FENTON & K E LLER

A PROFESSION AL CO RP O RA TI ON LEWIS L. FENTO N

MARK A CAMERON
1925-2005
JOHN S . BRIDGES
OE~NIS G. MCCARTHY
ATTOR NEYS AT LAW
CHR I STOPHER E . PAN E TTA 2801 MONTE REY -SALINAS H IGH WAY
DAVID C SWEIGERT
SARA B . BOY N S POST OFF I CE BO X 791
BRIAND C AL L
TRO Y A. KINGSHAVEN MON TER E Y, CAL I FORNIA 93942 - 0 7 9!
JO HN E. KESECKER
T E LEPHO N E (8 31) 373-1241 OE COUNSEL
EL I ZABETH R . LEITZINGER
S HA RJLYN R . PA YNE C HA RLES R . KELLER
FA CSI MIL E ( 831) 37 3 -7219
CAROLS HILBURN THOMAS II JAMI SO N
C H RISTINA J BAGGETT www . F enton Ke ller . com
ELIAS E SALAME H
K ENNETH S . KLEINKOPF
DERR I C G OLJVER
LA URAL F RANKLI N
EVAN J . AL LEN
ANDREW B . KREEFT
ALE X l. LORCA
July 12,2017
DSweigert@ FentonKel ler.com
DAVI D C. SWEIGERT ext. 202

VIA U.S. MAIL AND E-MAIL (JDoughty@hmbcity.com)

John Doughty, Community Development Director

City of Half Moon Bay
501 Main Street
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019

Re: City of Half Moon Bay Compliance Order Dated December 14, 2016
(Pillar Point RV Park)
Our File: 34914. 33564

Dear Mr. Doughty:

This office represents Keet Nerhan, proprietor of the Pillar Point RV Park ("RV Park")
located at 4000 Cabrillo Highway North ("Property") in the City of Half Moon Bay ("City"). This
letter responds to the City's Compliance Order dated December 14, 2016 ("Compliance Order"),
which asserts that a retroactive Coastal Development Permit ("CDP") must be obtained for the RV
Park.

In short, the City must rescind the Compliance Order because the City is equitably estopped
from requiring that a CDP application be submitted for the RV Park. Mr. Nerhan has operated the
RV Park since 1998 under a lease ("Lease") with the San Mateo County Harbor District ("Harbor
District"). At the time Mr. Nerhan entered the Lease, the City assured him that the RV Park required
no further discretionary permits and that he was free to obtain building permits for improvements
required by the City as conditions of previous discretionary permits issued by the City to the Harbor
District for the RV Park. In reliance on the City's representations, Mr. Nerhan perfected the Lease,
obtained a building permit, and spent significant amounts of money improving the RV Park to meet
the City's requirements. For nearly 20 years, Mr. Nerhan has paid rent to the Harbor District and
Transient Occupancy Tax ("TOT") to the City. Mr_ Nerhan's improvement and operation of the RV
Park have solved significant problems for both the City and the Harbor District. The terms of the
Compliance Order have the potential to significantly disrupt the economic relationship between
Mr. Nerhan and the Harbor District. This would be manifestly unfair to Mr. Nerhan. Unless the City
rescinds the Compliance Order, Mr. Nerhan will be left with no alternative but to pursue his available

{AJL-678136}
City of Half Moon Bay
July 12, 2017
Page 2

legal remedies, including, but not limited to, filing a lawsuit against the City to request a judicial
determination that the City is equitably estopped from requiring him to submit a CDP application for
the RV Park.

The facts supporting Mr. Nerhan's position are set forth in more detail below.

I. History of the Property and RV Park

The Property, owned by the Harbor District, has been permitted and used as a recreational
vehicle park since at least 1977, when the City issued Use Permit UP- 108-77 to the Harbor District.
The City Planning Commission renewed UP-108-77 on June 12, 1984, pursuant to Resolution No.
84-30. (See reference to Use Permit UP-108-77 in Resolution No. 84-30, attached hereto as
Exhibit "A".) Conditions of the renewal included installing fencing, lighting, water, fire hydrants,
paving, and landscaping within set time periods. (See June 15, 1984, letter from Community
Development Director Lester H. Clark to Harbor District General Manager Ronald McClellan,
attached hereto as Exhibit "B" .) The City again renewed Use Permit UP-I 08-77 on July 10, 1986,
with further direction to the Harbor District to comply with unsatisfied conditions. (See July 23,
1986, letter from Community Development Director Clark to Harbor District Acting General
Manager Richard Milkovich, attached hereto as Exhibit "C".)

At its May 28, 1987, meeting, the City's Planning Commission considered Use Permit UP-
03-87 under a request from the Harbor District to allow day use parking and overnight parking for
recreational vehicles at the RV Park. The staff report for that meeting noted the Harbor District had
failed to comply with conditions the City previously imposed on the Harbor District' s use of the
Property, and that the "condition, appearance and control of the lot have been of concern to the City."
To remedy these concerns, the City further conditioned its approval of Use Permit UP-03-87. The
conditions included a requirement that a monitor be present at all times during overnight use and that
existing fencing and trash collection facilities be improved. (See May 28, 1987, City Planning
Commission Staff Report, attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and excerpt from May 28, 1987 Planning
Commission Minutes, attached hereto as Exhibit "E".) Also, during this time, the RV Park was
occasionally closed due to non-compliance with UP-03-87 and violations of the City's Municipal
Code. (See Memorandum dated November 12, 1992, from Mark Weiss to Councilmembers Iverson
and Ruddock, attached hereto as Exhibit "F".)

Due to its inability to meet the conditions imposed on the RV Park and to achieve a revenue
stream from the RV Park, the Harbor District considered privatizing operation of the RV Park at a
meeting in February of 1996. The staff report for this meeting noted "[a] number of problems
occurred in the past relative to the management of the lot. Various users were accused of vandalism,
disturbing the peace, and other assorted crimes and misdemeanors." The staff report also noted
conditions imposed almost 20 years prior had not been satisfied and that "[ s]taff further believes that
the RV Lot must be upgraded if continued to be used as an RV Lot." The staff report recommended
upgrading of the RV Park to "improve the overall appearance" and to yield greater revenues to the

{AJ L-678 136}

City of Half Moon Bay
July 12, 2017
Page3

Harbor District and the City. (See Staff Report from February 1996 Harbor District meeting,
attached hereto as Exhibit "G".)

In September of 1997 the Harbor District prepared a Request for Proposals to privatize the
management and operation of the Property. Mr. Nerhan responded to the RFP and his proposal was
accepted by the Harbor District. On December 2, 1998, the Harbor District approved the Lease with
Mr. Nerhan . (See Harbor District Resolution 38-98, attached hereto as Exhibit "H".)

As will be described below, shortly after taking over operation of the RV Park in 1998,
Mr. Nerhan, with the approval of the City, began improving the Property and the RV Park to meet
City requirements and to comply with past conditions imposed by the City on the Harbor District. At
no point in time prior to December 2016 did the City require Mr. Nerhan obtain a CDP for the
Property, or for his operation of the RV Park, and in fact led him to believe that all discretionary
approvals had already been obtained for the RV Park. The City cannot now insist on a CDP.

II. The City is Equitably Estopped from Requiring a CDP for the RV Park.

The evidence clearly demonstrates the following facts, which are required for the raising of
an estoppel against the City: (1) the City knew, or should have known a CDP was not issued for the
RV Park; (2) the City intended Mr. Nerhan to improve and operate the RV Park without a CDP; (3)
Mr. Nerhan was unaware a CDP was not issued for the RV Park; and (4) Mr. Nerhan ' s reasonable
reliance on the City ' s conduct was to his detriment. (City of Long Beach v. Mansell (1970) 3 Cal. 3d
462, 488-489.) Additionally, the injustice Mr. Nerhan would suffer if the City is not estopped from
requiring a CDP for the RV Park would greatly outweigh any adverse effect on the public interest
that would result from the raising of an estoppel. (City of Long Beach v. Mansell, supra, 3 Cal. 3d at
p. 496-497.)

A. The City knew the RV Park did not have a Coastal Development Permit.

Estoppel requires a finding that the City knew the RV Park did not have a CDP. However,
actual knowledge is not required where the party to be estopped, although ignorant or mistaken as to
the real facts, was in such a position that they " ought to have known them, so that knowledge will be
imputed to [them]." (Feduniak v. California Coastal Com. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1346, 1361.)
This element is met here.

The City's own Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan acknowledges the existence of the RV
Park at Pillar Point in the Coastal Zone. Policy 2-12(d) obligates the City to encourage and/or
require the Harbor District to " [m]aintain and upgrade the Harbor District east parking area as an RV
Park [and] [p ]rovide hookups and trash collection." (See excerpt from City of Half Moon Bay Local
Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amended 1993, attached hereto as Exhibit "I".) Moreover, the City
made an express finding in Resolution No. 84-30 that "the renewal of the use permit (UP-108-77)
will be consistent with the City's General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan." (See Resolution No. 84-30,
attached hereto as Exhibit "A".) These statements are evidence the City knew the RV Park was in

{AJL-6781 36)
City of Half Moon Bay
July 12, 2017
Page4

the Coastal Zone as early as 1984 and therefore subject to any applicable CDP requirements under
the Coastal Act.

The City also had actual knowledge of the improvements Mr. Nerhan made to the Property
and of his operation of the RV Park; in fact, it actively encouraged them. After 20 years of problems
and lack of condition compliance under the Harbor District's management and operation of the RV
Park, the City was eager to see the premises improved by Mr. Nerhan. In a June 10, 1998, letter to
the Harbor District (with a copy to Mr. Nerhan), City Manager Blair King stated " [t]he prospect of
cleaning the [RV Park] lot up and payment of Transient Occupancy Tax would indeed be progress."
The City Manager also stated that "staff is of the opinion that you may proceed with implementation
of the conditions [imposed pursuant to UP-03-87] and apply for building permits .... " (See June 10,
1998 letter attached hereto as Exhibit "J".)

Shortly thereafter, on September 24, 1998, the City issued Building Permit A-18060 to
Mr. Nerhan for "Improvements to RV/Vehicle Parking Lot" ("Building Permit"). (See Building
Permit attached hereto as Exhibit "K" .)

Also, the City acknowledged the RV Park's location in the Coastal Zone in a January 6,
1999, letter from City Planning Director Anthony J. Carney to Mr. Nerhan. The City stated: " [t]he
RV park is a recreational use which is a Coastal Act priority activity." The letter also emphasizes
that the RV Park is favored under the City's Local Coastal Program: "Policy 2-29 of the Half Moon
Bay Local Coastal Program/Land Use states that facilities such as this RV park are to be located in
several areas of the City, including the area within the City Limits at Pillar Harbor." (See January 6,
1999, letter attached hereto as Exhibit "L".)

In light of this evidence, there can be no dispute that the City knew or "ought to have known"
that the Property was located in the Coastal Zone and that a CDP may have been required for
development at the RV Park.

B. The City intended Mr. Nerhan to act on its conduct.

Estoppel further requires a finding that the City intended for Mr. Nerhan to act on its conduct,
or that it was reasonable for Mr. Nerhan to do so.

