestly have to admit this,
by all the drama, the delays, and the debate,
it actually resulted in an even better project design
than what was first presented.
The applicant, Mr. Jameson,
is one of the most patient, fair,
and respectable developers working today.
He and his family have devoted their over 40 years
to supporting and improving the community.
And that's not to be lost on anybody in the room
and certain anybody who are listening.
It's important to have not just an out of town developer
come in and make changes to a city like Half Moon Bay.
The city's in dire need of another hotel option like this.
And we look forward to visiting Half Moon Bay
and staying in this property
soon after it's approved and built.
Lastly, it should be noted that both staff
and the applicant have done a terrific job
mitigating the opposition's main concerns and complaints, almost all of
them. It's a good project for the city. It's a great project for the community
and I wholeheartedly support this project and respectfully request that
you do so as well. Thanks in advance for your consideration and hopeful support
and approval. Thank you, Alex Hogg, Mike Alefano, and Dan Haggerty.
I'm a homeowner here in and half of Bay. I've been a homeowner for 26 years. I was born and raised here went to local public schools. I do have a local computer sales and service company here on Main Street.
Colleen Henney. So Mike, we'll come back to Alec Hawk.
Hello, my name is Mike. I'm Mike Alefano. I'm a homeowner here
and in Halfon Bay, I've been a homeowner for 26 years. I was
born and raised here, went to local public schools. I do have
a local computer sales and service company here on Main
Street for the last 26 years. I want to speak to the Jameson
families, especially Greg, he's been my neighbor for 10 years.
he actually did a beautiful job developing a half a dozen homes on my side of the street.
Before Greg came to my street, we had half a street and it was actually a hazard for people
driving up and down a one-way street and we got the whole street paved. He worked with all the
residents to get their input on what they thought was an important change to our neighborhood and
since then the city has paved our street which was a disaster before Greg was here on our street
so I thank him for that and I want to point out the fact that everything he said he would do he
did and I appreciate that in this day and age. I support the hotel for several reasons
I am a little biased to the support here I do live about a block away
but it impacts my neighborhood specifically, and I will be able to see this hotel from my backyard.
I'm hoping that when the hotel's done, the rest of the lots behind my house get developed into
some type of housing, so that will be a benefit to my home and my neighborhood. But more importantly
is downtown has an issue with a lot of cars parking for a long period of time, a lot of
recreational vehicles, bringing attention to the South Main Area will be a great impact
to our area. And then aesthetically, I love the look of the hotel. I think the applicant has done
a beautiful job in working with the Coastal Commission to change what's needed. So I like
that too. Thank you for your time. Thank you. We're going to try Alec Hogg again.
Hello, can you hear me? Yes, go for it. Thank you. Sorry about that. My name is Alec Hogg. My wife
wife and I have been residents of Hafenbei for 35 years, currently living in Miramar.
The protections incorporated into the rules enforced by the Coastal Commission and drafted
into our LCP have contributed to keeping Hafenbei a wonderful community that has maintained
some of its natural beauty. Simply put, this project doesn't comply with the LCP provisions.
Buildings obstruct the viewshed. The Coastal Commission staff has noted that the reviewed
proposal reduces the degree to which the project obstructs the viewshed. It does not state
the project no longer obstructs the views. So why is the staff compromising? Has it decided
that the viewshed is no longer important? The rule of protecting the viewshed is fundamental
to the charter of the Coastal Commission. Approving a project that violates the rule
only encourages others to violate similar rules. I know political pressure has been exerted on
the commission to approve. Representative Locardo stated that the notion of a two to three hotel
in a very urbanized downtown Happy Bay poses an impediment to the viewscape
to the east puzzled me as well. Any visitor enjoying a trip down Highway 1 will have their
eyes fixated to the west on the beautiful coastal landscape and ocean. Well, personally, I'm puzzled
by the fact that my congressman is encouraging a developer to ignore the LCP and suggesting that
you, the Coastal Commission, turn a blind eye to its legal responsibility to protect the viewshed.
