[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6215292,"mediaKeyId","3662289-162c559f58bc50232ccf3b259436e138","parentId",3662289,"title","Council approves residence at 2800 Champs Elysees after hydrology review; neighbors and applicant disagree on flood risk","audioSeconds",3802,"startMs",6210000,"endMs",10012000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3662289-162c559f58bc50232ccf3b259436e138&start=6210&end=10012","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3662289-162c559f58bc50232ccf3b259436e138/thumbnail_6210000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6215292/California/Council-approves-residence-at-2800-Champs-Elysees-after-hydrology-review-neighbors-and-applicant-disagree-on-flood-risk","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6215292-305e55f18c575d5a5b4931edc1110f85/orig.mp4?Expires=1771015424&Signature=gjCYQf337HAf6XCoMjsDfKinW6Nl-9NPZHOHbchcEnVPTAgH796et4jSQmNvlY6ZPkTS5eWZY5Ue~z4FMLDzSI8vbEQ7ZdMsuPEYzPHOnzaIxHLpHZ7skalA2Wctb3WqZHi1ZywpamC4nV4w44lrKbZfeXMwzEhefvMkKSoWaUexQpcPTviejyY92hAx27LNtADsFsgK7hCCEi~Br~NSwRqarjZvAavk1qURhkcIGTXCdLue1CBsu5mAO1WRpX~qRJCd1FAV~iMleGcnMZhUw0PbhffSBa1eu-iIXvfDoP8m8q41KkLsdLuNCRjGrO3XahIPQjNnL3aFkR5-SZrv0Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Half Moon Bay CA","date","2025-06-04T07:01:41Z","article","The Half Moon Bay City Council voted June 3 to approve a coastal development permit and architectural review for a new two‑story residence at 2800 Champs Elysees Boulevard after the city received a site‑specific hydrological analysis and peer review work requested by the planning commission and by the council.

Why it matters: Neighbors say repeated flooding along the Pullman Water Course and recent increases in runoff mean new development will worsen flood impacts to adjacent properties. The city and the applicant point to updated hydrology reports and engineering peer review finding the proposed design and on‑site detention would not cause “adverse direct or cumulative” off‑site flooding under the tested scenarios. The decision resolves a multi‑year dispute that included planning commission denials, a city council appeal and a subsequent settlement agreement requiring council reconsideration.

What council approved and why
- Project: a 4,710‑square‑foot, two‑story single‑family home with a two‑car garage and a covered breezeway. A condition of approval requires an irrevocable offer of an easement along the northern property line for potential future drainage improvements.
- The planning record includes multiple prior hearings, litigation and a site‑specific hydrological assessment attached to staff materials (the April 2025 CHAFE analysis and Schaeffer Wheeler peer review). Staff recommended approval after the site‑specific work.
- Council discussion focused on whether the record complied with Local Coastal Program policies (notably policy 7‑5‑1 and 7‑5‑7), whether the modeling used appropriate storm assumptions and whether adequate mitigations and easements were in place. City staff and the retained consultants concluded the project complied with the cited LCP policies and that on‑site detention sized for a 25‑year, two‑hour event would not create off‑site flooding impacts.

Opposition and technical dispute
- Neighbors and several speakers at the public hearing argued the hydrology work relied on older or dry‑season data, did not reflect recent large flows, and omitted a Rossi/EDC report and other field evidence documenting overtopping and channel changes allegedly driven by upstream discharges (notably from agricultural properties east of Highway 1). Speakers showed photos and videos of high flows and erosion, and some said home values had been reduced by flooding.
- Applicant’s attorney Mark Massara said the file contains multiple approvals and expert reports finding no causal link between the project and Pullman Ditch flooding, and described the proposed easement and on‑site work as an opportunity to help create a bypass around an existing obstruction.

Formal action and votes
- The council voted to approve the project and to determine that the project complies with the previously adopted initial study/mitigated negative declaration and that the project is categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (new construction). Roll‑call recorded: Council Member John Johnson — no; Council Member Nagenghast — yes; Council Member Penrose — yes; Vice Mayor Debbie Redick — yes; Mayor Brownstone — yes.

