See attached Appeal Justification
City Planning Commission
August 20, 2025
Approval of Hanson Hotel (1801 N. El Camino Real)
464 Lucas Ave # 201, Los Angeles, CA 90017
Francis Engler, on behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11
[email protected], 760-275-3213
Attachment 2
September 2, 2025
VIA EMAIL, HAND-DELIVERY
City Council, City of San Clemente
c/o City Clerk ([email protected])
Jonathan Lightfoot, City Planner ([email protected]) 910 Calle Negocio
San Clemente, CA 92673
RE: Appeal Justification for Hanson Hotel (1801 N. El Camino Real); Development Permit (DP) 25-324; Approval Made Effective by August 20, 2025 Dear Honorable Mayor Knoblock and City Councilmembers:
1 On behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11 (“Local 11” or “Appellant”),2 this office respectfully submits this appeal (“Appeal”) to the City of San Clemente (“City”) involving the proposed threestory, 61-room boutique hotel (“Project”) located at the 32,030-square-foot (“sf”) parcel located at the northwest corner of North El Camino Real and Avenida Pico (“Site”).3 In furtherance of the Project, Rachel Nasre (“Applicant”) seeks various land use approvals from the City under the San Clemente Municipal Code (“SCMC” or “Code”), including (i) Development Permit No. 25-324 (“DP”) and (ii) Conditional Use Permit No. 25-329 (“CUP”) (collectively “Entitlements”). Additionally, for environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”),4 the City is relying on a 1998 mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) approved for a 1998 project for a 27-unit timeshare and 10,000 square feet (“sf”) retail project, claiming the current hotel Project is less intensive and does not meet any of the conditions warranting further CEQA review under CEQA Guidelines § 15162 (i.e., no substantial change in project, circumstances, or new information). As an alternative (or secondary justification), the City claims that the Project is also categorically exempt via a Class 32 (Infill Development) exemption (“CatEx”).
5 Furthermore, since the Project Site is in the Coastal Zone, the Project will require approval of a Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) from the California Coastal Commission (“CCC”).6 On August 20, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved the Entitlements, CatEx, and CEQA findings (collectively “Project Approvals”).7 / / /
1 Herein, page citations are either the stated pagination (i.e., “p. #”) or PDF-page location (i.e., “PDF p. #”). 2 Per LAMC § 48.08.8 disclosure requirement, this letter is sent by the attorney and law firm on behalf of its client(s) subject to the City’s lobbying registration requirement. 3 See gen., Planning Commission Staff Report (“PC Staff Report”) (8/20/25), https://www.sanclemente.org/home/showpublisheddocument/91137/638907879121163345; Planning Commission Video (“PC Video”) (8/20/25), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgFOKCaQsRY. 4 Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq. and 14 Cal. Code Regs. (“CEQA Guidelines”) § 15000 et seq. 5 PC Staff Report., PDF pp. 1, 20, 26.
6 Ibid., PDF p. 6,
7 Supra fn. 3.
Appeal Justification RE: Hanson Hotel Project
Pursuant to SCMC § 17.12.140, Local 11 hereby appeals the Planning Commission’s approval for the following reasons discussed below.
I. APPEAL ISSUES
1. BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS
The Project’s CEQA review relies on a 1.5-page memorandum regarding “Habitat Value Considerations for the Site” (“Memo”), which concludes that the Project Site does not contain habitat of value for the California gnatcatcher (“CAGN”) (or for any other endangered, rare, or threatened species), and that there is likely no meaningful value to existing coastal sage scrub. 8 However, the conclusion of this 1.5-page Memo is based on a single site visit, with no photos or documentation provided, and is admittedly based on a “brief literature review” and a search of Google images (also not provided). Additionally, the Memo states in paragraph two that native coastal sage scrub and other native landscaping are present, which seems potentially contradictory to the conclusion that there is no habitat of value for the CAGN. The lack of documentation and contradictory statements may constitute a lack of substantial evidence and/or an unsubstantiated narrative, which is contrary to CEQA.9
Additionally, the above Memo’s conclusion is contradicted by the Orange County Chapter of the California Native Plant Society (“OCCNPS”) letter dated August 26, 2025 (attached hereto as “Exhibit A”),
10 which is incorporated into this appeal in its entirety. Therein, OCCNPS disagreed with the Memo’s conclusion, which was based on OCCNPS biologists’ own site visit conducted in August 2025, during which they identified and documented numerous habitats desirable for sensitive and protected CAGN. (See Exh. A, pp. 2-3 [listing various flora and providing mapping and photographic evidence].) These photos of surveyed flora are attached hereto as “Exhibit B”.11 So too, the Memo fails to address or acknowledge that the Project Site is immediately adjacent to the well-known residential Marble Head project approved in 2003 by the Coastal Commission after years of multiple CCC applications (e.g., application nos. 5-99-260 and 5-01-459 [withdrawn], 5-03-013 [approved in 2003 and subsequently amended multiple times]). The figures on the following pages show the proposed hotel Project Site (i.e., referenced in red) in its current condition (Figure 1) compared to the 2003 Marble Head project (Figure 2). This Marble Head project was subject to extensive discussion, analysis, and consideration of biological mitigation involving the coastal sagebrush, CAGN, and other environmentally sensitive habitat areas (“ESHA”), such as the habitat of Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. Blochmania, or “Blochman’s Dudleya”. This is well8 PC Staff Report, PDF pp. 21, 27, 30, 156-157. 9 Under CEQA, substantial evidence includes facts, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact; not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, clearly inaccurate or erroneous evidence, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment. (See e.g., Pub. Res. Code §§ 21080(e), 21082.2(c); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15064(f)(5), 15384.) As such, courts will not blindly trust bare conclusions, bald assertions, and conclusory comments without the “disclosure of the ‘analytic route the . . . agency traveled from evidence to action.’” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 404- 405 [quoting Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515].) 10 See Exhibit A attached hereto, https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/etcupounh3tlofh863ilz/Exh.-A_SanClemente-Hansen-Hotel-08-2025.pdf?rlkey=1imss4u2uorrt3qezzrjv7vxi&dl=0. 11 See also Exhibit B attached hereto, https://www.calflora.org/entry/observ.html#srch=t&cols=b&wkt=- 117.63183+33.4333,-117.632+33.4333,-117.63212+33.43327,-117.63218+33.43324,- 117.63212+33.43282,-117.63153+33.43287,-117.63146+33.43293,-117.63147+33.43309,- 117.63147+33.43323,-117.63147+33.4333,-117.63183+33.4333&cch=t&inat=r.