The City clearly intended Mr. Nerhan to act on its conduct. After 20 years of problems under
the Harbor District's operation of the RV Park, the City was eager for action. The City's June 10,
1998, letter described Mr. Nerhan's proposed improvements to the RV Park as "progress" that would
result in "cleaning the lot up" and would generate TOT for the City. (See Exhibit "J" attached
hereto .) Further, the City issued the Building Permit to Mr. Nerhan for "Improvements to
RV/Vehicle Parking Lot" without requiring a CDP or any further discretionary permits. (See
Exhibit "K" attached hereto.) The issuance of a building pe1mit is generally a ministerial act that
follows the issuance of all required discretionary permits, including CDPs.

{AJL-678136}
City of Half Moon Bay
July 12, 2017
Page 5

The City considered Mr. Nerhan' s proposed 1998 improvements to be required to satisfy
conditions of approval of UP-03-87. The City called the improvements "progress" and determined
that Mr. Nerhan could proceed to obtain the Building Permit for those improvements. From this
evidence, it is clear that the City intended Mr. Nerhan to act on its conduct and that Mr. Nerhan acted
reasonably in completing the improvements as approved by the City in reliance on the City's
representations. (See Exhibits "I" and "K" attached hereto.)

C. Mr. Nerhan was unaware the RV Park did not have a CDP or that one may be
required.

When Mr. Nerhan entered in to the Lease and assumed operation of the RV Park, he was
unaware the RV Park did not have a CDP or that one may be required. At no point since Mr. Nerhan
leased the Property and took over the operation of the RV Park did the City inform Mr. Nerhan a
CDP may be required for the operation of the RV Park, for pre-1998 improvements the Harbor
District made to the Property, or for post-1998 improvements completed by Mr. Nerhan. In fact, the
City informed Mr. Nerhan he could proceed to apply for building permits without any further
discretionary permits. At the time of the Lease, the RV Park had existed for at least 20 years before
the Lease. Moreover, the City represented to Mr. Nerhan that no further discretionary permits would
be required for the improvements. Therefore, assuming without conceding that Mr. Nerhan was
aware of CDP requirements, it would have been reasonable for him to assume either that the City had
already issued any required CDP for the Property and RV Park or that none was required.

D. Mr. Nerhan Reasonably Relied on the City's Actions.

After the City issued the Building Permit, Mr. Nerhan formalized the lease and proceeded to
expend approximately $750,000 in making the improvements to the RV Park that the City told him
were required for the continued operation of the RV Park. 1 For nearly 20 years, Mr. Nerhan has
operated the RV Park relatively free of the problems and issues that had marked the Harbor District's
operation of the RV Park before 1998. As discussed above, the City's June 10, 1998, letter, the
Building Permit, and the January 6, 1999, letter all evidence the City's knowledge and approval of
the improvements Mr. Nerhan made at the Property and his operation of the RV Park. Based on
these documents, it was eminently reasonable for Mr. Nerhan to rely on the City's actions and to
proceed with the required improvements to the RV Park.

1
These improvements include required fencing, paving, lighting, restroom improvements, installation of utilities,
and construction of a portion of the coastal pedestrian/bicycle trail on the Property.

{AJL-678136)
City of Half Moon Bay
July 12 , 2017
Page 6

E. The injustice of requiring Mr. Nerhan to apply for a CDP for the RV Park after
40 years would greatly outweigh any effect on the public interest that would
result if he does not.

1. The City required Mr. Nerhan to make improvements to eliminate past

problems at the RV Lot.

When Mr. Nerhan entered the Lease and took over operation of the RV Park in 1998, the
City had long been concerned with the conditions on the Property and its use. For two decades
before 1998, the Harbor District failed to implement improvements required by the City under use
permits for the operation of the RV Park. In addition, vandalism and criminal activity had been
ongoing issues at the Property, resulting in the City ordering the closure of the RV Park on more than
one occasion. At the behest of both the Harbor District and the City, Mr. Nerhan stepped in and
solved these nagging problems for the benefit of the public and both the City and Harbor District.
Since he took over operation of the RV Park and made the required improvements, it has enjoyed and
continues to enjoy a reputation as a safe, clean, and affordable day use and overnight facility within
the Coastal Zone. In addition, for the last 20 years, the City has enjoyed enhanced TOT revenues
generated by the RV Park. Thus, primarily as a result of Mr. Nerhan's actions, the City has achieved
the goals and objectives stated in the June 10, 1998, Letter from the City Manager. (See Exhibit "J"
attached hereto.)

2. The City's Delay in Requiring a CDP is Unreasonable.

Both the City's Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and the City's Implementation Plan
were adopted and certified by the Coastal Commission years before Mr. Nerhan entered into the
Lease in 1998.2 These documents set forth CDP requirements in portions of the City within the
Coastal Zone. Despite this, the City waited until December of 2016 to inform Mr. Nerhan that a
CDP may be required for the RV Park, a delay of nearly twenty years. Such delay is unreasonable,
especially since the City required, and has benefitted from, Mr. Nerhan's improvements to the RV
Park throughout this period.

3. Requiring a CDP will reduce revenues to the City and Harbor District
and will interfere with the contractual relationship between Mr. Nerhan
and the Harbor District.

As noted, Mr. Nerhan has expended approximately $750,000 on improvements to the

Property and the RV Park. Forcing Mr. Nerhan or the Harbor District to obtain a CDP for the RV
Park at this late date will most likely require Mr. Nerhan to make significant additional expenditures
for additional modifications to the RV Park. If those modifications were to result in elimination of
RV sites, requiring a CDP could result in loss ofrevenue to Mr. Nerhan, as well as a reduction in rent

2
Certification of the City' s Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan gave the City
jurisdiction to issue any CDP required for the Property.

{AJL-678 136)
City of Half Moon Bay
July 12, 2017
Page 7

payments to the Harbor District and the amount of TOT to the City. Thus, requiring a CDP will
interfere with Mr. Nerhan's investment backed expectations and could significantly disrupt the
economic and contractual relationship between Mr. Nerhan and the Harbor District. Had the City
timely require a CDP, Mr. Nerhan could have calculated the costs associated with doing so into his
investments in the Property, allowed him to plan accordingly, and/or decline to enter into the Lease
at all. The City's delay prevented him from doing so.

4. The RV Park Use is Strongly Encouraged by the Coastal Commission

and promotes, rather than impedes, important Coastal Act policies.

In addition to weighing the injustice to Mr. Nerhan that would result from failure to uphold
an estoppel against the City, courts will also look to the effects on public policy upholding an
estoppel would have. If the effect is not deleterious, courts will uphold an estoppel against a
governmental entity. This is especially so where, as here, the actions taken promote further public
policy rather than adversely affect it. (City of Long Beach v. Mansell, supra, 3 Cal. 3d at p. 497 .)

The public policy of protection and preservation of California's coastal areas, as well as
equal public access to those areas, is well established. "Unquestionably, the Coastal Act reflects a
strong rule of policy, adopted for the benefit of the public that implicate matters of vital interest.
Simply put, the public has a vital interest in the protection and preservation of the California coast."
(Feduniak v. California Coastal Com., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 1376; internal citations and
quotations omitted.)

The RV Park directly advances the public policies underlying the Coastal Act. The Coastal
Act, at Public Resources Code section 30213, states: " [l]ower cost visitor and recreational facilities
shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public
recreational opportunities are preferred."

Recently, the Coastal Commission has stated: "[w]hen planning and development does not
adequately address the need for lower cost facilities, it is inconsistent with the Coastal Act' s
requirement to protect, provide and maximize access for all." (See excerpt from October 26, 2016,
Coastal Commission Memorandum "Public Workshop: Lower Cost Visitor Serving
Accommodations" (" Memorandum"), attached hereto as Exhibit "M" .)

The Memorandum specifically identifies recreational vehicle parks such as the RV Park as
preferred lower cost visitor serving facilities since the Coastal Act's inception in 1975:

"Based on extensive public input in the early 1970s, the Coastal Plan found that few
tourist facilities for persons of low and moderate income were being built in many
parts of the coastal zone, and that many such low and moderate cost facilities were
being replaced by higher cost facilities, particularly overnight accommodations that
were even at that time shifting from lower cost options to higher cost apartments,
condominiums, resorts and hotels. The earliest statement of statewide coastal policy

{AJL-678136}
City of Half Moon Bay
July 12, 2017
Page 8

on lower cost overnight accommodations is found in the 1975 Coastal Plan under a
section titled " Equality of Access." The Plan Policy 125 states, in part:

Provide Lower Cost Tourist Facilities in the Nearcoast Area. To increase recreational
access to the coast for the general public, tourist facilities (including campgrounds,
hotels, youth hostels, recreational vehicle parks, etc. for low and moderate income
persons shall be provided in the nearcoast areas through the use of all available
financing techniques, including tax increment obtained from high-cost coastal
housing and tourist facilities."

(Memorandum at p. 7; emphasis added.)3

Moreover, the California Coastal Commission has expressly encouraged the Property 's use as
a recreational vehicle park. In a December 29, 1999, letter from the California Coastal
Commission's Coastal Access Manager Linda Locklin to the City's Planning Director Bill Ambrosi
Smith, the Commission expressed its support of the RV Park's operational model of day use parking
and short term recreational vehicle use, stating that the RV Park's protection of day use parking and
limiting RV parking to 30 days per year are "consistent with the Coastal Act polices to protect public
access for the general public." (See December 29, 1999, letter attached hereto as Exhibit "N".)
Similarly, in a January 25, 2002, letter to the San Mateo County Harbor District, Peter T. Imhof,
Coastal Commission Coastal Planner stated: "RV facilities such as the Pillar Point RV Park provide
low-cost overnight accommodation and fulfill an important visitor-serving function." (See January
25, 2002, letter attached hereto as Exhibit "0".)

As evidenced by the plain text of the Coastal Act, the explicit statements by Coastal
Commission representatives, and court decisions, the RV Park furthers, rather than impedes, the
Coastal Act's explicit public policies of providing public access and lower cost visitor serving
accommodations in the coastal area.4 There is nothing to be gained and much to be lost if the City
were to require a CDP application for the RV Park at this late juncture.

III. Summary and Conclusion

The City has been aware the RV Park has operated on the Property since at least 1977, and
has been responsible for issuing coastal development permits since at least 1996. Clearly,
Mr. Nerhan was not responsible for obtaining a CDP or any other permits for the establishment of the
Property as an RV Park or for any improvements that occurred prior to the Lease. Any and all
improvements installed since the Lease were requirements of prior permits issued by the City to the

3
The entire Memorandwn can be found at: https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/20 l 6/1 l/th6- l l-20 l 6.pdf.

4As further evidence that estoppel would not impede any important public policy considerations, the City expressly
found the continued use of the RV Park to be "consistent with the City's General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan."
(Resolution No. 84-30, attached hereto as Exhibit "A".)

{AJL-678136}
City of Half Moon Bay
July 12, 2017
Page 9

Harbor District. The City never requested that a CDP application be filed for the RV Park until late
2016 and now is equitably estopped from doing so.

For the reasons set forth above, Mr. Nerhan respectfully requests that the City rescind the
Compliance Order. If the City declines to do so, our client will be left with no alternative but to
pursue available legal options to ensure the City is estopped from requiring a CDP for the Property or
RV Park.

Please let me know if you would like to discuss this matter further.