I'm also puzzled by his assessment of what makes this a beautiful place. The combination of the
ocean and the hills makes our California coast uniquely beautiful. Additionally, although the
project claims to fulfill the worthy objective of ensuring that less affluent people can reasonably
have reasonably priced lodging achieving this objective does not require that the view shed
be destroyed so please concede uh please do not concede to the pressure from both the political
and business interests to ignore the lcp and coastal plan reject this proposal and ask the
developer to return with a proposal that follows the rules protecting the view shed okay dan haggerty
Followed by Colleen Henny followed by Brent Turner and David Beaumont
Dan
Go ahead and unmute yourself, please
Yes, good morning. Can you hear me? Yes
Okay, I'm calling
Against this project. My name is Dan Haggerty 37 year
Coastal resident the half Moon Bay coast side
This project absolutely impacts the views of the coastal hills that are clearly protected by the Half Moon Bay LCP
At the southern gateway and the first impression of Half Moon Bay. This is too big. It does not
Does not say you're entering Half Moon Bay
I've talked with many many visitors who also expressed concerns of
Keeping the small-town character of Half Moon Bay
It's very important
This coast side is a regional asset
The benefits hundreds of thousands of regular visitors getting away from the surrounding
regional metropolis
There's
additional evacuation concerns, but the main the main issue is the
The loss of the views of the hills it's it's been acknowledged
and
you know, we should not whittle away the character
of Half Moon Bay.
Whatever is built should reflect the LCP protection.
Thank you.
Thank you, Colleen Henney.
Hi there, commissioners.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
I'm Colleen Henney,
President of the board of the Half Moon Bay
Downtown Association.
We in downtown Half Moon Bay,
the business community strongly feel that this hotel
would hugely benefit not only the city
of Half Moon Bay's financial situation,
as well as the health and vitality
of Main Street's family owned businesses.
Approximately 70% of revenue downtown comes from visitors.
We also recognize that our coastside has lost a huge hotel
housing for the unhoused community within the city limits, and we are at capacity on
the coast side for mid-priced accessible rooms.
We love the open space and the access that this property would provide for the purposes
of wetlands, trails, biking and education.
We feel the builder has gone to enormous lengths to accommodate community feedback.
The four-second drive-by on Highway 1 where the hotel would block a tiny section of views
that span the entirety of the coast side pales in comparison to preserving our local vitality,
the health and revitalizing of a derelict plot of land.
This project is a beautifully designed.
The Hyatt is a responsible and reputable host, and we implore you to allow this project to
move forward.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Next is Brent Turner, followed by David Beaumont.
David Klein, Harvey Rarrback, Kerry Burke, Suzanne Bergen,
and Judy Taylor.
If you guys can use your raise hand function on Zoom
so we can find you.
As of right now, we don't see you.
Go ahead, Brent Turner.
OK, Brent, can you try to speak for us?
Yes, hello.
Hello, go ahead.
this. I'm sorry. Okay. Oh,
am I am I on your on this role?
Okay Hello Coastal
commissioners. My name is Brent
Turner. I wanted to reach out
to you today and associate
myself with the comments I've
heard from Mr Hogg and Mr
Shore. Um and thinking that by
is sensitivity to the concerns of the community regarding not only evacuation ability, and the
traffic considerations, but naturally the view corridors and any adjustments that are necessitated
by the LCP should obviously be adhered to. So I'm taken aback a bit by the conversation that's going
on. I admittedly am a unique realtor. I'm a no-growth, or I think half moon bay is perfect
as it is, and does it need any solution to any supposed problem? Because I don't see
a problem. I think it's a great place, and everything seems to be in order. Normally,
I stay out of local politics. But in this case, I wanted to say, let's root if you gotta build it,
be very sensitive, keep it at a single level as much as possible and make sure that it is a lead
platinum. It should be the show place for proper conservation practices if you have to build on the
coast side. I don't think that you do. I think the place is perfect as it is and I wish that it would
retain its small town feel, but if you're hell-bent on building there, at least make sure it's lead
and that it serves the community well. Thank you for your time and your efforts.