Appeal Justification RE: Hanson Hotel Project
documented in publicly available documents from the CCC website, which are replete with references to “gnatcatcher” and “ESHA,” as well as references to Blochman’s “Dudleya,” such as the referenced reports associated with the CCC App. Nos. 5-03-013,12 5-01-459,13 and 5-99-260.14 The lack of any mention or review of this prior CEQA review raises serious doubts about the efficacy of the 1.5-page Memo and the purported brief literature review conducted.
Figure 1: Current Conditions15
12 See e.g., CCC Staff Report (Feb. 2022), PDF pp. 9-11 (Project history), PDF pp. 32-40 (COAs regarding CAGN/ESHA mitigation), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2022/2/Th11a/Th11a-2-2022- report.pdf’; CCC Staff Report (Apr. 2003), PDF pp. 1-2, 5, 22-29, 56, 61-79, (CCC staff recommend approval), passim (gnatcatcher, ESHA), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2003/4/W10a-4-2003.pdf. 13 CCC Staff Report (Sep. 2002), PDF pp. 1 (CCC staff recommend denial), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2002/9/T9b-9-2002.pdf. 14 5-99-260 (MT No. I LLC) (Jan. 2001) Report, PDF p. 2 (staff recommends denial), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2001/1/Th8a-1-2001.pdf; 5-99-260 (MT No. I LLC) (Mar. 2001) Report, PDF p. 2 (staff recommends denial) https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2001/3/M7h-3- 2001.pdf.
15 See Google Earth, https://earth.google.com/web/search/1801+N+El+Camino+Real/@33.4395956,- 117.63290982,48.62234367a,3201.25145605d,35y,45.4002955h,3.30954367t,0r/data=CiwiJgokCT_fvFHy4 0BAEcHrTnTJ4kBAGWNO2pfVdl3AIcRFDfhNeF3AQgIIATIpCicKJQohMUQxTEp1a2RySEFGNzRLVzQwbzZYU2 l2dFZjdXFFOEdjIAE6AwoBMEICCABKCAi8qJPzBxAB.
Appeal Justification RE: Hanson Hotel Project
Figure 2: 2001 Marble Head Project16
Many San Clemente residents can attest to the presence of CAGN near and adjacent to this Project Site because they see them when they hike the trails at Sea Summit Park and Pico Park on the bluff just above the site, such as the observation attached hereto as Exhibit C. 17 Indeed, the
presence of the CAGN is even celebrated on an informational plaque for the park on the trail leaving Pico Park into the Sea Summit trail just above the Project Site (as documented in video captured available at the referenced hyperlink).18 Residents can also attest to the fact that this area becomes quiet in the evening, which could be of great benefit to the wildlife there and could be disrupted by amplified sound until 10:00pm from a rooftop bar elevated to the height of the nearby bluffs.19 Neither the 1.5-page Memo nor the noise study (i.e., Attachment 15 of the PC Staff Report) seems to consider potential noise impacts on potentially noise-sensitive wildlife near the Project Site.20 16 See 5-03-013 (MT No. I, LLC) (Apr. 2003) Report, PDF p. 163, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2003/4/W10a-4-2003.pdf. 17 See also naturalist, https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/81522615. 18 See Dropbox hyperlink:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/h09zpal47eplq33ol0fqz/IMG_2472.MOV?rlkey=b5opz55yqhrragyy1rxl2u 8ts&dl=0.
19 PC Staff Report, PDF pp. 19-20,
20 For example, while the noise modeling suggests noise levels will increase in and around the trail north/northwest of the Project Site (i.e., fig. 2), the noise study did not seem to include ambient noise measurements (i.e., tbl. 2 and fig. 1) or impact assessment on potential wildlife (i.e., tbls. 4-10). (See PC Staff Report, PDF pp. 160-164 [noise study].)
Appeal Justification RE: Hanson Hotel Project
Also, the 1.5-page Memo does not address any potential impacts of the Project on the abovementioned Blochman’s Dudleya, which has been reported to be present near the Project Site. 21 The
Planning Commission received testimony regarding the rarity of this plant. 22 Pico Park also has an
informational plaque celebrating the survival of this plant on the bluffs near the Project Site, as shown in the photos attached hereto as Exhibit D. The informational plaque notes, “In 1990, a landslide of the bluffs above El Camino Real resulted in the loss of 3.5 acres of Blochman’s Dudleya habitat and between 6,500 and 8000 plants. As part of an emergency grading permit to repair the bluffs, it was decided that this unique plant would be salvaged and relocated to a 2-acre “Dudleya Reserve” within the project site near the intersection of Avenida Pico and El Camino Real to establish a minimum population of 10,000 individual plants.” According to this marker, the two acres of land preserving these plants near this intersection could be sensitive habitat. The 1.5-page Memo does not address whether these plants will be disturbed during the Project’s construction or whether shade from the building will impact nearby plants.