Very truly yours,

FENTON & KELLER

DCS

cc: (all via email)

Magda Gonzalez, City Manager (MGonzalez@hmbcity.com)
Reed Gallogly, City Attorney (RWG@abc-law.com)
Steve McGrath, SMCHD General Manager (smcgrath@smharbor.com)
Steven Miller, SMCHD Attorney (SMiller@hansonbridgett.com)
Keet Nerhan

{AJL-678136}
/ RESOL UTION NO. 84-30

RISOLUTlON NO. 84-30

RESOLUTION OP TiiE ?LAIDlDlG COHHISSIO!l OF THE c1n OF

HALF HOON BAY ~Ei.'IN G 'A USE. P~\.fIT ( 1J1'-108 -7i) TO
"::H.E SA?-l ~'-TEO COUNTY RARBOR DISIRlC ! FOR 'fHE P.::L~
POW'! ll.A.~OR RV P J.23.

nt
',,,'"..:::EREAS, a l'ublic Hearing has been duly noticed and h<?ld purs'.!a
42,170 through 18. 42.190 of tM :-!al! 1-'..oon Eay Y.unici ?al
to S<!c!:1cr.s 18.
Cede, and

wr.EREAS , the te~ber s of cte Plannin g Cc=iss ior. ha ve h~~xd a~d

consid ered ~11 evidenc e, boc~ or~l a~G <locu~e~ta.ry in::oc~ ced
at said
public n~arin gs, a~c
~nt
1-"n~REAS, the re~eva ! of the ~se Pen:u.: (L?-108-77) ~11: b~ cccsist
~ith th~ Ci:y's ~nera l Pla:../C oastal Land Use ?laa, G~c
i,::,n,
T~EREFCRE BE IT P.ZSOLVED by the H.a:tf 1/.:o~ Bay Ha:-.r.in g Co=iss
end cetur!t lne1 chat rse Ptr=:!t (UP-10S -77) ra~~~a :
a~d ic is hQreby fcu:1d
Code be, a~d
p1:::-s1.:n:i:: ~c t~.e provisf o:1~ cf t:~~ Half }'.-o:)~ Ba:;, }h.1:1ici;>al
!~ h(?:-e·::y ap?rcvec. sub_:ec:: to the co~tici cr.s i'--zn::.:!.fi~<i ~~ f.xh:'..;,i:;. ".i.."
at:a,:h, ;:t hereto .

~ * * * *

: her~by cer::.ify :ha t the fore 6o:'..~g :'..s a =~11, t~ue ar.d corre,;:c copy
ssic;. cf the
of a rzsc:1Jt :!.~r. du.:.y ;:a!:sel ar,c. adopt.ic . by t!:e Plor.oi:-.g Co-::::i:i
l:zy , Cal:l.fcr :-.1a , at e ::eet~ng .fhe:ec t held en cl':.e :2t!,
Cit:; o: Half !-!.:--0:1
day cf J~ne, !98~.

EXHIBIT A
 City of Half Moon Bay
-CITY HALL • .SOi M.J.JN STREET
1-L.&J..f MOON BAY. CALIFOR.'-f':A 9-4019

>u-.Rccald HcCJe11a~ "O~

.r, . "~"' µc,.·
"'--'-J~~
. .. ~! : • "' · · ....

Gct:eral !"..a:-,~l<:-
sa~ Xate-o Cou.c~y &a:~~. District
l Johns o-c Pier
Ealf ~..oo~ BaJ, Ca. 9~019

The aa:f ~oc toy ?la=i~ Cotrmi.ssion, at the~r reguhr.:.y s~be~ulcd ~eU.ng o!
JW'le 12, 1984, re~evec y~ur Use r~nut (UP-l08-i7) for a VCC~troll<d acce~s
tecrestiocal v-.:hlcle par'dng ar.d laodscapt!d area". :--z.e rec.eve, t:se ?e~t i::.•
eludes t~e !o~lc--i~ conditi¢<"'..S:

Tue a??l!ca~t files S!te a::i1 Desi~ Pe:ra.it Vitb ~be C~ty of E.L.! ~~,~ Ba,
by Jaci.;..ar; 1, 1$:5.

2. The apflica~t fcllo~ the dcvelop~~t scbec~!e sat fcr:z i::. the le~ter !ro~
B.arbor Di$tTict da:ec f4'.>ril 26, 1984 v.uch s~~tes:

A, Cor;:plete "t:.lli!:i, gradi.-:.t aod restor::.~ tl:.e an:::, alld pla:ic.s rod: f!~~
to eli.::.:.::...:,te ercsicr:" 00 later th.an Ju::.e 30, 1ses. n:e ;:an c! toe
ceve1o;:~-::it sha:l alsc i:x:lude aoe-qu.ate fe:i.c:!.~ a:ic proteccien of p.:':>:ic
d-:r!..cg ':.:.'! cots t n.ict1on perlo<l,

lL Cc:::;>lete bal.'3tCe cf E.'t' ?ark ir,:ro~t.ts "'i::cb<l.i~ lis~t!.~> \.st~r, fi-: e

l::ycraLtS, p.avins a.cd lsnd.s~p:!:o.g" oo later t ~ June 30, l9S~. !"!le a~-cve
cl~scri;;d 1.::?:-cv~enc.s to be in.s~l..lec ~ ac cort..:?.:. ce Vi-:~ :..':ic S!-:.e a~.:
~.sig.: ?ext ces;;ribed ~ !tes. : above.

3. -rte a.?;:.!~aut L!.le a p;c&:ess re;xin vitb the C:.:y P:a::.:1i:;.s Co::x::.issioo evi:.:;;
six n._,::, tbs 00 t::i~ G :.6 :;;J.$ of t:he R'\' Fan: CC-«?le:ioP c:=e-oc:.:is S\l ~::;tr.s
a! ter t:::1e anr.;i'-·z.! c: a t.:i;e F era.:i~ r~N<-l.

Mter YC!.: ~..;Ve b:.c a:: op; .:- rt·.:::.!. ty io r~vi'C'.9 cl:.is lH te:: ,'.;.':;(~ tb~ cc;:.:.:. ~ic::.s s.?:
!crtb, ;1~;.$~ ¢;\:.::c-..-2.eCse as i:i:ic..ste2 c.:la re:.u_-c a cc?: r.~ t.::e c:1:: f-c: o·..:;-
:c.ccrCs._

s{j~.·e: ·el~:\
.• J111 !
~..-{ / r \ f L /"
(DJN/1'2 .?--t J;w.y
~
,
~
t
·,-,-<-hct-r
'
r-- ~· · ··
~1
... ...... "" ...... _....,. __ .. ., ~L
... . .. , . ...._____
' '-_ .,,_,_ ......_
.

EXHIBIT B
 City of Ha lf Moon Ba y
CITY HALL • SO I MAIN STRE ET
HALF MOON BAY, CALIF ORNrA 94019

FROM THE OFFICE OF

Tet..el' HOHE (-41!) 116-n6 6
July 2~, 1961$
PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Mr. Rich ard Milk o~ich

Acti ng Gene ral Mana g~r rrfcn ard Milk ovich
Sa~ Mate o Cou~ ty Harb or Oist ~ict
1 John son Fier
P.alr Moou Bay, CA 94Cl 9 Date
Dear Mr . Kilk ovic h:

The Half Moen Bay Pla~ ning Com miss ion, at thei
sc~e dule d meet ing of July 10, 1986 , revie wed
r regu larly
your Use ?erm it
{U? 108- 7~) for renew al as stip ulat ed in
the attac hed lette r to
Mr. Ron McC lellan date d June 15, 1984 . The cond
upon the renew al of th~ orig inal Use Per~ it we~e ition s cont !ng~ nt
as follo ws:
1. The appl ican t file a Site and Desi gn Perm
it with th~ City
of Half Moon Bay by Janu ary 1, 1985 .
2. The appl ican t fo:lo w the deve lopm ent sche ~ule
se: forth !n
the lette r t=o~ Earb or Cist rict date d Apri l
26, 1984 ,
whic h state ~:
A. Com plete 11 ::.:li ng, grac: :1g and :-esto :-:r.g the
area .
and plac ing ?:ock fill to elim i~ate 1: ..·csio n"
no
late: - than ;~ne 30, 1985 . The part o: the
deve lopm e~t shal l also inclu d adeq uate fenc!
~g and
prot ectio n o~ pu~: ic duri ng the cons truc tion
?erio d.
B, Cam ?lete · balar .ce of RV ?a-:k imp:- ovem ents "i::c
11gh t1ng, ·-wa ter, 7 fire hydr ants , pavi ~g and :and ludln g
scapi ng''~ nc -·late r~ -than ···Jun e 30, 1986 ·. The a:,ov s-
e
desc ribed imp~ ave~ e~t s to be i~st alle d in acc~
~dan ce
with the S!te and Desi ;n Perm it desc ri~e d in
!~em 1
nbov e ..

3. The appl ican t file a prog ress repo rt with

the City ?lan ning
Comm iss!o ~ ever y six mcnt hs on the stat us of
the
cora pleti on comm encin g six mont hs afte r the appr RV ?ar~
oval of a
Use Perm it rene wal.

EXH IBIT C
Mr. Richard Mj]knvi~~
Page 2
July 22, 1906

Further to the above condit!ons, the Planning Commission at their

me~t1ng of July 10, 1986, added the condition that the Use Per~it
(U? 108-77) would be·extended for an additional 12 months . fro~
June 30, 1986, until June 30, 1987, provided that the Plannin;
Department staff for the City of Ha-lf Moon Bay bring back · to t~e
Planning Commission within 90 days a criteria by which ~he .
improvements to the park are going to be monitored and schedu~ed.

Would you please signify that the above conditions meet with t~e
Sa~ Mateo County Harbc~ Districts approval by sig~i~g a copy o:
the enclosed !e~ter a~d returning it to the attention of the
? 1 ann ing De par tme11 t at the above address.

Ke~ri Burke, who w!ll be handling my duties until a replacement

has been hired, will be in touch with you to arrange a ~eeting so
that the monitoring and sch~duling of the improvements can be
worked out and reported back to the City ' s Planning Commission
within the 90·day stipulated time frame. ·

Sincerely,

LEC/dr

cc: Kerri Burke

 -·
'

STAFF REFOF.T

MEETING DATE: ~ay 2E, 2987

DATE PREPA RE~:

TO:

FRO!>i: Di::-ec to:· ct Ccl""~ l~r.ity Devc:. opr.:e:ct ft:§

a ~sc Pe r ~~t
SUBJE CT : San Matec Ccunt y Harbe r ~istr ict ~eq u es t :or
(U?-0 3-81) to allcw a 5 C car ~ay Use Fark! ~g :ct &

Recre ation al Veh icl e Ov ernig ht Park jng fc~ s e:t

cont a !~ed u ~its on pro~A r~y whic~ is z o~cd C-3.

