Half Moon Bay Planning Commission Meeting - November 28, 2022

This meeting, held remotely via Zoom on November 28, 2022, addressed two public hearing items: a contested coastal development permit modification at 225 Valdez Avenue and a policy discussion on the administrative oversight process for minor amendments to coastal development permits. The meeting began at 7:00 PM and was extended to 11:30 PM.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of the October 25, 2022 minutes was postponed because Commissioners Benjamin and Vice Chair Hernandez were absent at that meeting and could not review the minutes. The item was continued to the next meeting.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Mike Ferrer (public comment on non-agenda item) expressed concern about the school board's plan to pave Foothill Boulevard, a school easement near a proposed mobile home park. He noted potential environmental impacts, a dangerous intersection with Highway 92, and the need for a coastal development permit and historic study.

• Item 1A – 225 Valdez Avenue: Numerous residents spoke. The applicant, Laurie Ellingson, expressed support for the modifications, stating they were within allowable floor area ratio and that changes were made in good faith. Neighbors Paul Nagengast, Hazel Jonas, Bill Coors, and attorney Camus Steinmetz argued that the proposal violated residential design guidelines (especially the 25-foot wall plane limit), was built without permits, and set a bad precedent. They urged denial or stricter conditions. Other neighbors (e.g., Brian, Justin Kern) supported the applicants, noting their transparency and the improvement to the neighborhood.

• Item 1B – CDP Amendment Process: Paul Nagengast, Hazel Jonas, Bill Coors, and Camus Steinmetz testified. They requested formal policies, including objective criteria for major vs. minor amendments, neighbor outreach requirements, and disqualification of after-the-fact revisions from minor processing. They supported staff's enhanced noticing proposals but urged stronger measures.

Discussion Items

• Item 1A (225 Valdez Avenue): Staff presented the history of the project: a coastal development permit originally approved April 2021, with subsequent modifications. The current proposal sought to convert a portion of an approved covered second-story terrace to conditioned space. Staff recommended approval with conditions to limit enclosed space to 50% of the terrace length, require transparent railings, and address skylight articulation. The commission questioned staff about the process of minor vs. major amendments, the unpermitted construction (1.5-foot extension and enclosure of the terrace), and the appeal period. The applicant stated they were comfortable with staff's recommendations. The commission voted 4-0 (Commissioner Gossett recused) to approve the modifications with staff's conditions.

• Item 1B (CDP Amendment Process): Staff reviewed the legal framework for major, minor, and ministerial amendments. They proposed enhanced site posting with graphics for original CDP hearings and revised condition language requiring city engineer review for impervious surface changes. Staff also discussed suggestions from the public (neighbor outreach, postcard notices, disqualifying after-the-fact revisions) but expressed concerns about feasibility and over-burden. Commissioners supported the trial of enhanced signage and encouraged memorializing the criteria for minor vs. major amendments in a memo. They also favored continuing to encourage neighbor outreach. The commission voted unanimously to endorse staff's recommendations and direct staff to prepare a follow-up memo with further refinements.

Key Outcomes

• Item 1A (225 Valdez Avenue): Approved 4-0 (Commissioner Gossett recused) with staff's recommended conditions, including: limiting enclosed conditioned space to 50% of the terrace length, requiring transparent railings (picket, glass, or cable), and addressing skylight articulation. The 1.5-foot extension approved earlier was not revisited.
• Item 1B (CDP Amendment Process): The commission confirmed the existing administrative oversight process and directed staff to implement a trial of enhanced site postings (including graphics) for original CDP hearings, and to revise condition of approval language to require city engineer review for changes in impervious surface. Staff will prepare a memo detailing objective criteria for distinguishing major vs. minor amendments, and continue to encourage neighbor outreach. The commission will review the memo at a future meeting.