Furthermore, mitigations could include minimizing disruption to the Site during construction, limiting amplified sound in the evening to reduce disruption to wildlife, use of native flora in the development, maximizing onsite vegetation by including greenwalls and pollinator gardens, educating visitors and employees about our biological resources by adding the kind of informational signage Sea Summit and Pico Park use, and developing a robust habitat conservation plan. Many of these mitigations are simple to implement and actually improve the Project and the experience of visitors. There are other potential measures that our community has already considered for this area, such as those considered for the prior Marble Head development adjacent to the Project Site. These options should be carefully studied for this Project because Sea Summit Park, its trails, and the City’s biological resources are not an obstacle to the tourism industry; they are some of the best things our City has to offer to visitors.
In sum, substantial evidence demonstrates that the Site may provide meaningful value as habitat to the CAGN and other species, which the proposed Project may impact. The above information may also constitute significant new information not previously considered in the prior 1998 MND. (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(3).) Similarly, the cumulative impacts resulting from the interplay between the current project and past projects (e.g., the Marble Head project) may also amount to a significant change in circumstances. (Id., at subd. (a)(2).) Furthermore, the Sites’ value as habitat may also disqualify the Project from a Class 32 infill Exemption. (Id., at § 15332(c) [“The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.” Emphasis added].) Failure to conduct an adequate CEQA review subverts the goal of analyzing and fully mitigating impacts through feasible mitigation measures, such as greater biological mitigation measures. / / /
21 Calflora, Plant Range, https://www.calflora.org/entry/dgrid.html?crn=2836#cy=33.437753&cx=- 117.639205&z=15&mtype=s&show=p&vrid=io128771.
22 PC Video, appx. 1.53.44-1.57.30.
Appeal Justification RE: Hanson Hotel Project
2. COASTAL ACT ISSUES
The Coastal Act (Pub. Res. Code § 30000 et seq.) encourages lower-cost overnight accommodations (“LCOA(s)”), which is an environmental justice (“EJ”) issue. 23 As stated in a recent
CCC staff report (and subsequently echoed):
“Section 30210 of the Coastal Act requires public access and recreation opportunities to be maximized for all people. Section 30213 of the Coastal Act requires new development to encourage and provide lower-cost visitor-serving recreational facilities where feasible. Pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30013, the Commission and all public agencies are charged with advancing environmental justice when implementing the Coastal Act. In light of Section 30210’s mandate to maximize public access and recreational opportunities and Section 30013’s call to advance environmental justice and equality, Section 30213 has been interpreted to prioritize provision of lower cost accommodations onsite.”24
To this end, the Coastal Commission has typically required replacement of low-cost rooms lost or demolished at a one-to-one ratio (i.e., 100%) and ensures that at least 25 percent of the total proposed hotel rooms are provided at lower-cost rates onsite (i.e., 25%).25 “Sections 30210 and 30213 of the Coastal Act support the Commission’s approach that development providing lower-cost accommodations onsite is the preferred method of protecting and maximizing public coastal access and recreation. Only in previous actions where onsite provision is determined infeasible has the Commission approved fee payments “in lieu” of the construction of an equivalent number of lower-cost rooms/units (such as hostel beds) offsite.” (Emphasis added.26). Typically, CCC defines lower-cost rates based on the average daily rate (“ADR”) for a standard single-room with double occupancy room (i.e., two-person) during peak-season rates (i.e., July/August), whereby lower-cost and highercost rates are equal to 75% and 125% of the statewide ADR (respectively) with moderatecosts between these rates (i.e., 75% - 125% of statewide ADR).27 23 See gen. Coastal Commission (3/8/19), pp. 4, 7, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/envjustice/CCC_EJ_Policy_FINAL.pdf; Informational Briefing On LCOAs (7/11/24) slide 7 (re: EJ timeline), slides 9-11 (re: typical LCOA methods), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2024/7/Th7/Th7-7-2024- exhibits.pdf; Magnolia Tank Farm (LCP-5-HNB-24-0003-1) Report, pp. 34-35, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2024/7/W11a/W11a-7-2024-report.pdf; see also footnote below (citing numerous cases re: EJ).
24 See City of Santa Monica LUP Amendment Request LCP-5-SNM-22-0041-1 (Dec. 2023) Report, p. 16, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2023/12/W18a/W18a-12-2023-report.pdf; see also id., at pp. 12- 13 (re: EJ), pp. 13-16 (re: typical LCOA methods); Application No. 5-14-1785-A2 (Lido House, LLC, Newport Beach) (Feb. 2024) Addendum, pp. 7-8 (re: EJ), pp. 8-12 (re: typical LCOA methods), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2024/2/Th13a/Th13a-2-2024-addenda.pdf; City of National City LCP Amendment No. LCP-6-NLC-23-0012-1 (National City Balanced Plan) (Aug. 2024) Report, pp. 19-20 (re:
EJ), pp. 20-21 (re: typical LCOA methods), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2024/8/Th11d/Th11d8-2024-report.pdf. 25 Ibid., (re: typical LCOA methods).