BACKGROUND:

The San ~ateo Count y Harbo r Distr !ct has opera

ted b RV let at
d a Cse ~er~i t . !he
surfe r 's Beac h since 1977 when th e Ci ty issue
t he years , howev er the lot ~a s
Use Perffi it has be en exte n de d over
~g of ~he s it e ~as don~ tc ~rc~! j&
c l ostd JuJy 1~8E. M~nor gradi ict cpc~e d
ng surfa ce w!th! n t~e : 0t . ;~e ~!str
a smoo th er drivi
.
t~e lot fer day use cn2 y !n ~ay cf this year

ISSOE S:

1.
fe r cit tc a-~ow
The Harbo r DJstr ict haz re~ue ste d a o ne year
provi si o~ !or a~ a~dit ic n~l
use of t h e exist ing let with the
Limit ed i~pro ve~en ts WDu:d be ~ace to
one year exten sicr..
the Dist rict's finan cial pcs:t icn and the
the lot b~cau se of
acco~ dance with ~~e
fact that the :ot wi}l be reloc ated in
Mast~ r P!an hcpef ally in the near futur e.

2. Nonco l:lplia nce wi th Previ ous Us e ?e :r mit _ Ccndi t.icr,s

fe~ci~ g,
7he 1977 Use Fer~i t requi red r,avir .g , land sca pir.g, ~a r /4i ng
and a garba ge dispo sal are a. To date tt.e
restro o~s
l et ed . r te cor.al t ic~,
a nd lands c~p!n g h ave yet tc be cocp
l et have been ct cor.ce r~ tc
appe& rance and c ontro l cf the
the City.

3. Cor.t rcl of Activ ities w~thi n the Lot

of ~he : o t
Probl e~s have been a sscci ated with t he c p sra~lo n ~se .
thepast espe= ially ccnnc cted with the over~ ight
j~

EXHIBIT D
 E:i der .t lo<:
-rb or Di str .ic t ha s x:; rcp rse d -::r.ut a "re
-;): e P.a ee ing tr.e
r1. >sr ;or ,sit :e for cv ers
~o ni- :or " be 1;r ese nt ard tc mi r.j ~jz e pro bJ e~ s .
lo t
v.a nag ern ent of the RV
:~a ste :- Pla :1
.! . Co r,f0 r-:\ a:1 ce wi ',h the
p~ rsu inc the
Co un ty Ha rbo r Di s~ ric t ha s be en
Th e San Ma teo n wh ich s~ ec if: es
reh en siv e Ma ste r Pla
cor n~ iet !o: 1 of a Co mp r Fa c!: !ty . Cn c
to the ex ist !n ~ Ha rbo
nu me rc~ s !~p =c ve ~e nts ich wo u:d be
~p ara de d RV le t wh D: str !c t is
~a jcr co ~p cn er. t is an es en t lcc at! nn . 7h e
re lcc ate d !ro ~ !ts pr
the lo t to a fri va te cc :pa ny , wh o wc ~ld
co ~s ide r!n g lea s!n g ~er -::y .
irr .pr ov er. ent s tc : Le prc
pr cv i de the :-.e cc! :sa r-1

es & ?a rks
!s w! thi n the Be ach
Th e su bje ct tro pe rty na nc e. ~h is
the Zo nin g Or dif
ce sig na tio n (GB -2) of cap ed pa r~ ing are as for au tos
dz
~e s~ gn at: o~ a12owr. l~~ e Pe rm it. Se ct! c:- . le. 3 4 . ::6 c ::-e;_;'.l.in::,
su bje c~ tc .!.s s 1 :.!.: :~ a Us
as .
g cf al l pa rki ~g are
su rfa cin g and Gr~ din

RE CO X." !EN DA T!C N:

the ~::- cp ose d use !s
m~ iss ion fin d th& t cc ~t inu ati cc c f t~e
T~ a~ the P:: ann i~g Cn ral P1 an and tha t the
Ge ne be
c on s !s te nt w! th the tio ne d wi ll no t u~ de r the cir c~ rns :~~ ces
ist in g use as con d i
ex
r~ cu nd ing a" ea .
de t rim en tal to th ~ su
r on e ye ar wi th a
Th at the Us e Pe rm it be ap pro ve d fo e wi th cc nd :ti on s is
1. n if co mp lia nc
pr ov isi on fer ex ten sio
t the pe rm i~ ye ar .
~a int ain ed thr ou gh ou
on of the Ci ty
ce d to the sa tis fa cti
,. 7h at the lo t be su rfa so n ~C ctc bcr 15,
is ye ars rai ny sea
En gin ee r pr ier to th
.l 98 7).
al l t!~ es du rin g the
Th at a lo t eo nit or be r.r ese nt at nit or sh all te res vo ns~ bJc
3. le t . T~ e mo
ov ern igh t us e of the and the H; rbc r
ent ac< l ce nt re : of the lo t
fo r the roa nag o~ the lo t.
r!c dic !n sp ec t!o ns of
P~ tro l sh ail ~ak ~ pe
tra 5h coL ect i'.: >I, ar~ a
the ex is~ i.n g fe: nce $ ':::,e rep air ed and the
4. Th at
be i:n prc ve d.
no t ad he red to.
pe r~ !t co ~d iti o~ s are
s. :~a ~ at a~ y t!= e the rec cn sid ere d by tl. e P:a n:. .in g
the UG e P€-r::..! t r:iay be ce.
ed du£ to no nc cm pJi an
Cc ~m :ss ion an d rev ok

:<LE / rnw

z
PLAJ'mING co~rssroN MINUTES
May 28, 1S87

Mction by Ceve~ha/Scholten to reco:r..z:iend denial of GPA-08-86

to the City Council as i t was found not to be consistent
with the Gene:tal Plan. Motion carried by afflr?:lative :-011
call vote with Fester and Mier voting in the negative.

Mction by Schclten/Euck to recOIU:lend denial of REZ-70-86 to

the City Cou..'1cil finding that the req'.lest was not ccnsiste:i:
wi t!1 the General ?la.'1. Motion carried by affirr::ative rcll
call vcte with Foster and Mier voti ng in the negative.

2. Con~1:derat1cn ot a Use Perb:t (UP-03-87) i;) accordance wi t!1

section 18.42 to allow Day use Parking anrl Recreational
Vehicle Parking for 50 cars within the C-3 District. Project
Location : North Cabrillo Highway (APN #047-263-010),
Applicant: San Mateo COU!!!_Y Harbor District . Director Burke
presented the st2ff report dated ~ay 22 , 1987. Tte public
hearing was opened. Don Guluzzy, General Manager, S.an Mateo
County Harbor District, was recognized by the Co=issicn.
He stated that with fis~ing seascn and s'lllllJDer ahead the
Harbor area wi ll be busy and the cpening cf the Recreational
Vehicle :ot would help with tro:: ic/park.ir.g p roble::is alor:g
Highway 1. He further advised that the Harber Distr ict has
~ade an effort to ~ake s ite ~~prcve~cnts, but due to other
financia: emergencies funding 1s not availab:e for the additio~al
work. He requested thut the =epaving conditic~ ~isted in
staff 1 s recor.uner.dation be changed to state that ti:e let te
maintained in a safe condition.

Dwight Pate, 45 Houston Street, San Franc isco , CA. 94133, was
~ecognized by the Corr.mission. He stdted that the Re creatio~a}
Veh.icle ~itc was l:la.::.tained below acceptab,:e standards when
it was oi;en and that: the Harbor District shou2d be able tu
comply w:t~ tte reasonable ccnditions ct the Use Permit.

Ray Price, beat owne~, P. O. Box 614, El Granada, CA 9401 8,

was recognized by the Commission. He stated that the Recreationa:
Vehicle lot is needed to help so:ve the parking problem and is
necessary for the fishing season . He scbmitted a petition with
forty-eight ( 48) s.igr:atures of individ\lals in support of the
proposed Use Per~it.

Hs. Burke pointed c.-ut that the San Mateo County H.:-...rbol"
District has ~ade a substantial effort to keep the City
informed of their long terl:l solut.ion ~o upgrade the 'Recreat:onal
Vehicle site through the implementation of tr.e Master Plan ilnC
possible leasicg of the site. She stated that the lot has
been regraded and recked and has been approved by the City
Engineer.

EXHIBITE
PLAfmIN G co~:SS ION Hilffi'l'E S
May 28, 1987

With no furthe r CcQll:e; nts "the public hearing was closed . '?he
Cotru:1i ssion discus sed at length possib le types ot pavir.g ,
funds for such paving , rain/e rosion p"oblem s anc private
leasing of the lot. It was noted that should a one-ye ar Gse
Per~;t be g~ante d, that at the enc of that perm:t year a defini te
plan for pav i n;;i ~e presen ted er any f·..1ture reques ts would be
turnec down.

Moticn by Scholt en/Pos ter for approv a: cf UP-03-8 7 provid i ~g

the fcllow: r.g condit ions be adhere d to thrcugh cut the Use
?er::iit year:

1. 7hat the ~se Pe~~it bn opprcv cc tc= one year prcv!di r.g
t~e Jot be prcpcr :y ~a1nta ir.ed th::c ughout the entire
per::-.: t yea::.

2. 7h~t a lo t =c~ito r be prese~ t a~ .,11 ti~cs cur-:.r.g t h e

overni ght use of the lot. T~e ~onito r shall be
respon sible for t~e ~anagc ~cr.t a~d contro l of the }ot.
acd th~ Harber Patrol ~hall ca~ e pericd !c i~spec ticns
o-:: the lot .
3. ~hat the cxis~in g fe~ccs be rc?aire d and the tro~h
c cll c c~ ic~ a~ea be :mprov ec.

4. :hat at a~y ti~e t~e per~it c~~d itio r.s ar~ ~ot rtd~e~~d
to, the Use Per~i: mey be rec~ nsicere d ~y the Plannin g
Coc~is sion ar.d revoke d due to ~or.co~ pliance .

~ot!cn carried by affir~ ativc roll c~ll vctc with Ceve:ha

and Mier voting in the negati ve.

3. Consic .eratio n of a Genera l F.lan Text .A.:rnendment {GPA-01 ...:.§.ll

to includ e ~olicie ~ prohib itinq the establi sru:ent of o~shore
gas and oil facili ties and pipelin es within the City of Half
Hoon Bay. Direct or Bu~ke re~iew ed the staff report dated
May 21, 1987. The public hearinr r was opened and with ~o
commen ts was closed . It was noted by Ms. Burke that the
propos ed policy , if approv ed, would be forward e d to the City
Counc il and Cca s tnl Com..~i ssion to be incorp orated into the
Genera l ?}an ,

An additio nal action by t~e Cit7 CC\L~c il has resclte d in

a
ballot measur e for the next Ge~era l Electic n which would
ition
~ake the onshor e gas and oil facili ties a~d pipelin es prohib
nent" Genera l Plan Policy wh:.ch could · only be changed by
a "pe:-ma
a vote of the people .

3
 .... . . .· . . · .. J . . .. ~ '.

November 12, 1992

TO: Ccuncilmember David Iverson

Council.member Deborah Ruddock

FROV.: Marl< Weiss 11,J

SUBJECT: Response to inquirios of ~ovamber 3, 1992

Pursuant to your req\.est, attached is a listing of City

owned parcels.

Also, staff contacted Fish and Gar.le. Silt and sediment w~re
noted upstream, but Xike has indicated l ittle npparent
.impact to the creek wit.hi.n th-c City's limits. Public Worko
will wr.lll< the creek with.in the City's limits per C:epartment
of. Fish ~nd Game's suggestion.