Thank you. Next is David Boma. Here we go. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay, very good. Good morning, commissioners. Expanding the middle tier visitor lodging in this in Half Moon Bay is greatly needed to the large gap in units within that range.
other speakers today have spoken to you well about the many benefits of this hotel so I'm
going to instead direct my focus on the following. One of the key and critical visitor profiles to
Half Moon Bay is that of attendees to conferences, meetings, symposia. Half Moon Bay punches far above
its weight in this specific regard. Visitors especially enjoy walking and biking through
downtown old Half Moon Bay and this site is at the very gateway to downtown and will only
further enhance and serve this. So in that vein I have a very specific request to the commissioners
today and that is if you would please modify the conditions of approval such that additional
latitude be granted in the wording of the CDP to allow reasonable expansion of meeting spaces
and this is key within the approved development footprint so that this critical visitor element
is further enabled. Again, my request is that the wording of the CDP be granted with sufficient
reasonable latitude so that the applicant can find during construction where is valid
and where it is reasonable for such meeting spaces to be further expanded. Lastly, as
former Mayor Rodak highlighted, it is often missed by all that the Commission is here
to strike a balance. This project has gone far above and beyond in this respect. I ask
that you join the many Coastside community residents who support this project in approving
this very welcome visitor serving addition. Thank you very much.
Thank you. I see Paula Eisen, I see your hand raised. If you are using a different person's
Zoom name for David Klein or Harvey Rarback, Carrie Burke or Suzanne Bergen and Judy Taylor,
If you're not any of those please put the hand function down.
If you are, keep it up.
Okay, still up.
Let's see who this may be.
Okay.
Paula Eisen, are you any of the names we stated?
There we go.
Finally got unmuted.
Yes, I'm Paula Eisen.
Okay.
So you're not on the list, so we cannot have you speak on this item, okay?
You have to sign up for that.
I'm sorry.
I did.
Okay.
Do not.
I'm sorry.
Okay.
No more speakers.
OK, great.
Thank you very much.
So I will return to the applicant
to see if they have any closing or responsive comments they'd
like to make.
Thank you, sir.
You have seven minutes and 30 seconds remaining.
OK.
The one slide that it came up, I believe by Dave Shore,
it was an old draft slide.
And in your presentation, if you want to pull up the,
I don't know if we still can do that,
If you can pull up the city staff's presentation it shows the correct slide
Which shows the south building is a single story and not a two-story. That was an early slide
Somehow it got in the packet, but they replaced it yesterday in the addendum with the correct slide in case you want to see it
other than that the
percentage of the site it's like
257 feet is that one North building
versus the length of the entire site along Highway 1.
It's about 27%, which means approximately 73% of the site
has no structures.
And versus looking at the entire length of Highway 1
on the east side, we're doing an extremely good job
to protect the site as much as we can.
Plus, we're creating huge setbacks
with all the open space.
So I think we've done everything
we possibly can to make it as quality as we could.
That's all I really have unless you have questions.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Jamieson.
That's the incorrect one.
It's in our addenda.
We can go.
Slide eight.
Yeah, it was in the addenda.
And I don't know where it is in the slides,
but they did have the correct one somewhere.
It's slide eight if people are interested.
Yeah, and so that one shows the correct structure on the right which is below the ridgeline
So that gives the correct picture. Thank you
Thank you very much. Okay with that I'll close the public hearing and return to our staff. Mr. Einingston. Yes. Thank you chair Harman
We agree that there are some view impacts associated with the revised project
That is to be expected when developing a vacant site
Importantly, the applicant has worked with staff to make meaningful changes to minimize
visual impacts, as is required by the LCP, and in response to concerns raised during
the SI hearing.
This is discussed in more detail in the addendum.
In addition, the developer also revised the project to include 22 lower-cost rooms, which
will provide important low-cost visitor accommodations in Half Moon Bay.
Therefore staff continues to recommend approval of this project and we are available for any questions. Thank you
Thank you very much. Okay, I will return to the Commission and begin with Commissioner Lee
Thank you. I just wanted to commend the applicant and staff for meeting together and
Revising this project in a way that makes such meaningful changes to the project, especially by breaking up the massing widening the view corridors
improving the project's relationship to the highway.
I know personally how difficult it can be to go and remass
and costly even for the architectural.
Just as important, this project really includes
very meaningful public access packages
and the lower cost overnight accommodations
are such an important component.
I appreciate the commitment to outreach
and the ability to allow underserved communities,
especially in an area where you cited other hotels
in the area, this is a more moderate price point.
We've talked so much about the limitations
of our lower cost overnight accommodation outreach.