26 City of Santa Monica LUP Amendment Request, supra fn. 18, p. 12, 14-15; see also Lido House, supra fn. 18, pp. 10, 12; City of National City LCP Amendment, supra fn. 18, p. 21; Dana Point Harbor Hotels (LCP-5-DPT21-0079-2) Report, pp. 45, 51, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2024/6/F10a/F10a-6-2024- report.pdf; American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort (CDP No. A-3-PGR-22-0004) Report, pp. 43, 75-76, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2024/4/Th15b/Th15b-4-2024-report.pdf; 27 Ibid., see also Wynkoop Properties, LLC (A-5-VEN-21-0011) (Dec. 2022), Report, pp. 35-36, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2022/12/Th16a/Th16a-12-2022-report.pdf; R.D. Olson Appeal Justification RE: Hanson Hotel Project
Here, while the staff report notes that the Project includes 16 rooms to be LCOAs,28 there remain several concerns. First, the staff report, land use findings, and consistency with applicable coastal policies rely substantially on the provision of 16 onsite LCOAs. In fact, it is used as justification for increasing the number of hotel rooms.29 However, none of the conditions of approval require the 16 rooms to be provided.
30 CCC often requires explicit conditions that require
LCOAs consistent with the above methods, which should have been implemented here. 31 Second, a clear condition consistent with Coastal Commission LCOA methods is warranted, as the applicant’s hotel feasibility study suggests that these lower-cost rooms will be set at an ADR of around $230-270 per night.32 This, however, is inconsistent with the Coastal Commission’s typical practice of lower-cost rooms being at 75% of statewide ADR (discussed above). The following represents the low- and high-cost levels considered in recent years, with the 3-year average providing a fair estimate of current ADR rates. As shown below, the applicant’s proposed $230-$270 exceeds lower cost levels and potentially even high-cost levels.
YEAR ADR
(Average Jul/Aug)
LOW-COST
(75% ADR)
MODERATE
(75% - 125% ADR)
HIGH-COST
(125% ADR)
2021 [a] $ 179.66 $ 134.75 $ 224.58
2022 [b] $ 204.16 $ 153.12 $ 255.20
2023 [b] $ 200.52 $ 150.39 $ 250.64
2024 [c] $ 197.01 $ 147.76 $ 246.26
3-Year Average $ 200.56 $ 150.42 $ 250.70
NOTES:
[a]: App. No. 5-20-0597 (Franco) (12/15/21) Report,
33 pp. 20.
[b]: App. No. 5-22-0799 (Ocean Avenue Partners) (12/13/23) Report, 34 p. 30.
[c]: App. No. 5-24-0801 (Dunnwald, San Clemente) (8/15/25) Report, 35 p. 18.
/ / /
Development (5-14-1785) (Oct. 2015) Report, PDF p. 40,
https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2015/10/w9a-10-2015.pdf. 28 PC Staff Report, PDF pp. 1, 4, 5, 7, 19, 33, 38, 150. 29 See PC Video, 59:30-1:00:20, 1:25:00, 1:30:45
30 Ibid., at PDF pp. 50-64.
31 See e.g., Application No. 5-14-1785-A2 (Lido House, LLC, Newport Beach), Addendum, pp. 3-4 (special condition 6), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2024/2/Th13a/Th13a-2-2024-addenda.pdf; Appeal No. A-5-VEN-21-0011 (Wynkoop Properties, LLC, Venice), Report, pp. 10-11 (special condition 4), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2022/12/Th16a/Th16a-12-2022-report.pdf; Application 5-22- 0799 (Ocean Avenue Partners, LLC and Belle Vue Plaza, Santa Monica), Report, pp. 6-9 (special condition 1), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2023/12/W20b/W20b-12-2023-report.pdf; A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort), Report, pp. 19-21 (special condition 6), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2024/4/Th15b/Th15b-4-2024-report.pdf; 32 PC Staff Report, PDF pp. 366.
33 https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2021/12/W15c/W15c-12-2021-report.pdf. 34 https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2023/12/W20b/W20b-12-2023-report.pdf. 35 https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2025/8/F12d/F12d-8-2025-report.pdf.
Appeal Justification RE: Hanson Hotel Project
Third, the need for clear and enforceable conditions is manifest given the back and forth between some of the Planning Commissioners and planning staff, where there seems to be an acknowledgement from planning staff that there is no “rigidly worded” condition requiring strict enforcement of the LCOA requirement.
36 After planning staff confirmed that nothing in the
conditions says the City is requiring onsite LCOAs, the response from one commissioner was the following:
“Okay. And I asked that because frankly I don’t understand it. It’s just one person’s opinion when there are hotels up the street that are affordable and hotels down the street that are affordable and everyone has free choice to go where they can afford to go. But that’s neither here nor there. I’m very glad to hear it’s not a condition that the City of San Clemente is going to have to monitor or enforce. That’s very important for me to hear. So, thank you for that.”37,
Additionally, while the City has a Land Use Plan (“LUP”) (last amended in 2018), it does not have a Local Implementation Plan (“LIP”),
38 which may need more detail to ensure implementing
key LUP policies related to LCOAs (i.e., Policies LU-43 and LU-4). 39 During the 2018 LUP
amendment process, the CCC made recommendations to these LCOA policies to address situations where a “new hotel development [is] proposed to be entirely high cost,” and provide “adequate policy guidance for a future [LIP] to establish a mitigation program” to assist the development of LCOAs in the future.40 In response, the City suggested the CCC recommendations “add[ed] too much detail in the LUP,” and expressed the City’s desire to have the “flexibility to address this issue at a more detailed level in the [LIP].”41 Notably, in a letter dated February 2, 2018, the City acknowledged the Coastal Commission’s objective of providing lower and moderate-cost accommodations but suggested that the City had an “abundance” of such accommodations (see excerpt below [highlights added]).
