Half Moon Bay Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 2023

Note: The agenda listed the meeting as November 14, 2023, at 7:00 PM, but the user-provided timestamp indicates November 15, 2023 at 09:45 UTC. The transcript begins with a reference to “November 14th, 2023.” This summary follows the user instruction to use November 15, 2023 as the meeting date.

The Half Moon Bay Planning Commission met on November 15, 2023, to consider an appeal of a coastal development permit modification and to receive an update on the process for amending coastal development permits. Chair Hernandez presided, with Commissioners Gossett (Vice Chair), Gorn, Joanes, and Ruddock present. Two commissioners recused themselves from the appeal item due to living within 500 feet of the project site.

Consent Calendar

• Minutes from August 22, 2023: Approved 3–0 (Commissioners Hernandez and Gorn recused).
• Minutes from September 12, 2023: Approved 4–0 (Commissioner Gossett recused; a correction submitted by Commissioner Gossett was incorporated).
• Minutes from October 24, 2023: Approved 5–0.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Jimmy Benjamin (400 Pillaritos Avenue): Expressed concern about vegetation removal without a coastal development permit in the Venice PDD area north of WAVE, and about erosion widening of the Kehwater course from 20 to over 30 feet in less than two decades. Urged the commission to monitor vulnerable areas during the rainy season.
• Paul Nagengast (229 Valdez Avenue): (Spoke during the appeal public comment) Opposed the appeal, arguing that the project was subject to code enforcement since May 2022 and that approving after-the-fact modifications would reward illegal construction. He cited piles of construction debris, roof rat issues, and stated the modifications did not meet the residential design guidelines.
• Elin Nagengast (229 Valdez Avenue): Expressed confusion that unapproved construction continued despite a public process.
• Commissioner Joanes (as a member of the public, having recused herself): Urged the commission to make the correct decision for the applicant and the neighborhood.
• Mike Ferrar (former mayor): Urged the commission to follow the staff recommendation, citing the well-respected attorney analysis supporting the planning director’s denial.

Discussion Items

1A. Appeal of Denial of Minor Modifications to Coastal Development Permit (CDP) – 225 Valdez Avenue

Background: The original CDP (PDP-21-010) for a single-family home remodel and addition was approved in April 2021 and modified in September 2022. The applicant later requested two modifications: (1) rotating the roof opening 90 degrees (reducing its width from 8 feet to 6 feet, but maintaining the same overall dimensions) and (2) shifting wall openings toward the north. The Community Development Director denied these modifications, citing reduced conformance with Residential Design Guidelines 3-4, 3-19, 3-20, and 3-22. The applicant appealed to the Planning Commission.

Appellant (Lori Romero Ellingson and Russell Ellingson, owners): Argued the changes were minor, did not affect neighbors, and were consistent with the design guidelines, which they stated do not reference roof openings or skylights. They noted that the roof opening rotation did not change dimensions and that shifting the wall opening improved views and prevented rain flooding. They requested approval of four skylights (not part of the original appeal) as an alternative.

Staff Position: Attorney Winter King and Planner Scott Phillips explained that the modifications would reduce articulation, openness, and symmetry, diminishing compliance with the design guidelines. The roof opening reduction would undermine a key element for modulating mass (Guideline 3-4) and the shifted wall openings would break vertical symmetry (Guideline 3-22).

Public Comment: Neighbors and former Mayor Ferrar supported the staff recommendation. The appellant’s neighbor, Paul Nagengast, detailed code enforcement actions and argued that the appeal should not excuse illegal construction.

Commission Discussion & Decision: Commissioners Gorn and Ruddock (the two non-recused commissioners, along with Chair Hernandez) expressed that the changes were not minor and that staff had correctly applied the guidelines. A motion was made and seconded to deny the appeal and uphold the Director’s decision, with an amendment that the project as appealed does not conform to the Residential Design Guidelines. The motion passed 3–0 (Commissioner Gorn, Ruddock, Chair Hernandez; recusals: Commissioner Joanes and Vice Chair Gossett).

2. Planning Commission Update – Processing Amendments to Coastal Development Permits

Presentation: Staff provided an update on improvements made since a previous discussion a year ago. Key actions included:

• Memorializing the process for ministerial vs. minor vs. major amendments.
• Enhanced public noticing (e.g., site postings with a representative image, courtesy notices for Architectural Advisory Committee meetings, publication in city e-news).
• Updated standard conditions of approval, including a requirement that amendments made after construction are automatically treated as major changes.
• Increased oversight: planner inspections before foundation pours, and a new condition requiring city engineer review of impervious surface changes.
• Upcoming work: emphasis on Residential Design Guidelines in pre-application stages, and development of a guidance document and standard operating procedures.

Public Comment: Paul Nagengast thanked staff and requested consistency across staff changes. James Benjamin suggested adding a “safety valve” similar to the Coastal Commission’s de minimis process, allowing two commissioners to pull a decision for review.

Commission Response: Commissioners gave feedback:

• Encouraged systematic training and documentation for new staff.
• Supported the pre-concrete inspection and engineer review of impervious surfaces.
• Expressed concern about cumulative scope creep from multiple minor amendments.
• Asked about consequences for after-the-fact construction and whether code enforcement and CDP violations are linked.
• Raised the need to align with state housing law (SB 167) and objective design standards.
• Recommended a survey system for customer satisfaction and net promoter scores.
• Suggested a policy allowing a subset of commissioners to pull a project for review.
• Advocated for photograph documentation during site visits.
• Noted the importance of balancing added tasks with staff capacity.

No formal vote was taken; the update was for discussion and direction.

Key Outcomes

• Appeal Denied (Item 1A): The Planning Commission voted 3–0 to deny the appeal of the Director’s denial of modifications to the CDP at 225 Valdez Avenue, finding the project as appealed does not conform to the Residential Design Guidelines. The decision was supported by a resolution. The appellant indicated an intention to take the matter to court.
• Coastal Development Permit Process Update (Item 2): Staff received direction to continue refining the process, including formalizing the guidance document, clarifying consequences for after-the-fact construction, and exploring options for commissioner pull-aside authority. Staff will report back on progress.
• Next Meeting: Scheduled for December 12, 2023 (potential cancellation noted for November 28).