I will not belabor that point,
but just to reemphasize how incredibly important
that is to the commission and how meaningful that is.
The last point that I would make though too
is not to recommend any changes to this project whatsoever,
but just to staff in the future.
I noticed that the 22 lower cost rooms
are in a separate building in the single story building.
And just as I view this as a corollary
to affordable units in mixed income projects,
to make sure that those rooms in particular
are not of an inferior quality,
of an inferior building with a separate entrance,
all of those types of components
could be considered in the future.
We normally prefer that lower cost rooms
are mixed in with the other rooms
and that there isn't a lot of differentiation
in between them, but overall this is a wonderful project
taking place on a develop piece of empty land right now
and will hopefully be a great boost of economic activity
and coastal access for Half Moon Bay, thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Preciado.
I wanna associate myself with Commissioner Lee's comments
but I wanted to also highlight that in this project,
as happened in others,
including our enforcement action yesterday,
the development of ADA facilities
continues to be a prominent aspect of the commission's work.
And I just want to commend the continued focus
on ADA associated development aspects in these projects.
As someone who spent some time in Ventura in the last few days,
I can tell you that it's critical for our enjoyment
to have these amenities and to be able to participate fully.
In addition, I also want to associate my comments
with some of the speakers that talked about balance.
I appreciate that this project represents a balanced approach.
It's not a, shall we say, developer has the win
or environment has the win or no one has the win.
It seems like it's a win, win, win, win
for many of the stakeholders and perspectives.
And I just commend everyone involved in this project.
I see that with community input,
with community engagement
and the support of the commission staff,
we can have projects that are worthwhile
and will bring benefit for generations to this community.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Commissioner Kelly.
I had a couple questions for staff
and possibly for city staff.
So for the public access amenities
and the public restroom,
is that something that the hotel is gonna be developing
and maintaining for public use?
And where will that be located?
Thank you, Commissioner Kelly.
I'm not familiar with that particular question,
but I know we have the district manager and deputy
director on the line.
Hi, this is Stephanie Rexing, district manager.
I can answer that.
Yeah, it's going to be located in the northeast
portion of the site.
It will be available 24-7, but it's
going to be keyed one hour after sunset
and one hour before sunrise,
you can get the key from the front desk
and the applicant may have more on that.
Okay, thank you.
And then for the bike and pedestrian improvements
that are happening in the public open space area
adjacent to the highway,
is that pathway, does it connect to neighboring parcels
or is this just kind of like a meandering walking path
that doesn't have connection?
I know we're also doing like a lot line adjustment
and other developed subdivision for the northern properties.
So is there a vision that this pathway will connect
to something else for those bicycle uses?
I'm asking.
Go ahead.
It links up at the north to Main Street
and then down at the southern end,
it links up to the southern gateway area,
Highway 1 where there's I believe pedestrian crosswalks that can take you across Highway
1.
The applicant may have more details understanding the lay of the land.
Do you have anything you guys want to add or go ahead?
I'll just explain it, but along Highway 1, it runs the path that you see meander through.
It does run over to Highway 1, which goes to the west edge, and then it runs northerly
up to Seymour Street, which is on the north side of the car dealership.
So that path will connect there.
And then at the south end it comes at meanders back into a sidewalk that takes you back to
Main Street and wraps around up to the intersection so that people, it's a signaled intersection.
So it makes it very easy for them to be able to go back and forth across Highway 1.
And that's not to mention we will be improving the west side of Main Street, which right
now is just an asphalt curb.
we'll have curb gutter and sidewalk.
So it makes it much safer for people now
to get back and forth to Main Street
and to the other side of the highway.
OK, thank you.
I had one more question for you.
So for the future development potential,
as we're looking at an action today
that I think subdivides the car dealership lot,
but currently the car dealership will maintain,
but there's an intent of future residential use on that site.
And so we're doing a four lot subdivision.
Is that correct?
Can you talk to us a little bit about what,
I know that's not, we're not issuing
a development permit for that today,
but there may be a future action that comes before us.
Can you talk a little bit about what your vision is for that
and what may be coming down the road?
Okay, yeah, it's a single parcel now.
It's on the north side of Seymour.
