|
On June 14th, in the ongoing debacle commonly referred to as the revitalization of Dana Point Harbor, the CA Coastal Commission will decide the fate of two hotels in the harbor. One is a lower-cost hotel, and one is a market-rate hotel.
The LCP amendment was submitted to the CA Coastal Commission by the City of Dana Point. The CCC Staff report notes that The City of Dana Point Planning Commission held a public hearing for the LCPA on May 27, 2020. No members of the public provided public comment.
It also noted The City Council held a public hearing for the resolutions and ordinances associated with the subject LCPA (Exhibit 1) on September 16, 2020. No members of the public provided public comment.
What were we all doing in 2020? Dealing with COVID and not attending public events.
The CA Coastal Commission recommendation is below:
Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission, after public hearing:
1. Deny the LCP amendment request as submitted; and,
2. Certify, only if modified, the LCP amendment request.
A link to the agenda item is below:
- F10a - Staff Report
- F10a - Exhibits
Public hearing and action on request by City of Dana Point to amend the Land Use Plan (LUP) and the Implementation Plan (IP) of the certified LCP to allow for two hotels and to modify the allotted square footage for boater service facilities and visitor-serving commercial uses in Planning Area 3 of the Dana Point Harbor Revitalization Plan in Dana Point, Orange County. (SA-LB) Submit Comment or sign up to speak for this item at the hearing via Zoom, please fill out the remote testimony request form here. Watch the hearing live Coastal Commission Live Stream.
We recommend all boaters and interested Dana Point citizens either submit written comments or log on to the Zoom meeting and participate in the public comments on the agenda item. Click here for more information on virtual hearing procedures.
Written comments need to be submitted by 5 p.m. on June 7th.
We urge you to read the CCC Staff report and look at the exhibits. Note the pictures of how the hotels will look in the harbor. Some key takeaways from the report are:
The report discusses whether a regional economy-rate study for “Coastal Orange County” which is defined as the County’s coastal zone “and the area within one mile of the coastal zone”, or a statewide approach is the more appropriate method for determining low-cost pricing.
“Given the Coastal Act’s policies emphasizing maximum public access, and the need to address inequitable coastal access, particularly on publicly owned state tidelands, the Commission finds that the statewide approach to assessing what constitutes a “lower-cost” room is appropriate in this case to maximize public access and recreation opportunities for all people.”
“Moreover, the Commission finds that lower-cost rate thresholds consistent with the statewide approach are more appropriate in this case because the area subject to this LCPA constitutes public trust tidelands that the State of California has granted to the County to manage for the benefit and use of the public. Unlike much upland private coastal property, tidelands are generally open to all visitors at no or low cost and are thus critical from public access and environmental justice standpoints as an important resource providing equitable access to coastal and marine resources and recreation. As such, the City in coordination with the County, the manager of these trust lands, are both responsible for ensuring maximum public access to these lands, in this case through the provision of lower-cost overnight accommodations.”
“Likewise, in the case of the Dana Point Harbor, the City of Dana Point is in a unique position to manage development within the Harbor in a manner that maximizes the public benefit consistent with the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act, the certified LCP, and the Public Trust Doctrine.
"Under the Coastal Act and the Dana Point LCP, priority is given to visitor-serving commercial development that supports public coastal-dependent recreation over other land uses such as general commercial or private institutional development, especially in tideland harbor areas held in public trust, such as the case here."
Regarding boater services buildings the report reads:
“From the proposed LCPA, it is unclear whether the new boater service facilities would provide the same level of service to the boaters, including the number of fixtures, appliances, and amenities. Coastal Act Section 30234 specifically requires that recreational boating facilities be protected (and, where feasible, upgraded), and that existing recreational boating harbor space “not be reduced unless the demand for those facilities no longer exists or adequate substitute space has been provided.” [Emphasis added.] As such, Commission staff asked the City, County, and developer to provide additional information regarding Boater Service Buildings 3 and 4 and their existing capacity.”
Let your voice be heard in one of three ways:
-
Let the CA Coastal Commission know you disagree with the Plan and would prefer not to have two hotels in the harbor, and you don’t want the allotted square footage for boater service facilities to be modified. Ask the CA Coastal Commission to deny the amendment.
-
Let the CA Coastal Commission know you would love two hotels in the harbor and are okay with modifying the allotted square footage for boater service facilities. Ask the CA Coastal Commission to certify, only if modified, the LCP amendment request.
-
Let the CA Coastal Commission know that you might be okay with the amendment to the LCP only if modified once DPHP is compliant with the terms of the existing LUP and Coastal Development Permit regarding the slip layout and day use boater parking. Until DPHP is compliant no amendment to the LUP should be approved.
As a boater in Dana Point, you have a right to voice your opinion. With the exorbitant slip rate increases, boaters are paying for the marina revitalization and now the commercial core. Do you want to pay for the hotels too? Please VOICE YOUR CHOICE!
#dpboaters
| 