42 However, according to the LUP as of 2018, the City had only 309 hotel rooms, motel rooms, and family suites, with only 18 of them being considered lower-cost. 43 While
the LUP also notes 160 campsites, 18 lower-cost rooms do not seem to be an abundant number of lower-cost rooms in the City’s coastal zone.
36 PC Video, 1.38.00.
37 PC Video, 1:38:27- 1:38:59 (emphasis added).
38 City Website, Coastal Planning, https://www.san-clemente.org/departments-services/planningservices/long-range-planning/local-coastal-program; City of San Clemente LCP Amendment No. 1-16 (LCP-5- SCL-16-0012-1 Comprehensive LUP Update) (Jul. 2018), Report, p. 1 (summarizing final action), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2018/8/f20a/F20a-8-2018-report.pdf. 39 LUP, PDF p. 52, https://www.sanclemente.org/home/showpublisheddocument/51862/636940310989930000. 40 City of San Clemente LCP Amendment No. 1-16 (LCP-5-SCL-16-0012-1) Comprehensive LUP Update (Feb. 2018) Report, pp. 27-28, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2018/2/th12a/th12a-2-2018-report.pdf; Id., Exhibit PDF pp. 223-224 (showing CCC recommended revisions), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2018/2/th12a/th12a-2-2018-exhibits.pdf. 41 Ibid., Correspondence, PDF pp. 14-15, 19-21,
https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2018/2/th12a/th12a-2-2018-corresp.pdf. 42 Ibid., Correspondence, PDF p. 15.
43 LUP, PDF pp. 39-40 (Tbl. 2-2), https://www.sanclemente.org/home/showpublisheddocument/51862/636940310989930000.
Appeal Justification RE: Hanson Hotel Project
Furthermore, the failure to ensure the Project site has enforceable conditions that ensure LOCAs are actually implemented can exacerbate the lack of existing LCOAs. Long-term impacts on LCOAs have been well documented, as lower-cost motels and hotels have been redeveloped into higher-cost lodging or residential units. Notably, 70% of all coastal hotel rooms eliminated between 1989 and 2016 were economy rooms.44 The lack of LCOAs also acutely impacts environmental justice (“EJ”) communities, including hotel service workers (represented by Local 11) who often live in inland communities that are unable to access LCOAs within the coastal zone.45 As discussed above, as of 2018, the City had only 18 of the 309 rooms in the Coastal Zone that were lower-cost (i.e., less than 6%). For context, when acting on the National City’s LCP amendment, CCC staff reported noting the following (emphasis added): “The Commission has estimated that a range of room rates in the Coastal Zone improving equitable coastal access would include approximately 25% lower-cost rooms, 25% high-cost rooms, and 50% moderate-cost rooms.”46 In sum, the above sentiments unfortunately raise serious doubts about the efficacy and actual enforcement of LCOA commitments. CEQA bars illusory mitigation and conditions that are unlikely to be enforced.
47 Local governments play a crucial role in enforcing zoning rules, conditions of approval, and local coastal requirements. Absent realistic enforcement of the LCOA conditions, the Project may not offer the 16 LCOAs, which would be inconsistent with applicable coastal land use policies.48 This runs counter to the adopted findings,49 which may lack adequate substantial evidence and amount to an abuse of discretion.50 The City and the Applicant say that 44 Explore the Coast Overnight: An Assessment of LCOA, pp. 11-13, https://scc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/ sccbb/2019/1903/20190314Board04E_ETCO-Report.pdf; CCC LCOA Presentation (7/11/24) slide 8, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2024/7/Th7/Th7-7-2024-exhibits.pdf. 45 ATT-1, Appeal, p. 16 (appeal issue 16).
46 City of National City LCP Amendment No. LCP-6-NLC-23-0012-1 (National City Balanced Plan) (Aug. 2024) Report, p. 25, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2024/8/Th11d/Th11d-8-2024-report.pdf. 47 CEQA bars reliance of illusory, unenforceable conditions as mitigation. (See CEQA Guidelines §§ 15126.4(a)(2), 15097; see also Lincoln Place Tenants Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1508 [“Mitigating conditions are not mere expressions of hope.”].) 48 See e.g., PC Staff Report, PDF pp. 33 (“LUP Policy LU-1.06 (Lower-Cost Visitor Accommodations)”, PDF p 151 (“Section 2.4 – Visitor Serving Land Use and Development: Coastal Act policies require provisions for public and low-cost recreation and visitor-serving facilities by requiring suitable land be designated for these uses and that these uses be given priority.”); Pub. Res. Code § 30213 (“Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred.”); LUP, PDF pp. 52-53 (Policies LU-42, LU-44 - LU-46), https://www.san-clemente.org/home/showpublisheddocument/51862/636940310989930000. 49 See e.g., PC Staff Report, PDF pp. 31 (section 3.A.1, 3.A.8 50 See Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5; see also California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 603, 637 (In order to assess whether substantial evidence supports the findings, “a common formulation asks if a reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion on the evidence.”) Appeal Justification RE: Hanson Hotel Project
they are adding significant height and density to the Project to achieve LCOAs, and this decision may create other potential environmental impacts. Therefore, the Project should either offer enforceable LCOA commitments or assess whether these additional onsite units are truly worth the environmental impact on this potentially environmentally sensitive site.