And so what all's we're doing is breaking it
into four parcels in which we will have to process
through the city under the standards and story pools,
the whole deal, whatever they require.
And we will go through the standards
as far as whatever city code requires for us
to make those improvements at such time.
It's our goal to, of the four,
we're gonna try to develop the one
at the closest to Main Street first,
and it'll be easy to do sidewalk connections to that
and so forth, because we still need the parking
for the car dealership to operate,
but we think we can build that first lot,
and we're trying to build it
that we can build it for employees,
meaning, and it's hard to find housing,
And our goal there is that we're going to build that
and we would like to rent it to our employees,
which could be either of the hotel
or from the car dealership.
But that's how this was designed all along.
That's been our plan.
Great, and then sorry, my last question.
So as this is currently proposed as a Hyatt Place hotel,
which I want to align myself with the comments
of Commissioner Lee regarding the low cost accommodations
and appreciate the commitment
to those low cost accommodation units,
I think on the whole, as a Hyatt Place property,
given the bandwidth of what the Hyatt can look like
from, I think it's Park Hyatt at the high end
that kind of mirrors a Ritz Carlton-like property
down to a more affordable option,
what keeps this property kind of in the Hyatt Place realm?
Is that something that you guys,
I know it's not a commitment in the long run
in terms of a permit restriction or condition here,
but tell me a little bit about,
I mean, I'm delighted to see that it is a Hyatt place
that's being proposed.
Right, it's custom all the way
because of the design elements over the 10 years
and working with the city, it's nothing like a standard.
And so regardless of what the product would be,
we've obviously put the quality into that design.
The rooms you had asked earlier
about the 22 affordable rooms,
those will be the same rooms.
So we're not changing that.
The quality of the same through.
The Ritz Carlton has a bank of rooms
that's separate from their main.
And they charge a different price point.
But they're the same rooms as that are within the main body.
So it's not unusual to do it that way.
And there's no intent to try to separate anybody
from one group from the other.
But we think it'll be very nice the way it's designed.
OK.
Thank you.
Sure.
OK.
Well, any commissioner Wilson to the motion?
like to make a motion sure I'm happy to make the motion here and then I'll speak
to that if I can I moved that the Commission approve coastal development
permit number a dash to dash HMB dash to five dash zero zero zero three pursuant
to the staff recommendation I recommend a yes vote second and I just want to say
that when this came before us I actually did not find this inconsistent before so
So I just want to put out there that I was supportive of this project in its original
format, but I want to appreciate and recognize that it is a better project in having pulled
this back.
And I want to appreciate the applicant and staff and working together to get it to that
place.
And sort of beyond the LCP visual resource consistency, the strong public amenities package
is just really great.
And just looking at the space and where it's, you know, it is infill from my perspective,
and looking at where it sits, people who are going to access the bike and pedestrian facilities
and extending out from that, there's some really cool places that they can go and experience,
including just getting down to the beach and the trails down to there are great and coming
into town.
So I just think that's going to be very positive.
So I just want to extend my appreciation.
The lower cost room accommodations,
very meaningful for sure.
And sort of that southern gateway siting, I think,
is great.
And I'm just going to put this in an editorial format
because it's not a factor.
It's part of the analysis.
But I do want to recognize that this commission had
Fairly substantive discussion around short-term rentals in your community not that long ago. I mean, it's maybe two years ago or three years ago and
pressure on or for communities to
convert residential
Areas or residential housing to short-term rentals comes oftentimes from a from a lack of the ability to provide
hotel space in those areas and whether if people do it legally or illegally or through the permit process or not that pressure exists and
and so from my perspective
hotel development or these types of development actually actually have an impact in our part of
helping to
Create or maintain affordable housing or more affordable housing in these areas. So I just want to again that's editorializing
It's not in the it's not in our analysis
But I just want to recognize that those relationships do
exist, and I want to appreciate the potential
for that relationship.
With that, I recommend a yes vote.
OK.
Second.
I think Commissioner Lee already seconded.
I'll just say, for my part briefly,
I'll join with my colleagues.
I'm in strong support.
This is a great project, a huge improvement,
and really appreciate the collaborative effort
to get us where we are today.
So with that, are there any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, the motion carries.
Congratulations.
OK, we're going to keep on.