Discussion versus decision
- Discussion only: Neighbors urged further independent review and a broader watershed approach to Pullman and Kehoe Ditch issues; many speakers asked the city to prioritize a long‑range drainage plan that may include bypasses, reroutes, or partnerships with other property owners such as Rocket Farms.
- Decision: Council approved the single‑family residence application as conditioned; staff noted that the approval could be appealed to the California Coastal Commission within the 10‑working‑day appeal period and that the commission could make a substantial‑issue determination and potentially schedule a de novo hearing.

Next steps and context
- The council asked staff to accelerate long‑range drainage planning and outreach to upstream property owners (including Rocket Farms) and to consider assessment district or grant options to fund watershed improvements. The Pullman Ditch issue remains a separate, ongoing policy and capital project question; the approved house does not itself authorize any off‑site channel work.

Ending
Council members said they will pursue short‑term and long‑term steps on drainage and emphasized the project decision was separate from the broader Pullman Ditch remediation work that the city must still pursue.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","HMBCC 6/3/25 - Half Moon Bay City Council Meeting - June 3, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Half Moon Bay City Council voted June 3 to approve a coastal development permit and architectural review for a new two‑story residence at 2800 Champs Elysees Boulevard after the city received a site‑specific hydrological analysis and peer review work requested by the planning commission and by the council.","taxTitle","Half Moon Bay, Half Moon Bay City, San Mateo County, California","taxId",59290,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6215297,"Half Moon Bay council moves to seek delay on Coastal Commission appeal of Redondo Beach gate",1072,1366000,2438000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3662289-162c559f58bc50232ccf3b259436e138&start=1366&end=2438","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3662289-162c559f58bc50232ccf3b259436e138/thumbnail_1366000.jpg","/articles/6215297/California/Half-Moon-Bay-council-moves-to-seek-delay-on-Coastal-Commission-appeal-of-Redondo-Beach-gate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6215297-5885bd99273789f92524da4432e94bcf/orig.mp4?Expires=1771015424&Signature=SEeGOxxu1LrhIvhRQbAN1IqMjl8H9RGH5oudINDRoW0BVpkS9FEd-nustfktnV0ja62BAKaxTehiVZMk-R-QI1KtL-KM9f8QYDoZug7bHA5w9Lk0wt6CSVBRe~FKmbiEPwfag0Ziisj5KS2NCHlgcazNqDyi17HpbOMLdzdPalPZGZIyNtTDpkg0NY4kzY6VPrC4c442iA2tpzqpjQRkBK-3VrJgYauxDLN1dQa32q8a70X4zltO4UEy5tssX9ZmGwOt67CyCt7JO6Dh~olgnM7vvCoowMiq39alUNcNiSaamGwH8xTZXJo1xFTmnkmp1rVYg1piDWootugYp1vsyg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Half Moon Bay city officials and several residents told the City Council on June 3 they want more time to prepare for an appeal hearing by the California Coastal Commission over the city’s coastal development permit (CDP) to close Redondo Beach Road.

At a public-priority session, several speakers urged the council to ask the Coastal Commission to postpone its scheduled hearing so city staff and the affected parties can gather data and discuss mitigations. “I think we should delay this conversation that they’re having on [the hearing date], if we can, next week, and do work to … find alternative ways to solve the problems,” said Trish Hayward, who reviewed the Coastal Commission staff report during public comment.

Why it matters: the city approved a CDP to close the gate after complaints about vehicle-related crimes, dumping and environmental damage, but the commission has an open appeal. Council members said they prefer a strategic approach that avoids risking other local gates and access points if the commission rules adversely.

What was said and discussed
- Resident Bruce Russell asked staff and the city attorney to try to postpone the Coastal Commission hearing so the city can engage with commission staff and assemble a fuller administrative record, including the security plan required from the Coastal Land Trust project in Wavecrest. He noted the broader implications for other local closures if the commission’s staff pursues enforcement.
- Trish Hayward summarized the Coastal Commission staff report and said the city had not completed “a full analysis of the impacts to visitors of closing the gate” or “analysis and testing of alternative ways to achieve the same goals.” She recommended delaying the hearing to document mitigations such as more patrols, lights and motion-sensing cameras.
- Vice Mayor Debbie Redick said the staff report from the Coastal Commission “looks fairly punitive” and urged postponement so the city can prepare and potentially coordinate with other jurisdictions that face similar coastal access and safety trade-offs.