3. VMT IMPACTS:
The staff report suggests that the current Project (i.e., a 61-room hotel) is less intensive than the prior project (i.e., 27 timeshares and 10,000 sf of retail space).51 However, this analysis is based on a traffic study that relies on a level of service (“LOS”) analysis, rather than a vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) analysis. Under CEQA, traffic impacts are analyzed via VMTs, which are less concerned about traditional LOS impacts (e.g., congestion) but instead reduce overall total miles traveled and encourage fewer and/or shorter trips (notwithstanding potential added congestion).52 Here, no VMT study has been presented in the staff report to show that the hotel Project is less intensive than the prior 1998 proposal (i.e., timeshare, 10,000-sf retail), which is substantially different from a VMT perspective. Both a timeshare and hotel project are visitor-serving uses, 53 which will likely generate the vast majority of their VMTs from guests traveling from distant locations (e.g., outside the region, airports, distant homes, etc.). However, the prior proposal (i.e., 27 timeshare units) is less than half of the current proposal (i.e., 61 hotel rooms), which suggests more guests. Additionally, timeshares tend to include longer stays (e.g., measured in weeks), as compared to hotel stays (e.g., often measured in nights), which suggests more frequent trips. As a result, the current hotel Project would seem to include more hotel guests traveling more often to the Project Site (as compared to the prior timeshare development), and generating more VMTs.
Additionally, the previously contemplated 10,000-square-foot retail space is less than 50,000 square feet, which could be considered local-serving retail that is often presumed to have a less significant VMT impact under state VMT guidelines.54 This is further substantiated by the staff report, which states that the prior timeshare/retail proposal generated an average of 620 daily trips, whereas the current hotel Project is reportedly generating 1,631 daily trips.55 / / /
51 See PC Staff Report, PDF pp. 4, 21-23..
52 See CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3(a); see also Land Use and Climate Innovation (“LCI”) (formerly Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”)), SB 743 Frequently Asked Questions, https://lci.ca.gov/ceqa/sb743/faq.html#:~:text=Starting%20on%20July%201%2C%202020,cause%20a%20significant%20transporta tion%20impact.
53 See PC Staff Report, PDF pp. 22 (tbl. 3)
54 See OPR (Dec. 2018) VMT Technical Advisory, p. 17, https://lci.ca.gov/docs/20190122- 743_Technical_Advisory.pdf.
55 Compare PC Staff Report, PDF pp. 22 with 167.
Appeal Justification RE: Hanson Hotel Project
In sum, substantial evidence suggests that the transition from a timeshare/retail proposal to a hotel project constitutes a substantial change from a VMT perspective. (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(1).) Furthermore, traffic impacts may also render the use of a Class 32 exemption ineffective. (Id., § 15332(d).) The failure to conduct a VMT study prevents the City from considering VMT mitigation, such as mitigation measures in the form of robust traffic demand management (“TDM”) measures. For example, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (“CAPCOA”) offers numerous TDM and other transportation-related measures (i.e., strategies T-1 through T-54), which have the co-benefit of reducing mobile emissions (e.g., criteria pollutants and GHGs).
56 As with the potential mitigations for biological impacts, many potential VMT-reduction measures would improve the functionality and visitor experience at the site, like providing transit passes to employees to maximize the use of the nearby Metrolink, providing incentives for employees to carpool, incentivizing the use of free parking and shuttle to the hotel from the Outlets at San Clemente, providing employees who use mass-transit with emergency ride home options, providing visitors a hotel shuttle to transportation hubs at San Clemente Pier and John Wayne Airport, and prioritizing the use and sale of locally grown and manufactured products in the hotel and food service operations.
4. CEQA BARS AGAINST MITIGATION:
Here, as an alternative to relying on the 1998 MND (via CEQA Guidelines § 15162), the City claims that the Project is also exempt from CEQA under Class 32 CatEx (id., § 15332). 57 However,
the Project seems to be relying on project-specific mitigation (e.g., future acoustic report, sound attenuation measures, db(c) weighted noise measurements, “mitigation measures” from prior Air Quality-1, Air Quality-3, and Lighting/Glare-1).58 This may negate the use of a categorical exemption.
59 II. CONCLUSION
Local 11 has members who live, work, and recreate in the vicinity of the Project Site, including members who are residents of the City and enjoy the trails adjacent to the Project Site.
Additionally, the Appellant organization is committed to ensuring responsible development and informed decision-making by local public officials regarding development projects that may have significant environmental impacts in the City. Hence, granting this Appeal will confer substantial benefit on Local 11, further its organizational goals, benefit the public affected by the Modified Project, and result in the enforcement of important public rights.
In conclusion, Local 11 respectfully requests that the City Council grant this Appeal and withhold project approvals until a CEQA-compliant review has been conducted that considers additional mitigation measures to minimize impacts on biological resources and VMTs, tied to a robust analysis of potential impacts. Similarly, we urge the City Council to instruct staff to develop enforceable conditions of approval that ensure LCOAs are enforced. 56 CAPCOA (Dec. 2021) Handbook for Analyzing GHG Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, pp. 31-32, 47-51 (listing measures https://www.caleemod.com/documents/handbook/full_handbook.pdf; id., pp. 52-60, 84-417 (further describing each measure).
57 PC SR, PDF p. 21; PC Video, 1.42.30-1.43.57.
58 Compare PC Staff Report, PDF pp. 51-55 (conditions 1.9, 4.5, 4.6). 59 See e.g., Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v County of Marin (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1102; Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1200.) Appeal Justification RE: Hanson Hotel Project
Appellant respectfully reserves the right to supplement this appeal justification at future hearings and proceedings for this Project. (See Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1120 [CEQA litigation not limited only to claims made during EIR comment period].) Finally, Appellant requests to be notified regarding CEQA actions and any approvals, determinations, or public hearings to be held on the Project. Local agencies are required to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them. (See Pub. Res. Code §§ 21092.2, 21167(f) and Gov. Code § 65092.) Please send notice by electronic and regular mail to the address identified on page one of this letter.