Finally, the Harbor RV lo-<: is located en

Harbor property
wi.thin the City's limits. The Di.st rict
obtained a use
permit in 1977. The Park was closed in 1986, opening again
in 1987. Pursuant to the City'$ request, the Harbor passed
an Ordinance in 1987 regulating the park (see attachad) .

The Planning Commisslcn ~nd City Council both met to

reconsider the usa permit in 198?. 1'.. use pe.rnit was granted
~t that time, Dnd a subcomm1ttee was formed to discuss park
improvements. The Planning Corr.mission reconsidered the use
permit in l9E8 and contin~ed th~ item to a date unce~tain.

Improvements to the RV Park have been made st!bsequent t:o

19B7 including grading and improved internal controls. The
District ~.anager has ino:cated that ~here are plans to plant
trees. In ~dd~tion, the Harber c~llects TOT for the City.

Please advise if you require ad.d.itional info;:-rnation.

cc: City Councll

Chris Gustin
Mike sm.:.-th

Attacr.ments

EXHIBITF
 I ·,.
' ,- ,,

Staff Report

RV LOT - APN 047-263-010

Background
The RV Lot has been utilized for a number of years by members of the public
and other harbor user groups as a low cost, convenient place to reside while on
vacation , or while using the fishing facilities of the harbor.
A number of problems occurred in the past relative to the management of the lot.
Various users were accused of vandalism , disturbing the peace, and other
assorted crimes and misdemeanors. There were periods in which the RV lot
was ordered closed by the City of Half Moon Bay.
In 1987 the City of Half Moon Bay, through its police department, imposed
certain requirements for the continued operation of the RV Lot. Among the
requirements were (a) maximum of 30 days per year occupancy; (b) must be
fully self-contained; (c) certain signage, (d) enactment of certain Half Moon Bay
regulations, and (e) attendants to prevent hooliganism and vandalism.
On July 1, 1987 Emergency Ordinance 63 was enacted which provided the
following :
• Operating hours from 7:00 p.m. through 7:00 a.m., with an overnight fee of
$12.00.
• Day use fee of $3.00.
• Requirement to be self-conta ined, and banning of buses because of the size
and maneuvering capability.
• No more than 14 consecutive days, or 30 days in a calendar year.
• Confinement/control of pets .
• Noise control.
• Prohibition of open fires.
• Adoption of California Vehicle Code , by reference.
• Adoption of Half Moon Bay Ordinance provisions, by reference.
• Authorization of commercial fishermen to obtain reduced rates and extended
stays, at not less than $10.00 per 24 hours.
The City of Half Moon Bay issued a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with
the recommendations of its City Planner in 1977 which provided, in part that the
District provide landscaping, paving , fencing, restrooms , and a garbage disposal
area. To date, the landscaping, paving and fencing (screening) have not been
done.

02/14/96 04:24
F:IPUB_DOCS\PILLARPO\RV5.RPT

EXHIBIT G
 /
/.J /

An investigation is presently underway by concerned citizens to determine the

best use of the site relative to other development. The General Manager
continues to provide liaison between the citizens group and the District. Mr. Bob
Marchant, who has made a proposal tb develop the site as a "visitor's
interpretive center" participates in the group.

Analysis
Any development of the RV Lot for other than RV use will generate a lot of public
interest. Staff cannot presently imagine any proposal that will generate revenue
to the District, yet be satisfactory to the local citizens .
Staff further believes that the RV Lot must be upgraded if continued to be used
as an RV Lot. Upgrading of the .RV site will improve the overall appearance of··
the area, and may yield greater revenues to the District.

Fiscal Impact
The RV Lot presently generates approximately $38,289 per year. This must be
offset by the Transient Occupancy Tax of $3,829 and attendant's wages/taxes of
$11,637 . This yields approximately $22,823 to the District. ·
The foregoing figures do not reflect other employee's time, maintenance, repair,
other G&A allocations, etc. It is believed that the RV lot actually nets very little
when all of these items are factored in.

Conclusion
Efforts should be made to fully utilize ttie earning potential of the site.

Alternatives
The District has the following alternatives available :
1. Do nothing, and continue to operate the site as it is presently being operated.
This would probably make us a "bad neighbor'' to the new developments in
the area. Present users should be neutral to this decision.
2. Improve the site, most likely by soliciting for an outside operator. This could
be structured to assure a minimum income to the District, plus percentage
rents. This would probably make us a "good neighbor" to the new
developments in the area. Present users could go either way, depending on
the pricing structure. The District could continue to offer "low cost", no-facility
overnight or term parking to our fishermen users in the "C" or "Upper" lots, as
we do at present. Utilization of a private operator/developer for the site
would enable the City of Half Moon Bay to collect Transient Occupancy
Taxes on the site.
3. Explore alternate revenue sources for the site. Any development that
involves a structure of any size will meet broad community resistance.

02/14/ 96 04:24 2
F:IPUB_DOCSIPILLARPO\RV5.RPT
 I -..._,
' .'

Recommendation
Staff recommends that the District "privatize" the RV Lot in order to achieve a
reasonable, low risk. lease revenue stream to the District , and to the City of Half
Moon Bay.

02114/96 04:24 3
F:\PUB_DOCS\PILLARPO\RV5.RPT
 I

Resolution 38 - 98
Approving a
Lease For the RV Lot at
Pillar Point Harbor
with
Keet Nerhan d.b.a. KN Properties

~e 3Jt 3Re%olbeb by the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the San Mateo County
Harbor District that the Ground Lease by and between the San Mateo County Harbor
District and Keet Nerhan d.b.a. KN Properties, a copy of which is attached hereto and
by this reference made a part hereof, is hereby approved , and the General Manager of
the District is authorized to execute the same on behalf of the District.

3Jje ]t jfurtbet 313..eso{beb that the District Manager is hereby directed to do the
following:
1. To record this Resolution and the attached Ground Leases in the Office of the San
Mateo County Recorder.
Approved this 2nd day of December 1998 at its Regular Meeting of the Board of Harbor
Commissioners by a recorded vote as follows:
For: Campbell, Landi , Tucker, Padreddii, Parravano
Against: None
Abstaining : None
Absent: None

Attested: BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS

Leo Padreddii
President

RESOLUTION NUMBER 38-98

A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LEASE FOR THE RV LOT AT PILLAR POINT HARBOR
DECEMBER 2, 1998

EXHIBITH
 Off-road vehicle use shall be prohibited in regional recreational
areas, as designated on the Land Use Plan Map.

Poli cy 2-9.
Development unrelated to on-site recreat i onal activi ti es shall not
be permitted in publicly owned recreational areas, with the
exception of the State Park administrative and maintenance
operations located at Half Moon Bay State Beach.

Policy 2-10
In implementing all proposals made in this Plan for expanding
opportunities for coastal access and recreation, the State of
Califoinia, the County of San Mateo, or any private entity
organized for acquisition of public dedication are expected to
make all purchases . The City 1 s role shall be to require
dedications as provided in this Plan in order to reduce required
purchases, and to retain any offers of dedication or easements
required by this Plan as open for acceptance by the above listed
entities.

·,· Policy 2-11

Encourage Cal trans to improve signs along Highway l designating
specific access routes as provided for in the Plan. Signs shall
also be posted at entrances to the City, informing the public about
the recreational resources available in Half Moon Bay, and routes
to reach these areas.

2.3.2 Area Specific Policies

The following policies and specific recommendations are
incorporated into the Plan for planning areas in the City of Half
Moon Bay. Specific policies and recommendations in this section
are in~ended to supplement and interpret the General Policies 2-1
through 2-11.

-- Eillar .Point Harbor

Policy 2-12
Encourage and, to the extent permitted by law, require improvements
to be made by the San Mateo County Harbor District to the Pillar
Point Harbor facility to increase access and recreational
opportunities.

(a) Resurface, grade, and improve drainage at the existing

southerly parking lot and its access road from Highway 1.

CHA!'Tt:ll <! - !'AGE Jl

EXHIBIT I
( b) Prevent fencing blocking lateral access in cooperation with
provision of trail on adjacent pro~erty to the south and west.
{There is no fence blocking access).

( C) Encourage the surfacing of the east breakwater to encourage

and support its use for fishing. (This is precluded by Corps
of Engineer Policy).
(d) Maintain and upgrade the Harbor District east parking area as
an RV park. Provide hookups and trash collection.

Miramar Beach
Policy 2-13:
Cl ose the northern end of Mirada Road where it int ersects with
Highway 1 to elimin ate blufftop parking and resulting blufftop
erosion. The trail a s shown on the Access Improvements Map shall
not be · prohibited and if parking is provided to the adjacent
unincorporated area an improved public pedestrian access (ramp or
s tairs to the beach) would be appropriate.

folicy 2-14:
As a condition of development on the Miramar Beach Development
Company property, require the developer to provide:

(a) A vertical easement and stairway to replace dirt trails down

to the beach , to be dedicated to the State.
( b) A lateral easement and pedestrian trail linking Mirada Road
with San Andreas Avenue on the ocean side of any development,
to be dedicated to the State.
(c) Adequate landscaping to screen the accessways from development
and setbacks from the trails equal to or greater than those
permitted for equivalent density development in the Zoning
Ordinance .

.!:ialf Moon say "State Beach and county Acquisition Area

Policy 2-15:
Designate, sign, and improve, as primary Beach Access Routes to the
State Beach the following streets as shown on the Land Use Plan
Map: Young, Venice, and Kelly.
(a) Provide for left - turn lanes at each primary access route, with
signs on Highway 1 indicating beach access.

CHAl'TEH 2 • PAGE 32
_
_,.. , , -- - - - - · ·- , p . ::,

CITY OF HAL F MOO N BAY

City Hall, SOI°Main_Street
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019

June 10, 1998

Mr. Peter .Gren ell

Genera l Manag er
San Mateo County Harbor qistrict
P.O. Box 39
El Granada, CA 94018

SUBJE CT: RV Park Conditi onal Use Permit

Dear Peter:

It was a pleasur e to meet with you and Keet to discuss the futu're of the Harbor
n
District 's _RV lot. As you know, this lot has been a point of contention betwee
of cleanin g the lot
the City and the· Harbor District for sometime. The prospe ct
up and pay~en t of Transie nt Occupancy Tax would indeed be progress.

With regard to yo-ur conditio nal use permit, I have conferred with the City
to
Attorne y. and he has conclud ed that your use permit remains in effect, subject
conditions impose d by the Plannin g Commi ssion, and upheld by the City
the
Council, in 1987. It is my unders tanding that you intend to fully comply with
staff is of the opinion that you
conditio ns impose d upon the permit. Therefo re,
may procee d with implem entation of the conditio ns and apply for building
permits on an as needed basis.

The City Attorn·e y has based his conclus ion upon the 1988 case of Commu
nity
Develo pment Commission v. City of Fort Bragg (1988) 204 Cal.App 1124. Since
a-
1988 it has bee!') Californ ia _law :that a landow ner cannot lose the benefits of
conditio nal use permit merely by the passag e of time even where the 'permit
the
provides for its automa tic expirati on. In order for a use permit to be revoked,
testimo ny, and make the
loc·a1 agen·c y must conduc t a public hearing , receive
e
· determ ination that the justifica tion for grantin g the use permit in the first instanc
no longer exists, or that some other facts now justify the revocation of the
use
Ordinan ce. The City
permit. This require ment ls contain ed in the City's Zoniri,g
has never held a revocation hearing on the RV lot.