We're on a bit of a time crunch here.
So we will move on to item 8, the Deputy Director's Report
for the Central Coast District.
Thank you, Chair Harmon.
In the Central Coast District Director's Report this month,
we are reporting five waivers, one coastal permit amendment,
three coastal permit extensions, one emergency permit,
and two LCP amendment certifications.
Although we didn't receive any written objections,
we note that we have someone signed up
to speak in opposition where we believe it is in opposition
to the Cayucos to Morro Bay Trail Project
that the commission approved in 2024.
I would note that the issue before you today
is simply whether to extend that permit
And it is not to discuss the merits of the project.
We continue to believe that there are not
any changed circumstances that would suggest
that the permit not be extended.
Excuse me, past that we are not aware
of any objections or controversy
regarding the other matters in the DD's report.
And so the question is whether three
or more commissioners object to the items in the report.
And if not, then the commission will concur.
Thank you, any ex partes?
Any public comments?
Yes, we have Susan Dunn.
Susan Dunn, I see you in panelists.
If you can unmute yourself.
Susan Dunn.
Can you hear me?
Yes.
Can you hear me?
Yes.
Okay.
I have vision and speech issues from a car accident,
although I'm very happy to be alive and here.
So if I could have a little bit of grace,
that'd be fantastic.
My name is Susan Dunn from South Cayucas.
This request is to grant the time extension for the moral bay
to Cayucas Connector only after its inclusionary policy
that fully conforms with federal ADA rules is created
so the Connector is fully and equally accessible
to the large population of disabled
and elderly residents of South Cayucas.
It's the neighborhood at the north end of the Connector
with 782 homes and no services.
Slow County blocked off the Cabrillo Bridge
on the north side of South Cayuga.
So disabled and elderly have no off-highway access
north to any services.
Thus the only potential off-highway access
to basic services is the moral beta Cayugas connector.
This path currently appears exclusionary
only allow able-bodied bicyclists and pedestrians, disabled and elderly persons taxes are paying
for this path, and they deserve access to the same public facilities and basic services.
The federal ADA, other power-driven mobility devices webpage simply explains the law stating
many devices, including golf carts and segways, are federally recognized mobility devices.
With over 20 years of planning, 782 landlocked South Cayuga's homes without frontage roads
or any off-highway access, full path and beach disabled access should be included.
Disabled and elderly persons don't want to play mother may I with a county to have half
the access that is afforded to the bicycles and pedestrians now who currently have physical
and legal access on the shoulder of the highway that's wide enough to accommodate a full-size
truck. Also, emissions will be improved and cars will be taken off the road with an inclusive
plan. Please do the legal and right thing and require the path to be accessible. I'm
available to work with anybody to make this happen. Thank you.
Thank you. No, other speakers, others are just available for questions.
Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. I will return to the commission.
See if three or more commissioners object to any item in the deputy director's
report. Okay. Seeing no objections, the commission concurs.
Thank you very much. Okay. Now to our final item of the day.
Item 10 a, uh, yes. Thank you chair Harmon.
I am introducing Maddie Whitman, coastal planner from our Central Coast office, who's going
to be giving the staff presentation.
Good morning, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
Item 10A is an appeal of a City of Pacific Grove CDP decision authorizing removal of
overgrown vegetation in Crespi Pond.
Staff distributed an addendum yesterday in response to further comments from the appellant,
And neither those comments nor our responses to them change our recommendation.
Next slide please.
Slide two shows an aerial view of the Monterey Peninsula with the project site noted by the
red arrow within the city of Pacific Grove.
The city of Monterey is located up coast and Del Monte Forest and the city of Carmel by
the Sea are down coast.
Next slide please.
Head 3 zooms in to show the project site which is circled in red on the city's municipal
golf course.
The 94-year-old golf course is situated at Point Piños on the city's northernmost edge,
and Crispy Pond is located between the 16th and 17th holes along Oceanview Boulevard.
The pond is a natural feature that is also a water hazard element of the golf course.
The city's approval authorizes removal of overgrown aquatic vegetation within Crespi
Pond to improve habitat values.
Vegetation would be removed along the perimeter and center of the pond using barge mounted
equipment to maintain approximately 70% open water and 30% vegetation.