Discussion versus next steps
- Discussion: Council and staff discussed two options if postponement fails: (a) proceed to the Coastal Commission appeals hearing and make the city’s case, accepting the risk of a decision that might require reopening gates elsewhere; or (b) withdraw the CDP application before the commission hearing to buy time for further local work and strategy.
- Direction to staff: council members instructed staff to pursue a postponement if possible and to prepare briefing materials, witnesses and contingency steps (including the withdraw option) in case the commission will not delay the hearing.

Context and constraints
- The city says the Redondo gate closure stems from longstanding public-safety and environmental complaints; state coastal access policy requires careful findings before restricting vehicle access, and the Coastal Commission evaluates local CDPs. A separate review of the Coastal Land Trust (CLT) Wavecrest project was mentioned: CLT must submit a security plan and other mitigations before building permits are issued.

Ending
Council members and staff agreed to prioritize preparation for the Coastal Commission process and to continue local discussions about mitigations and alternative measures before any final closure is implemented.","Council and public urged staff to seek a postponement of the California Coastal Commission’s hearing on the city’s coastal development permit to close Redondo Beach Road, while exploring alternatives and mitigation measures if the commission proceeds.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6215279,"City staff report shows 18% vacancy rate; council and unions call for retention, recruitment steps",5016,7043000,12059000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3662289-162c559f58bc50232ccf3b259436e138&start=7043&end=12059","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3662289-162c559f58bc50232ccf3b259436e138/thumbnail_7043000.jpg","/articles/6215279/California/City-staff-report-shows-18-vacancy-rate-council-and-unions-call-for-retention-recruitment-steps","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6215279-1ee0d8a0adb28a15e4608f6b6b674bae/orig.mp4?Expires=1771015424&Signature=n8HBIwptZy8kzAEFBwgyyQ1mnNoiBo7ftk0uHs7zkHxuF6i9nQZbfTQATpzuAq5f6ulotvxAkp0~YmfHccGed49hKw7lXLDd7I51L~FavQpRTydP9P9TTuets5HB44UpwewUFtEu8C0eAd04x2n72P-dF8VbZKBAhWREd4TZDA~wBvBw5xN8UH6JgXJulUtumvzDa1AmXnlUXPMXLeglXB3npaDpD~J4ju4cN~2VJEt1A652RCnLYrSBDAxt30p78Qnw5-xMEUErIPzGWqtRwNHIhd9Q7wX8D4AStuQ~cSymBPw7wDEGvIba-oTb5MS8nRbEd2oPN8pcDauqLJ0JJg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The city presented its AB 2561 compliance report at the June 3 meeting, giving a year‑to‑date view of vacancies, recruitment challenges and retention efforts.

Key points
- Workforce snapshot: the city reported it budgeted 45 full‑time equivalent positions for the fiscal year and on June 1 had 37 filled positions (an 18 percent vacancy rate). Vacancy distribution varied: small staffing counts magnified percentage gaps in executive and confidential groups (for example, the non‑represented executive group showed a high vacancy percentage because only a few positions exist and some were intentionally held vacant). Historical 2024 vacancy rates averaged about 6–7 percent, staff said.
- Recruitment challenges: HR staff described regional competition for specialized classifications (engineers, planners) where commute times and housing costs influence candidates. The hiring pipeline lengthens because recruitments include multiple steps such as posting, testing, interviews and background checks.
- Retention steps: city HR described a multifaceted retention effort including competitive wages/benefits, deferred compensation, tuition reimbursement, a telecommute/alternative‑work policy, an employee assistance program and an active employee engagement committee. Staff emphasized that retaining employees reduces recurring recruiting costs.

Union and employee feedback
- Represented management and Local 39 (unions) delivered a joint public comment emphasizing that two‑thirds of city staff are at top pay steps and that vacancies have increased workloads and burnout. They urged investment in retention and career development and said several recently departed employees took institutional knowledge with them.

Council direction
- Council expressed support for staff and concern about workload and morale. Members asked staff to return with a reorganization plan, options to fill critical entry‑level positions quickly, and steps to address recruitment bottlenecks. Council also noted that some executive positions were intentionally held vacant pending a reorganization.