Sincerely,
_________________________________________
Jordan R. Sisson
Attorney for Local 11
ATTACHMENT:
Exhibit A: OCCNPS Letter (8/26/25)60
Exhibit B: Calflora Observation Search61
Exhibit C: iNaturalist CAGN Capture
Exhibit D: Informational Plaque Photos
60 See also https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/etcupounh3tlofh863ilz/Exh.-A_San-Clemente-Hansen-Hotel-08- 2025.pdf?rlkey=1imss4u2uorrt3qezzrjv7vxi&dl=0.
61 See also https://www.calflora.org/entry/observ.html#srch=t&cols=b&wkt=-117.63183+33.4333,- 117.632+33.4333,-117.63212+33.43327,-117.63218+33.43324,-117.63212+33.43282,- 117.63153+33.43287,-117.63146+33.43293,-117.63147+33.43309,-117.63147+33.43323,- 117.63147+33.4333,-117.63183+33.4333&cch=t&inat=r.
EXHIBIT A
To conserve California native plants and their natural habitats, today and into the future, through science, education, stewardship, gardening, and advocacy.
August 26, 2025
San Clemente City Council
910 Calle Negocio
San Clemente, CA 92673
Acton Hall
City Manager
City of San Clemente, California
910 Calle Negocio
San Clemente, CA 92673
California Coastal Commission
South Coast District Office
301 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90802
Sent via email to: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Re: Comments regarding the Staff Report on the San Clemente Planning Commission review of the Hansen Hotel development Public Hearing Project (PHP) 25-323, 1801 N. El Camino Real, San Clemente, CA Dear Sir or Madame:
The Orange County Chapter of the California Native Plant Society (OCCNPS) has a long-term interest in the status, distribution, and conservation of our local California native plants and the habitats which support them.
Below are several concerns and comments regarding the Staff Report on the San Clemente Planning Commission review of the Hansen Hotel development (25-323) near the intersection of Avenida Pico and El Camino Real, dated August 20, 2025:
Comment (Page 9 of the PDF)
The document makes reference to “a diverse palette of California native and drought-tolerant plant species.” We endorse this statement as being appropriate to the site location and to the adjacent environmentally sensitive land.
Comment (Page 20 of the PDF)
Pages 20-21
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/COMPLIANCE (CEQA)
OCCNPS.org | P.O. Box 54891, Irvine, CA 92619-4891
To conserve California native plants and their natural habitats, and increase understanding, appreciation, and horticultural use of native plants.
The document incorrectly states “ . . . the project must occur within City limits on a site no larger than five acres and be substantially surrounded by urban uses. The subject site is within the City of San Clemente, occupies a
0.8-acre parcel, and is surrounded by commercial development to the west, east, and south, with an improved drainage channel and pedestrian pathway to the north. Although the Pico Park Sea Summit Trail and open space are generally north of the project site, the project site itself is substantially surrounded by urban uses, We believe this mis-states the adjacency of the site as being substantially surrounded by urban use. The site is surrounded on approximately 30% of its perimeter by significant and expansive open space and conserved natural vegetation to its NW, N and NE sides. The Sea Summit open space area is one of the most significant conserved open space habitats in the San Clemente city influence area. The small, approximately 15 meter wide drainage channel bordering the north perimeter of the site is a rather insignificant component of the site's overall character. The vegetation and habitat component is more or less continuous between this site and the adjacent 116 acres of conserved and managed open space and protected habitat.
Comment (Page 30 of the PDF)
OCCNPS disagrees with the Staff Recommendation and “RESOLUTION NO. PC 25-013”, and the validity of the statement “A Biological Assessment was prepared and confirmed that the project site does not contain habitat value for endangered, rare, or threatened species. No sensitive biological resources will be affected by the proposed development.”
As stated above, OCCNPS biologists have visited the site and confirm the significant presence of healthy, regenerating populations of the native plant species of a coastal sage scrub community. These include Baccharis pilularis, Artemisia californica, Atriplex lentiformis, Isocoma menziesii, Encelia californica, and others. Each of which are primary indicators of a coastal sage scrub plant community, the dominant plant community in the adjacent Sea Summit natural open space. This habitat is also the desired habitat of the sensitive and protected California gnatcatcher. The presence of these and other plant species at the site are documented on Calflora here (https://www.calflora.org/entry/observ.html#srch=t&cols=b&wkt=-117.63183+33.4333,-117.632+33.4333,-117.63212+33.43327,-117.63218+33.43324,-117. 63212+33.43282,-117.63153+33.43287,-117.63146+33.43293,-117.63147+33.43309,-117.63147+33.43323,-117.63147+33.4333,-117.63183+33.4333&cch=t &inat=r).
Coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat is an environmentally protected habitat in Southern California, due to its endangered status, high biodiversity, and the inclusion of the California gnatcatcher and other species that are listed as threatened or endangered. Protection efforts include the Central and Coastal Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), which aims to preserve CSS as a sensitive habitat community and its associated species.