EXHIBIT J
 p. l u
, '
I

.·' ./

l look forward to the improved lot.

Sincerely,

,~~-
Blair King
City Manager

cc: Keet Nerhan

Mayor and City Counci l
Bud Carney

· t·

lile:c1nretter/grener12
 ~n··-::~_· :·"4.19 ..- ·"'\~ CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
fl
- -·
D,\,£ <'·r ,t · •'
_ -~'.::;,- --~3- ' -:if:-
~
lli.~
•I
:J :,ll·, MAIN ST
MAL f M OO}J !IA.Y, C:,\ !14010
APP UCA ,'fr COP Y
Pl;AMTT
A - 18 06 0
AP"' LICA NT:
(C,SO) noB2fi:)
:<N Pr
·- -- -)po·
-t..i.e
·--r:.-------- --------- ·- - -
l
-~ I~s1ACF.T.. - --~ PERMIT 70: 1!·1P h0Vf .MF N'I'S '.i'O l<V /V:-:
.
lJSC: OF 8vlLO I.\JG : -- -··- - -
-
HlC: ",1,. c'AR"K fNr, L~T
<iOO~ NO . C'.i\D lUl,L O l!TGH ,:.,om rt.<'t: '(; ·i~; l
t) 'r.'AY
SOUAHE F00 1AG E-: - -·
I,
-' a:
~~
IAS!,t:SSOAS PARCEL NO.· ·-· -·- O ~"l-: ';,j- OlC
Ac.u i::~ ·- .- - - - - - · -· - -· Sl::H3ACKS: FRO NT_ ,.·-· ··-
-·-- ·-· -- - ·-- · . -- - - - -~-- - - --
·-· -
...
-
SUBDIVISION: ___ SIDE _ _ _ _
- · · -· _
:...J • nr-AR
.. ~~u__ ~ LOf: _ _ __ _ - ·- ····-
- . - - · - - ·--
-- -
- - -- - - --- - - -
- --
lOt\· ,NG
_ , . ___ _,_
- -·· ·-BL OCK : _ _ _ _ _ - - - · ··· - -- - - · - -
_ _ _ - ·- ·- GEN!::RAl. CON THACTOR: __ -· - -- -
- -- - - ... - - - - · - -
-
er: !NAME: - -··· .s,,.r: Mu.tc :!O _.x:tL ~op .cu: .ie.£ __ . · -·· --· · -
Cuu nt.y_ Hc:rb or __n i r;r r i.ct. -··· .. -
g\ADDRESS: .. _ PO Bo:..: Jq - - --·· - -
· - -· - -
· - - -· - · -
- · - - -··
AOD~ES$: _ ___ PO P.ox l
sn ,_ll.Jl t M.oon _s ..y __ __ . __ ·--·
...
·.. ·· -· _ _
u :cnY: _ t;Lf.:..T.,1.tL.•'l··....G~ ~IC. Jt - ·· ·- - - )73: F)O ··-
..9-4..9.~ TEL.NO:!.?:.i·.=!!7.]._}____.__ ___ ·- ·- TEL l\0__ 726 -11'102 __
_ • _ _- - --
- :-- ·iN A'iAE:_
~ : ADDilESS:
-· ~ .. (,;l)?"':r: /S.:-::.C!.~~~ - ··--· - . - .... ·-·-
&
CONTf1ACTOH: _ __ ,?r,.I\NS _::o_
SEC TION S
t .
213 s .• ~. , .,1t0 .o .,O,! G :.1~ __:llffiHT 'l''.~~1.) -~Y_.:o~TH
- - - -· .- .i\C_T~--·- . ·-
g ·-· -
\CITY: _. __H;-: 1. :.__ l-<io nn.!. lJy
- --
·- --- ---- - - - - · _ _ _
·· ·-·-- - _ _ ___ ____ __
_ -
O ,,
·· ADD ,ESS. l PLU MolNG H:E!l
< STA T( :..1c. N0, __ ___~ UC. n __ ·-·
-- -- -- --'.;:io
1
--,oco
-- --
.1 11.ii l. _ . TEL NO: __ 12~ -~ 1.!_
-- -- -- -- = -= :: :. .: :: J ____ ___ _
_ _ _ - - ··- · - -·- · _ TEL NO.
I -· ·- - - ·- - ---·--
./ALU ,\'flO N;
.~;o sEc noN A
I CONTi,ACrOR:
AODnFss: ___ -=. _-·:-··--· -··-·-----------~-- _·___
LIC, " . · - · ·- · - · - ---
-·tEc 1v1N 1CA !.fEE 8
,-UMMARY Of BUIL DING PERM1T AND ·· - -· - - _
5PEC.AL ORD INAN CE FEES · CON.!'FlAC:OR: __ ?.f t,:,i ~; TO
___ . TH. NO. - -- -
-- . ·· - -··'-
, ""'• .- -
8E S(Ja Ml'I ''rF:n BY. CON TRA CTC
R __ . - · ·--· · · - - .
ADO liESS :
;;,,11(/ing Pe! mit: h ~eTl{IC'-Al "Ef:S
....;.C 21,. .Q~ ---- UC. ff -- ·-- - ··- --- ···-- - ·\
>rar. Check TL1,. NO. . ····-- _ . . _ _ _ _
. - ..lb,!> cl __ __ __
SullT clal
Tnis ouilcring permit shall not bo valid
or effe-: tive for any puiposti whalsoe
:.!v'.1.P. ~_ _a u.. . .• - · approved. signu<I and issued by the Building ln~p ecl:o n Division. vor unloss anu unlil
_...J..il...5,1)._ rnis permit docs not include any cons
- truction within tne pub ic right of way.
SubTo:al cal:ed to \he cutting up of streots. Atter.tior. ,s psit' ;ular ly
$6~ .l .. 'iU making main sewer -:onnectio!1s,
Permi:s must be oblained tor all accP d(ivo ways ard CJtb s.
>1di1anco It 10-8 6 {Sev ier Porm it) .ssory buildings such as garagc>s, duck
This permit becomes null and void s. ::.heds, etc.
lrdir.anca ii 2-88 {Strori1 Asse ::ism if work is not commenced w ithin 1ec
unt} issuance, or If work is suspendo
d at any time for rnoic than 180 days days lrom the date of
>rc:nant:,1 # 8-75 (Sto rm Ort1l11} oi any city or state laws relating there or if work is done in v,o.at,on
to. Fina l inspoct1o n and cerli!icat e
irdina:1ce 4t 17 .75 (P::irk Dedlcatio approved prior to ou:upancy, of occ.ipanC',' rr.u::.t oe
n)
>rdinance II 5-72 (Cap itol Out'a.y) J certify th.It in thu porlormar.ce of
tho work for which lhi.~ pormit is Issue
lfd'n anco 11 20-8 8 (Tru lllc Mitig In ani manner so as to beco :ne subje d, 1 sr.aU .no1 employ any persu.'.\
ation } ct to Workers' com pens :iiion t.aws of
Ca!llom.:i.
1rdina nce 1, 3 ·80 (Pork Fm;i l:ty
Dev}
1ther Slun:i\ure ___ _ - -~ ---- --- ··- -:.PP~~~~i·- ·- - ··- --
SubTotul
$£:\ 3.50
·-·- ~ ----- ·-
Tutul horn Soct !on 8: I ho1~y ,iot:nowllX!g~ lh"1 I .no,;~ ro.-d
lhl• Clf'Plm<tk:n und j Cli8 TH" ICA .~

___ .i.,1? 11-~ tho 4b;,,,u. r; =rl>CI ~rd _8Qftl\). tQ, comi:1 · CCUPANCY MUST ijE Af'f-'l.lEO
li
I~
WO
Ll. _______
_
,.. ..... CCZ C
......... _ S ir· _
Total Fei,s:

____ _ _ _ ___ _
___ --~ ~· o,m~<~.;,r;
::-
~GJ j. -; ~.
:-os~,~
Jn9 :~~1
~~een ot1~w n, (
·--.;,_",> ~~ ,.-·~ _,,.,
:, w~:'-ah Cily tf~~ <?.._ '5E £.!!.. IN.S~
~~:vi p:: '.ng_/'.~~~, .-~.-,;;_. _ _!(>. !!J.$ A~~~E~ .
l
~....,
i--c
W PAttJ~ CASH _ _
· •.-:... CHl: CK INFO _j_"'
/j
-... .
.
. ·-..
.; - -\ ~ r , r l o p
- ·_,___ _ _
- C .... ---\
:. · ~
· ddl_~
--c'/ ~ . ,~ o•n ~
- ,' - --~~ .± : ·r·
·-'.ff: . -~,:-:_
'-
10i, ·-···j
.'! ---
1f..
"'":=:c·-'-~-- - ··- ..
.,.-,,
,. -~
I • /' .· , . .,
~
 CIT1 OF IIAL.F .:VIOON BAr'
(it} Hall. ;n1 \bin Str<>tt
Hali .\lo011 R a y, C.\ 9 Wl9

January 6, 1999

Mr. Keet Ncrt, an

KN Properties
210 San Mateo Rd Suite 2C1
P.O . Box 158
Ha lf Moon Bay, CA. 94019

Subject : Status of the Rec~eationa Vehicle Park at 4CCO North Cat)rillo

H:gt)way

Dear Mr. ~erhan :

1 trn Use 0 e:rrri:t for RV pa,k was issued by the City of H.:iif 1.~oon Bay 1n 1987
(UP-Q3-R7 J. : r.e
building permit tor this proJect was isst:ed in -: 998 as the foiiov1
through fer the completion of this project.

The RV park 1s a recreational use which is a Ccasta! Act priorit~, activity Po1 icy
2-29 of the Half Moon Bay Lo~al Coastal Program/Land Use states that facilities
such as this RV park are to be located in several areas of the City . includ ing the
area wi!hin the City Limits at P1!lar Harbor.

lf you r a\'O ony question5 please foe! free to call Bili Ambrosi Smith at 726-82!'11 .

S1nc0rs, y,
_/-/
/
i.
~ ' • I '. /~ ,
r-1 I... ,,-,· _. ' / ( -~ ,, .
'
.
... ,,J: 1111/ -. .
/ ..,l,/_j(,. f, . . :. -- / ' " A ~
. . -·1
- #'
, , :.~>--
;
I _.-

An1hony J . 'Bu<;t" Carney, AICP

Plann ing O;re¢ur ,. ·
· . ./

Cc: Gini:rHolrr.es, Granada Sanitary Dlstri~~t

EXHIBITL
ST HE OF CALI FORN I ~ - NATURAL RESOL:RCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN. JR .• G<ll'f RN<'R

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

45 FREMONT STREET, SUITE 2000
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 - 2219
\"OICE (41 5) 904- 5200 . /
FAX ( 415) 904-5400
TDD (415) 597-5885

Th6
DATE: October 26, 2016

TO: Coastal Commission and Interested Parties

FROM: John Ainsworth, Acting Executive Director

Susan Hansch, Chief Deputy Director
Madeline Cavalieri, Coastal Program Manager

SUBJECT: Public Workshop: Lower Cost Visitor Serving Accommodations

STAFF SUMMARY
Consistent with mandates of the California Constitution and the Federal Coastal Zone
Management Act, the Coastal Act requires public access to be protected, provided, and maximized
for all. Section 30213 specifically requires lower cost visitor and recreational facilities to be
protected, encouraged, and where feasible, provided. This helps ensure maximum public access
because without lower cost visitor serving facilities, members of the public with low or moderate
incomes would be more limited in their ability to access and recreate at the coast, as compared to
others who may be able to afford to pay more to access and use coastal facilities .