Ending
The public hearing on AB 2561 was informational; no formal action was required. Council asked staff to continue recruitment and retention work and to report back with reorganization proposals and targeted hiring plans.","Under AB 2561 the city reported a June 1 workforce snapshot showing 45 budgeted FTEs and an 18% vacancy rate; staff described recruitment and retention tactics and labor representatives pressed for investment in retention and career development.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6215283,"Council adopts master fee schedule; recreation commission asks phased approach for facility and special‑event increases",1868,8912000,10780000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3662289-162c559f58bc50232ccf3b259436e138&start=8912&end=10780","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3662289-162c559f58bc50232ccf3b259436e138/thumbnail_8912000.jpg","/articles/6215283/California/Council-adopts-master-fee-schedule-recreation-commission-asks-phased-approach-for-facility-and-specialevent-increases","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6215283-70751844925b67522c20412bfacdf16c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771015424&Signature=F08Ns0bWklDpAUtyOZBIIwhtikJ9ba7CDvke79b-F3fwjP~zMr59lzgP~bBFxuc-mTSatzbYO5My8JxUMSl5ee3vldGtcKVrmFbqwfAgu08ecTU7I1bQOqutxFEzG6wZspdfaHxQLyHVOH1ZftDKm7CZ9PUxQMDi6ZyVbPaYtwl7QfkFgavNGC7u4D-IFOFa6o0xhbrIyemz1eq0YqD3YK9e4vdQVoiVd6dEfxv~Qgi8vhBRc2ktYRmZkhTvRiEDTl0YOKN6ekW5b2c6kmidvfFc~qtJAzheHihyc07aU3htaBxR6QGq1d9orHlThxIbpR0K85zByETz3fez1H8lHQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Half Moon Bay City Council adopted the city’s FY25–26 master fee schedule at the June 3 meeting after staff presented a comprehensive fee study and recommendations.

What changed and why
- Staff’s fee study found the city’s cost recovery across fees was roughly 51 percent; implementing the proposed schedule would move the average to about 89 percent cost recovery. The study recommended raising many user fees and aligning them with comparable jurisdictions.
- The master fee schedule included a set of municipal fees (building, planning, recreation and permit fees) and also incorporated several housing‑related fees (rental registry, rent stabilization petitions) that had been discussed previously.

Recreation and events
- The Recreation Commission supported higher recovery for large, commercial events (pumpkin festival, large parades) but expressed concern that immediate full increases on small and mid‑sized permits and film permits could deter community events and reduce compliance.
- The commission recommended a phased implementation for smaller events (for example, a partial increase in year one followed by a second step), a change council said it would consider as staff implements the fee schedule.

Business development, ADUs and enforcement concerns
- Council members emphasized that fees are only one barrier to business formation; they asked staff to pair fee policy with process improvements—faster permit turnaround and targeted incentives or grants—to encourage restaurants and small businesses downtown.
- Several council members also noted the city must be careful not to set permitting fees that discourage accessory dwelling unit (ADU) construction, given state ADU priorities.

Decision and next steps
- Action: council adopted the master fee schedule on June 3 and directed staff to proceed; staff will document and return on fee‑related implementation including potential phased approaches for recreation permits and follow‑up comparative analyses for business‑facing fees and ADU processing.

Ending
Council asked staff to balance cost recovery goals with local policy priorities (economic development, housing) and to return with implementation details on phasing, outreach and potential mitigation (grants or process improvements) for affected user groups.","Council adopted the FY25–26 master fee schedule after a staff fee‑study. The Recreation Commission asked for phased increases on some event and film permits, and council members urged caution so fees do not discourage new businesses or ADU creation.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6215288,"Half Moon Bay adopts recommended FY 2025–26 budget framework; council flags structural deficit, risk‑fund choice and expiring golf fee",394,10286000,10680000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3662289-162c559f58bc50232ccf3b259436e138&start=10286&end=10680","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3662289-162c559f58bc50232ccf3b259436e138/thumbnail_10286000.jpg","/articles/6215288/California/Half-Moon-Bay-adopts-recommended-FY-202526-budget-framework-council-flags-structural-deficit-riskfund-choice-and-expiring-golf-fee","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6215288-47208b3e0a45a5519c2ee58b06400930/orig.mp4?Expires=1771015424&Signature=ZqiuqcChs6xqjFsnSCVqhjdpLoSanZZNFo~7fhAITXD7Wg0CEIzug8l4M6evvlmE4hJFV1NaRpm7BRxqZq~L2J5B5tZQ70fA0V~rkaieh615bMqe86nBl7EUV~qK4l7rdhMyjpU0LbirjnOUlX4RQhDRjpXxCFijfQ2jdjdTPcbKbfPja58s8YfLyYRF4qrGqssn8SHV1~4OiJgUqZKzR7HEZfphPEXuHbNbzrMA26Gj6snWLFWGVwGKs~3~4NG9d2lkG6i~3YzrfJJFTi-55d2Yfv-6o4QujcHYuYZHHSa7Yc99ZFb~GinFDN-G9Fh50ur~6I5rjkOqGYBkDEv-FQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City staff presented the recommended fiscal year 2025–26 budget at the June 3 meeting, outlining a near‑term plan that preserves services this year but projects a structural deficit over the next two to three years unless revenues rise or expenditures are reduced.