Nearly an acre of vegetation would initially be removed and then removal would occur as
needed to maintain the ratio every two years.
the CDP covers a five-year period of such activities.
Next slide, please.
Crespi pond is an important feature
for many migratory bird species,
and the management of emergent vegetation
to maintain sufficient open water
requires ongoing effort by the city.
Slide five shows how the vegetation in the pond
has ebbed and flowed over time.
As you can see, the vegetation needs
to be periodically removed to help maintain
optimal open water to vegetation ratio. Historically the city has removed
vegetation to maintain the 70-30 balance, including pursuant to multiple Coastal
Commission authorizations for the same project before you today prior to LCP
certification. Next slide please. The appellate contends that the city's
approval is inconsistent with Pacific Grove LCP provisions related to ESHA,
water quality and marine resources, including that it allows activities
outside the windows required by other agencies and alleges that the city was
not in compliance with its previous CDP waiver. In terms of ESHA, specifically
wetlands, the appellant contends that the city did not account for adjacent areas
of the golf course that are seasonally wet and that the project does not comply
with the LCP's 100-foot buffer requirement. Buffers are meant to ensure
that the structural and other development is set back a sufficient
distance from sensitive habitat so has not to adversely impact the
habitat. The project is a habitat enhancement project that must be located
within the habitat itself and imposition of a buffer in the traditional sense is
not necessary. Regarding water quality, the
Appellant contends that the project fails to comply with LCP requirements
because the project does not address poor water quality in crispy pond. However,
the goal of the project is to improve the habitat value of the pond, including
its water quality, and the project includes appropriate best management
practices to address potential construction impacts. The Appellant also
contends that the city's approval does not comply with other agency
requirements for timing of the work because the CDP allows for work from
September 1st to February 1st when California Department of Fish and
Wildlife and the regional board only allow work in the month of September.
The city is only legally allowed to conduct the work in September per those
resource agencies authorizations which the city has acknowledged and thus the
work will only be conducted in September. Finally, the appellant contends that the
city is in violation of the last Commission authorization from 2014
because they have not done any vegetation removal since 2015. However,
although that prior authorization allowed for the same five-year vegetation
management plan as the current project, it did not affirmatively require that it
take place and there is no violation in this regard. And in any event that
authorization has since expired and is being replaced by this new CDP. Next
slide please. In sum, the city's approval authorizes habitat enhancement designed
to provide an appropriate balance of open water and vegetation to better
support wildlife that use the pond. Much of the contentions and the appellant's
latest correspondence appear to suggest that there's a substantial issue because
the city should be doing more to improve the pond. While it is likely that all
parties can agree that the additional restoration would be beneficial, that is
a different question than whether the project raises any LCP conformance
concerns. As described in the staff report, not only does the city's project
not raise a substantial issue, but it will enhance Crespi pond resource values
and is LCP consistent. For these reasons, staff recommends that the Commission
determine that no substantial issue exists with respect to the grounds on
which the appeal was filed. The motion and resolution to implement staff's
recommendation are found on page 5 of the staff report and this concludes
staff presentation. Great, thank you very much. Are there any ex partes? Okay, that
will open the public hearing and I'll turn it over to Simone. Okay, we have the
Appellant who wishes to speak?
Tony Ciani or Anthony Ciani. I'm assuming that's the same person, but never know. I moved them too. Okay
Good morning commissioners
the city CDP and the Commission staff recommendation for no substantial issue are based on a
2004 CDP used over 20 years ago to dredge the vegetation
That was before the LCP was updated and certified by the Commission in 2020.
In short, the city's coastal permit fails to adequately implement the 2020 updated land
use plan policies to restore Crespi-Pon wetland.
Next slide, please.
Crespi-Pon is a small but valuable ancient wetland visited by Gaspar de Portola and Juan
Presby during their expedition to find Monterey Bay in 1770. The estuary was mapped in 1847,
well before the golf course was conceived in 1959. It has long been a natural stopping place
for migrating birds on the Pacific Flyway. Next slide, please. The science and pollution is real.
The Regional Water Quality Board test results reported action levels that are benchmarks set
for receiving water concentrations at which pollutants may impact cold water fish.