Such an unequal limitation on access to the coast would be unjust and inconsistent with the
mandates of the California Constitution and Federal Coastal Zone Management Act; thus,
providing visitor and recreational facilities affordable to people with lower incomes was made a
cornerstone of the Coastal Act's public access mandate. When planning and development does not
adequately address the need for lower cost facilities, it is inconsistent with the Coastal Act's
requirement to protect, provide and maximize access for all.

Lower cost overnight accommodations are one type of lower cost visitor serving facility necessary
to ensure that lower income members of the public, including those that live further from the coast,
are able to access and recreate at the coast. The Coastal Act's requirement to maximize access and
promote lower cost visitor and recreational facilities is critical in providing opportunities for
individuals and families from underserved communities to visit the coast when they might not be
able to do so otherwise due to costs, including costs for overnight accommodations.

Currently, there is a significant lack of lower cost overnight accommodations - particularly lower
cost hotel rooms - along most of the coast. New hotel developments are typically higher cost, and
lower cost hotels have been closing at more than twice the rate of moderate and high cost hotels

EXHIBITM
combined. This has resulted in coastal cities having as little as 5% lower cost hotel rooms, and the
remaining 95% higher cost.

A recent field survey of beach visitors in southern California shows that, on average, visitors from
median income households are willing to pay only $82 per night to stay near the coast, and visitors
1
from households at 80% of median income are willing to pay only $78 per night. These amounts
are far less than the economy room rates at hotels in most coastal locations. Thus, hotel rates, even
at lower cost hotels, are Iikely out of reach for the majority of visitors, especially during summer
months when families and others are most likely to recreate at the beach. Other traditionally lower
cost overnight accommodations such as camping, cabins and hostels can be very difficult to
reserve, especially for people without easy access to internet-based reservation systems, and these
facilities are often booked many months in advance. Ultimately, those of lesser means are too
frequently left with fewer opportunities to access overnight accommodations along the coast.

The Commission has begun discussing and addressing these issues through two previous
workshops on lower cost overnight accommodations, in December 2014 and March 2015. The
December 2014 workshop provided an overview of the issues related to protecting and providing
such accommodations, including examples and lessons learned from previous Commission actions.
The December 2014 staff report is available at:
http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/20 l 4/ l 2/W3- l2-2014.pdf. The March 2015 workshop
focused on the economics of hotel development and the constraints and opportunities for financing
lower cost visitor serving overnight accommodations. The March 2015 staff report is available at:
https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/201 5/3/f9-3-2015 .pdf.

To ensure protection and provision of lower cost overnight accommodations, the Commission can
take additional steps to more effectively implement Section 30213 and related Coastal Act and
LCP policies to maintain and increase the stock of lower cost overnight accommodations in the
coastal zone, as well as to encourage Californians of all backgrounds and income levels to use
these facilities. The Coastal Act requires public recreational access to be maximized and lower cost
facilities to be protected and provided as a way to maximize access for all segments of the
population, including those unable to afford expensive coastal accommodations and facilities.

This workshop will explore opportunities to strengthen the Commission's program on lower cost
overnight accommodations to address this severe and growing inequity. Staff is proposing a series
of preliminary recommendations for discussion. After receiving input from the Commission and
the public on the preliminary recommendations, Staff will develop Draft Interpretive Guidelines
for Overnight Accommodations for public review and consideration by the Commission at a future
hearing.

The staffs preliminary recommendations for public and Commission input propose a series of
measures that include:
1) Clearly defining what constitutes a lower cost hotel;
2) Prohibiting the loss of existing lower cost overnight accommodations, or requiring lost
units to be replaced at least at a 1: l ratio;

1
Jon Christensen (UCLA) and Philip King (San Francisco State University), personal communication, 19 October
2016.

2
 3) Requiring new high and moderate cost hotels to provide an adequate share of lower cost
overnight accommodations;
4) Where lower cost units cannot be provided as part of the project, requiring in-lieu fees that
are adequate to cover the cost of developing those units elsewhere;
5) Ensuring efficient and appropriate use of in-lieu fees, including through partnerships with
the Coastal Conservancy and State Parks, and through support for programs that provide
outreach to underserved communities; and
6) Supporting appropriately regulated short-term vacation rentals.

Each of these is discussed in more depth in the report below, and each includes staffs preliminary
recommendation.

3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Staff Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1

List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................... 5

List of Exh ibits ......................................................................................................................... ............. 5

I. Coastal Act Policies ................................................................................................ .................. 6

II. Legislative History and Implementation of 30213 ................................................................... 8
III. Overnight Accommodations ................................................................................................... I 0
IV. Affordability of Overnight Accommodations ......................................................................... 21
V. Implementing Section 30213 to Protect and Provide Lower Cost Accommodations ............ 24
VI. In-Lieu Fees for Provision of Lower Cost Overnight Accommodations ................................ 25
Preliminary Staff Recommendations for Commission Discussion ............................................. 25
Preliminary Staff Recommendation 1 - Defining Lower Cost Hotel Rate ................................ 30
Preliminary Staff Recommendation 2 - Prohibiting Loss of Existing Lower Cost
Overnight Accommodations ............................................................................................................ 30
Preliminary Staff Recommendation 3A - Requirements for New High Cost
Accommodations ............................................................................................................................... 31
Preliminary Staff Recommendation 3B - Requirements for Moderate Cost
Accommodations ............................................................................................................................... 33
Preliminary Staff Recommendation 3C - Evaluating Suite Hotels ............................................ 34
Preliminary Staff Recommendation 30 - Required Percentage of Lower Cost Units ............. 36
Preliminary Staff Recommendation 4A - Calculating In-Lieu Fees ........................................... 41
Preliminary Staff Recommendation 4B - Length of Lower Cost Mitigation
Requirement ....................................................................................................................................... 43
Preliminary Staff Recommendation 5 - Using In-Lieu Fees ........................................................ 49
Preliminary Staff Recommendation 6 - Short Term Vacation Rentals ...................................... 51

4
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Percentage of Hotels by Class in Coastal C<,unties
Figure 2: Percentage of Hotels bv Class in Three Coastal Counties: Coac;tal versu. Inland Cities
Figure 3: Number of Hotel Rooms Closed in Coastal Counties Since 1989
Figure 4: Statewide Average Dai lv Hotel Rate 2001-20 14
Figure -. Average Room Rat~s for Off-Peak/Peak Dates
Figure 6. Annual California Transit Occupancy Tax for Selected Coastal Cities 2005 and 20 I 5
Figure 7. 2015 Annual Spend ing on 'Other Lodging' . including hot~s, vacation homes, college
and any other lodgin g awav from home. by Income
Figure 8. Willingness to Pay for Overnight Accommodations. h\' Annual Household Income

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: List of In-Lieu Fees for Lower Cost Overnight Accommodations
Exhibit 2: Memorandum from Maurice Robinson & Associates LLC on Determining Lower Cost
Hotel Rates
Exhibit 3: State Parks Occupancy Rates
Exhibit 4: Hostelling International Occupancy Rates
Exhibit 5: California Regional Hotel Rates
Exhibit 6: California Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue by Jurisdiction

5
I. COASTAL ACT POLICIES

The Coastal Act requires publ ic access and recreational opportunities to be protected, provided and
maximized. Public access to the coast provides recreation and health benefits which contribute to
improving overall quality of life for all visitors. 2

Section 30210. In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 ofArticle X of the California
Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational
opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and
the need to protect public rights, rights ofprivate property owners, and natural resource
areas from overuse.

Section 3021 I. Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea
where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the
use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.

Section 30212. (a) Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and
along the coast shall be provided in new development projects except where: (]) it is
inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection offragile coastal
resources, (2) adequate access exists nearby, or, (3) agriculture would be adversely
affected. Dedicated accessway shall not be required to be opened to public use until a
public agency or private association agrees to accept responsibility for maintenance and
liability of the accessway.

Section 30213. Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected,
encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational
opportunities are preferred. The commission shall not: (I) require that overnight room
rentals be fixed at an amount certain for any privately owned and operated hotel, motel, or
other similar visitor-serving facility located on either public or private lands; or (2)
establish or approve any method for the identification of low or moderate income persons
for the purpose of determining eligibility for overnight room rentals in any such facilities.

Section 30221. Oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for
recreational use and development unless present andforeseeablefuture demand for public
or commercial recreational activities that could be accommodated on the property is
already adequately provided for in the area.

Section 30222. Private lands; priority of development purposes. The use of private lands
suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public
opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general
industrial, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal-
dependent industry.

Section 30223. Upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses shall be reserved
for such uses, where feasible.

2
There are many provisions of the Coastal Act regarding access. This document focuses on the sections most relevant
to lower cost overnight accommodations.

6
The California Constitution and the federal Coastal Zone Management Act mandate the protection
3
and enhancement of public access to and a long California' s coastline. The Coastal Act codifies
these protections in statute, including mandating that public recreational access opportunities to
and along the California coastline be maximized (Coastal Act Section 302 10). Coastal Act Section
3021 O's direction to maximize public recreational access opportunities represents a different
threshold than to simply provide or protect such access opportunities, and Section 30210 is
therefore fundamentally different from other public access provisions. It is not enough to simply
provide public recreational access to and along the coast, and it is not enough to simply protect
existing public recreational access; rather such public recreational access opportunities must also
be maximized for all people. Th is terminology distinguishes the Coastal Act and provides
fundamental direction for p lanning and development along the California coast.

Coastal Act Section 30210 requires public access to be maximized; Section 30221 requires
oceanfront land suitable for recreational use to be protected for such use; Section 30222 prioritizes
visitor serving commercial recreational facilities on private lands suitable for such use; and Section
30223 requires upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses to be reserved for such
uses . Within the context of these policies that require public access and recreational opportunities
to be protected and maxim ized, Section 30213 protects and prov ides specifically for lower cost
visitor serving and recreational facilities, which include lower cost overnight accommodations .

Coastal Act Section 30213 has its genesis in the 1975 Californ ia Coastal Plan. Based on extensive
public input in the early 1970s, the Coastal Plan found that few tourist facilities for persons of low
and moderate income were being built in many parts of the coastal zone, and that many such low
and moderate cost facilities were being replaced by higher cost facil ities, particularly overnight
accommodations that were even at that time shifting from lower cost options to higher cost
apartments, condom iniums, resorts and hotels. The earliest statement of statewide coastal policy
on lower cost overn ight accommodations is found in the 1975 Coastal Plan under a section titled
"Equality ofAccess." The Plan Policy 125 states, in pa11:

Provide Lower Cost Tourist Facilities in the Nearcoast Area. To increase recreational
access to the coast for the general public, tourist facilities (including campgrounds, hotels,
youth hostels, recreational vehicle parks, etc. for low and moderate income persons shall
be provided in the nearcoast areas through the use of all available financing techniques,
including tax increment obtained from high-cost coastal housing and tourist facilities.
Lower cost visitor facilities such as campgrounds, rustic shelters, ranch houses converted
to inns, bed and board in p rivate homes, summer home rentals where several families can
share the cost, and new tourist accommodations that provide some moderately priced units
and short-term rentals of other recreational facilities (e.g. boats) shall be given priority
over exclusively expensive facilities (e.g. private residential developments, some yacht
clubs) ...