Key figures and the problem
- Recommended general‑fund revenue for FY25–26: approximately $23 million (including a conservative projection for Measure R sales tax revenue tied to tourism and the new sales tax rate).
- Expenditures: about $24 million of operating costs plus roughly $1 million in planned capital contributions, producing an annual shortfall in the proposed budget of about $1.5 million.
- The staff presentation highlighted that the recommended budget relies on one‑time sources (roughly $900,000 in one‑time revenue and roughly $500,000 of one‑time savings). Stripping those items out produces an ongoing structural deficit of roughly $3 million.

Immediate fiscal choices for council
- Risk management fund: staff offered two options. Option A temporarily suspends the General Fund contribution to the city’s Risk Management Fund (saving roughly $500,000 for FY25–26) while the Risk Fund’s unspent balance covers claims for two to three years; Option B continues General Fund contributions but would leave the city with smaller unassigned reserves. Several council members preferred Option A to retain more flexible reserves for immediate budget pressure; others cautioned that restricting the Risk Fund could expose the city later to liability costs that would have to be covered.
- Expiring revenue: the city will lose a contractual “nonresident golf fee” revenue stream in September 2026 unless renegotiated. Council members directed staff to open negotiations with the golf course owner and report back; members suggested forming a small negotiating team.

Policy and operational directions
- Short‑term: council asked staff to prepare a mid‑year and near‑term strategy that includes reorganization options to reduce costs, to hold major executive hires (city clerk/communications director, assistant city manager, assistant to the city manager) pending a reorganization plan, and to pursue grants and fee‑recovery opportunities where appropriate.
- Long‑term: staff was asked to accelerate capital and watershed planning (Pullman/Kehoe ditches) and to report back with scenarios showing the multiyear impacts of revenue options, fee adjustments and service‑level reductions.

Why it matters: a fiscal cliff and next steps
- Staff’s financial model showed a potential “fiscal cliff” within two to three years if no structural changes are made—reserves would decline and the city would face unavoidable, deep service cuts or emergency use of reserves.
- Council asked for a clearer multiyear plan and for staff to return on June 17 with final budget adoption options and with a timetable for reorganization and revenue/fee proposals. Councilors also requested follow‑up on sheriff contract negotiations and an examination of downtown enforcement revenues tied to citations and parking enforcement.

Ending
The council adopted the budget framework and gave staff direction to return with a final budget on June 17, while beginning work on a reorganization, revenue negotiations (notably the expiring golf fee) and prioritized CIP and drainage work to address urgent stormwater concerns.","Council reviewed a recommended FY25–26 budget showing a near‑term deficit driven by one‑time revenues and ongoing cost pressures; members directed staff to seek revenue options (including negotiating an expiring golf nonresident fee) and begin organizational restructuring while preserving core services.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council approves residence at 2800 Champs Elysees after hydrology review; neighbors and applicant disagree on flood risk

Half Moon Bay council moves to seek delay on Coastal Commission appeal of Redondo Beach gate

City staff report shows 18% vacancy rate; council and unions call for retention, recruitment steps

Council adopts master fee schedule; recreation commission asks phased approach for facility and special‑event increases

Half Moon Bay adopts recommended FY 2025–26 budget framework; council flags structural deficit, risk‑fund choice and expiring golf fee