Crespi-Pon repeatedly exceeds the action levels and objectives for chloride,
geldar nitrogen, sodium, total dissolved solids, and total nitrogen. Instead of restoring
crespi pond wetland pursuant to the LCP and as recommended by the California Native Plant
Society and Monterey Audubon, the city's LCP or CDP proposes to merely prevent the polluted water
in Crespi Pond from entering Monterey Bay. Next slide, please. The city's CDP does not
comply with LCP policy R3 that mandates development shall include specific measures to help reduce
potential pollutants and water quality impairment, including controlling the use of pesticides and
urban sides, that's not in the permit. The city's CDP does not comply with Mar 5 and
Mar 6 that mandate. The quality of wetlands and estuaries shall be maintained and where
feasible restored. The CDP is for vegetation management, not restoration. It and the staff
report treat water in Presby Pond as polluted water that must not flow into Monterey Bay
but fails to protect the water quality in Crespi Pawn itself.
These issues are substantial.
Furthermore, the city's timeline is not
consistent with the September-only work timelines
required by the Water Quality Board and Fish and Game
Permits.
They should be together.
So leaving the permit as it is does not be.
Therefore, I request the commission
find the appeal raises a substantial issue.
Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you, Anthony.
No more speakers.
We do have the City of Pacific Grove.
Daniel Grove.
Are they available for questions or would they like to speak?
We haven't indicated that they wish to speak.
Please go ahead.
Daniel, if you can accept.
I'm now seeing Joseph Sider.
Joseph is also in and he's being moved in this panelist.
Thank you, commissioners and commissioned staff from Daniel Goham,
public works director, deputy city manager,
and also the applicant for this project.
A project that the city has been working on for over three years.
And we started working on this project. Well, in the past,
for the past 10 plus years,
the commissioner has given us a waiver to perform the same exact work.
But we started working on this project approximately three years
ago, as members of the public, including the Appellate, continue to come to our Beautification
and Natural Resources Commission, and also our City Council, asking us to dredge the
pond and remove the vegetation and begin enhancement of it. At that time, the City, through Public
Works, opted to move forward with the project, and we performed all the necessary environmental
We did an initial study with a mitigated negative declaration, we've obtained all the permits
for this project, and we're ready to move forward with it.
We brought it forward initially to our Planning Commission, who administers our LCP, and we
received a unanimous vote to move forward with this project.
It then got appealed to our City Council, which also received a unanimous vote from
our City Council to move forward with this project.
that the members of the public want to see it in our golfing community. And then this
was appealed today to the commission and thank you again for hearing it. This project is
simple. It's simply a maintenance project. You've heard about water quality and every
quarter because of our local water project, the reclaimed water that we're using on the
golf course for irrigation, we have to test Crespi Pond. Regional water quality,
the local out of Monterey, they don't question the quality of the Crespi Pond.
We're not exceeding anything besides the baselines. Let me rephrase that. When we
started our local water project back in 2017, we got baseline numbers. The
The quality of the water in the pond is very consistent with those baseline numbers from
2017 nothing has changed.
This project will only enhance the quality of the water in the pond and the habitat for
birds and all of the species around Crestview pond.
So important project for the city and we appreciate you hearing it today and I'm also available
for any questions.
Thank you very much.
Joseph Snyder are you speaking as well or okay no no more speakers now great
thank you very much okay I will close the public hearing and see if our staff
has any brief comments they'd like to make are we you're good okay and the
development proposed in this project is towards restoration of the pond and thus
is consistent with the LCP policies and we note that Audubon and the California
Native Plant Society submitted letters concurring with this action to remove
vegetation to restore the mosaic of habitats within the pond. Great, thank you
very much. Okay, I will return to the Commission. Comments, questions or a
motion? Can we make a motion? Please. I move that the Commission determine that
appeal number A-3-PGR-26-0013 raises no substantial issue with
respect to the grounds in which the appeal has been filed under section 30603
and I recommend a yes vote. Second. It's a motion by Vice Chair Hart, a second by
Commissioner Lopez. Any objections to unanimous consent? Seeing none, no
substantial issue has been found. Okay thank you all so much, thank you to staff,
thank you very much to AGP, you guys are the best, and thank you to Ventura for
having us. We will see all of you next month in Scotts Valley.