The Coastal Act addressed these findings in part by including the specific Section 30213 mandate
to protect, encourage, and where feasible provide lower cost visitor and recreational facil ities.

3
The federal Coastal Zone Management Act requires its State partners to "exercise effectiv ely [its] responsibilities in
the coastal zone through the development and implementation of management programs to achieve wise use of the
land and water resources of the coastal zone" ( 16 U.S.C. Section 1452(2)) so as to provide for "public access to the
coasts for recreational purposes." (Section l452(2)(e))

7
Section 30213 helps ensure maximum public recreational access because without lower cost visitor
serving facilities, members of the public with lower incomes would be more limited in their ability
to access and recreate at the coast, as compared to others who may be able to afford to pay more to
access such coastal facilities. This inequity would be unfair and unjust, and thus, providing for
people with lower incomes was made a cornerstone of the Coastal Act's public recreational access
mandate. When planning and development does not adequately address these lower cost needs, it
is inconsistent with the Coastal Act's requirement to protect, provide and maximize access for all.

Section 30213 also promotes environmental justice, which is defined as "the fair treatment of
people of all races, cultures, and income with respect to the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies" in Government Code Section
65040.12(e). Lower cost facilities ensure members of the public with lower incomes, including
those that live further from the coast, have options that enable them to access and recreate at the
coast. The Coastal Act's requirement to maximize access and promote lower cost visitor and
recreational facilities is critical in providing opportunities for individuals and families from
underserved communities to visit the coast when they might not be able to do so otherwise due to
costs, including the lack of affordable lodging.

4
II. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND IMPLEMENTATION OF 30213

When the Coastal Act was enacted in 1976, it included broad policy language requiring not only
the provision of lower cost visitor and recreational facilities but also housing for persons of low
and moderate income. As originally enacted, Section 30213 stated:

Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities and housing opportunities for persons of low
and moderate income shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided.

Thus, Section 30213 not only formed the basis of the Commission's lower cost overnight
accommodations program, but also supported a statewide coastal zone program focused on
affordable housing. Under this authority, the Commission developed statewide interpretive
guidelines for the implementation of Section 30213 as it related to lower cost housing
opportunities, but did not develop such guidelines specific to lower cost visitor and recreational
facilities. The lower cost housing guidelines were originally adopted by the Commission in 1977,
5
and subsequently revised in 1979 and 1981.

The original 1977 guidelines provided for the protection of existing low and moderate income
housing by prohibiting its demolition for other than health and safety reasons, and gave priority to
new residential proposals that included affordable housing opportunities. The definition of low and
moderate income households was anyone earning up to 120% of the median income, which
included about 2/3 of California households at the time. Among other tools, density bonuses and
reduced parking requirements were also used as mechanisms to support affordable housing.

Subsequent versions of the interpretive guidelines in 1979 and 1981 identified additional
mechanisms to protect, encourage and provide affordable housing such as requiring in-lieu fees,
land dedications and housing credits in certain circumstances. The revised guidelines also made

4
Includes excerpts from "Repo rt on Coastal Act Affordable Housing Policies and Implementation'' by Sarah Christie,
Legislative Director, February I 0, 2015.
5
Adopted on October 4, 1977; revised on July 16, 1979 and May 5, 1981.

8
 • r' <( c.,;~ C:.L,,"- ,f ~ J. ~- I LJ ...) ,J I I_ • · •")1 .: .

..,,,.,, wr ,._....,.':v...__ - ,.-u:. -~~ ;..\.C,.,,..\.-1'

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMlSSlON

::fl(TTU.L. CCA..'"1' ~IJT'li:::r eFQC.i
1""1RnH'r~U1, e!.fffl~O
s»lf.l.l::l>\.!Z,c.l_•uw
i,,11)U7 ... 0

December 29,1999
Bill Ambr osi Smith
City of Half Moon Bay
Planning Depanment
City Hall
501 Main Street
Half Moon Bay, Calif. 94019

Re: Pillar Point 'RVfa.cilify

Ciry Coundl agenda item.for January 4, :WOO

Dear Mr. Att.brosi Smlrh:

As .manager of the: Ca!.iforn.ia Coastal Corn.mission's statewide public access pro~ro, I azn
writi?lg to sui)po:t the City staff's reC()mmendation for protecting public use at the RV fa.cility in
Pillar Point Harbor. The hvo issues, protection of day use parking anc! limitin.g RV parking ro a
mwmum of 30 day5 stay in one year, an; evnsiS'lent with the Coastal Act policies to protect ard
protecr public acc.ess for Ihe general pu.bl.lc.

We have be.ell contacted by members of the g~eral pablic who have been concuoed about chis
~ . in pa.!1'Jcula.r about the need to protec: the day use parking area. !bis area has long been
esed by the general pt.1blic and serves to support gene.~ publjc use of the Surfer's Beach area.
Additional demand for tlili day use lo! wiil 'be geue1atetl io the near future as Caltrar.s will be
completing e. link in r.be Coastside Trail ;;t Surfer's Beach Th~refore, there is a contin\ling need
b provide d.ay u:se pa.rkiog in this area.

In summ.a.ry, the s~tlf of tb~ California Coastal Comm.issjon supports your s taft'!_;
recommendation l!llC urge the Council to protect this public Uoe area for day us~ parking and
li:ni.ted RV par.king.

Sincerely,

Llnda Loddi.n

Mu.ager, Coastal Access Pri:>gr.un

Cc: Chris Kun.. North Coust

57%

EXHIBITN
[Carfcrn;a Ccasta. Comr•11ss on lette:t·,eac & ca:.fcrr.:a seal]

Jar.uary 25. 20C:2

The Board of Hartor Cr. 'i1r'f'!5Sioners

Sar Mmec Cot.:my Ha rber District
O·ie Johnson Pier
P 0 . Box 39
b Granada . CA 94018

RC: Propo$eri Amendrnert to o :str!c! O·ci:nancc Code Section 3.8.2,

(h'Br')ight Stays at Recre:at; or,a! Vehic:e Facdities

V-.'e nave ' eC6ived 1:o:1ce •ha: fOU: Boa'C wil. be c-.::nsidc-ririg an a'.11endrnent
t0 District Ordinance Cude Sec!i8r 3 8.2. reJulat.ng !hf: !e-1gtl~ of
c vemight stays at recrea:·01 a! veh;c:e :_RV} f ac1Ft,es w ithir. t,,e
H;:irto: Ois:"icrs Ji.;· isdic: ~n, at !tS Febr;.;ar, 6, 2002 nieet:r,;J This
.e:~er :Jt!er s tt'.e Ccas~a: Cornm:ssio1 staffs ccmrner.ts 10 trie proposed
::narr:P-

Secr:c" 2.~ 2 :;f ti1e Orcir:ari:€:; c,Wf;ntly pro..;ices. 'No vel:icie s1al! be
a.,c': :ed to $lay overrig l·! fe r '1:.ore t~ar fourtei:": (: 4,1 cc:1se<::L.!iv€ days
o:· :ns.re t11an tri.rt y (30) days ,n any one ca:e:ida! yea, .' Tr-,1~: langua~e
\·;as originally adcpted by t·1e Harter t-·str i,:;t " J _;!y 1987 L,rider
O 1 di:-:a·,~e E3. w"1;c"1 1: . 1as sctse::p... i::r.tl~ suoerseced b 1 Scc7;ori 3 B ·,1 ~·J r. e
199{; Ur·dE::r 0·1e i:-r~. f_: :;$ed (1rn2n~Jn cr;t Sect.cir. ~.8.2 \'JCt.:hJ bt: ct:a •1g1;;u t::

EXHIBIT 0
read ''No veh:cle shai, oe ailowed :o stay overn:ght for more than
n1•1ety 1.90:i ~:.)11:SeC:J'.ive cays ."

Tl"e- prn~0sed amePd:r,er,: preciorr.iPa:1tly affects !en.gtr.s cf overnight stays

a; ti,e Pi!lar ro.r.t ria·bo' RV Pa:-k ;::::::a:ea ;n the Cty of Half rv1o::m Bay
nc.c.1~ Ci Granaca. We understand t:iat tt1e P.rlar Point RV Park has taen
operating u:-1cier a U!=ie Perrrnt frcm tne Citl of Half tvbon Bay vmlch was
re:--ev:ed in t...1ay 1987 Because a·Y/ change in length ot permissible
ove rrngt1t stays a! :~1e RV Park it> a cr:ange .f' 1nter.s1ty of 0se ar.y such
,:-hange woulrl require a Coaslai Devc:cp:r1e 11t Per-nit or permit arr1endmeP!
frcrr i ;, e City of Ha' f Moo'l Bay

,,, C:~~m·ss:or: stJ~s •1 iev:. Et 'Ulc i')er·11:~tin;; ove•night!o stays of 90

consec..,rive days 1;;1th no an ·1ua1 maximl.:rr. 11rnit :s :nc0:1sistent w:th the
~iub' ic access ar,d recrcat1~n po!ic:e:s of tl,e Coastai Act and the
certifiecl Lccal Coasta: Progrcrn1 of the City of Hnif Moon Bay , as they
have r>een .ntcroretE:::J by tre Coas:al Commission. The public access and
rf':!c•e3~:or po! :c,os a re designed to rr.aximize coastal access by the
pub'ic kV fac:lities suet: as the Pill<1r Point RV Pa:k provide fow-cost
ovc:n .ght accorrmcd;;won a•)ci !Jlf:11 an important visitor-se rving
funt.tii.)n 1\n overnight stay n;!e for coastal RV facliities w·t1ich aliows
c:cna,:1 ·n~rn bers of the pJb·ic tc s~ay ~or ior.g or u11i:ri1ited perrods has
Ire effec: of :rrnit1Pg ac:::e$S to coast.:,! reso~,ces to ctr. e~s in tre
;-:,1st. tne Coasta l C:::n1rrnss;crl's 1nterpr2ta~io, of !he Coa~tal Act public
access c1rd rec~eati'.~r: :}ok~;es :r. s:rn.l;:ir ·0stan::es has :yp:ca:ly been
th Gt 0·1wn1ght sta fS s11:: ulc ht" :ii':litcd to ;:i max,r-::. .1?11 of 30-days per year
at a ;f 1en fac1l1t:, I 1 leasc c.a!! r1e at i4 ~ 5) 904-526.3 ;t you have ar.y
ques!·ons rega rding !rese ccmrne11ts

Si·Kerely yo::rs.

[s:gnr:c~

Pe:t:ir T lmhof
Cnastc.1: P1a:1ner
Nc,:ih Central Coast O·str1cr

c~. Pete~ Gre•1eil. General k'. a'lage SMCHO

KeP c~rtis Flanr.m9 Dire :;tcr, C.ty of! la !f t-:ioon Bay
Sar.jy E··ne•scP
L,n.-Ja Lock! .. , o :re~ta' <./ Pul,!ic Ac~ess