Below is an inventory of all plant taxons surveyed by OCCNPS biologists at the site in August 2025. Plants are presented in order of relative abundance by plant cover over the full site. It should be noted that this is not the optimal time for a plant survey and many taxons are likely missed, as almost all annual species are senesced at this season. The site can clearly be characterized as a coastal sage scrub plant community. Even with some degradation from trampling, erosion, waste and dumping, native species dominate the site, with several non-native species also present, but representing a small proportion of the plant cover (<10%).
OCCNPS.org | P.O. Box 54891, Irvine, CA 92619-4891
To conserve California native plants and their natural habitats, and increase understanding, appreciation, and horticultural use of native plants.
1. Isocoma menziesii var. vernonioides
Green leaved dune goldenbush
Native
2. Baccharis pilularis ssp. consanguinea
Coyote brush
Native
3. Atriplex lentiformis
Big saltbush
Native
4. Melilotus indicus
Annual yellow sweetclover
Non-native
5. Hirschfeldia incana
Mustard
Non-native, Cal-IPC invasive: moderate
6. Dittrichia graveolens
Stinkwort
Non-native, Cal-IPC invasive: moderate
7. Encelia californica
Bush sunflower
Native
8. Artemisia californica
Coastal sage brush
Native
9. Pseudognaphalium californicum
Ladies' tobacco
Native
10. Solanum douglasii
Douglas’ nightshade
Native
11. Salsola australis
Russian thistle
Non-native
12. Datura wrightii
Jimsonweed
Native
13. Lysimachia arvensis
Scarlet pimpernel
Non-native
14. Distichlis spicata
Salt grass
Native
14. Cirsium vulgare
Bullthistle
Non-native, Cal-IPC invasive: moderate
Due to mischaracterizations of the site, OCCNPS firmly disagrees with the declaration of the site being categorically exempt from CEQA and requests the city conform with CEQA requirements.
Comment (Page 53 of the PDF)
Resolution No. PC 25-013 Exhibit A 12.24.050) Landscape Plans 3.11. Landscape Plans OCCNPS is concerned about the lack of specific landscaping detail and particularly the lack of a specific species plant materials list and quantities for the site. As noted previously, the site is immediately adjacent to one of the most significant protected natural areas in the San Clemente area. We are specifically concerned about invasive plant intrusion into these conserved lands from horticultural and non-native species. Thus, we request that a detailed and itemized plant materials list be prepared, reviewed, and approved by the city prior to permitting. We further request that this review be thorough and conducted by entities with the technical knowledge necessary to make these determinations. Biologists, invasive plant experts, and horticulture resources are available from OCCNPS. We ask that our experts be allowed to review the plans and provide scientific expertise and input.
Comment (Page 111-112 of the PDF)
ENV 5 31132, LANDSCAPE / PLANNING/ DESIGN INC. MEMORANDUM Pages 1-2 This document, regarding the proposed landscape, contains several factual errors:
● Cercis occidentalis is not a locally native plant and does not occur in Orange county wildlands. Its nearest nativity is in central San Diego County interior chaparral and oak woodlands and it should not be introduced at the site.
● Llyonothamnus floribundus is not native to mainland California and is limited to the CA Channel Islands. ● Aesculus californica does not occur as a native plant in Orange County and thus is not locally native. Its nearest nativity is 125 miles to the North in Kern County. It is also rather poorly adapted to our coastal, salt air and soil climate.
OCCNPS.org | P.O. Box 54891, Irvine, CA 92619-4891
To conserve California native plants and their natural habitats, and increase understanding, appreciation, and horticultural use of native plants.
Comment (Page 111 of the PDF)
Reference is made to the use of Washingtonia robusta, a locally invasive non-native species. This species should not be installed at the site.
OCCNPS agrees with the suggested substitution of the street tree Washingtonia robusta, Mexican Fan Palm with Phoenix dactalifera, Date Palm. Mexican fan palm is a known invasive plant species (CAL-IPC:
https://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/profile/washingtonia-robusta-profile/). W. robusta at this location would be a short distance from the Sea Summit natural area and the seed of the species is likely to disperse, germinate, multiply and degrade the adjacent moist bottomlands of this natural, conserved area. Fruit and seeds of W. robusta are easily and frequently dispersed by birds and water, and trees at this site would be likely to do both.
Comment (Attachment “PLAN 20f” PDF)
Contrary to comments stating a landscape composed of “a diverse palette of California native and drought-tolerant plant species” the attached planting plan and materials plan of attachment PLAN 20f do not support this:
● Of the 15 “Tree” species, none are either California native trees or locally native plants. ● Of the 9 “Large Shrubs” species, 3 of the 9 are California native trees or cultivars of native trees. However, none grow natively in Orange County or the larger region. ● Of the 14 “Medium Shrubs” species, 5 of the 14 are California native trees or cultivars of native trees.
However, none grow natively in Orange County or the larger region. ● Of the 17 “Small Shrubs” species, 7 of the 17 are California native trees or cultivars of native trees.
However, none grow natively in Orange County or the larger region. ● Stipa tenuissima is a non-native invasive species (Cal-IPC:
https://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/profile/stipa-tenuissima-profile/) and should not be planted at the site.
In summary, of the 55 plant species and cultivars selected, none are locally or regionally native plants. It is important to note that “California” is an extremely large and diverse state, with native plants locally adapted to specific climates, soils, biotic associations, and other tolerances. Introducing plants that are not locally native may have limited ecological and environmental value.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and for your attention to these concerns.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Wallace Ron Vanderhoff
President Plant Science Chair
OCCNPS OCCNPS
OCCNPS.org | P.O. Box 54891, Irvine, CA 92619-4891
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
9/2/25, 6:33 AM chrome-extension://ohlencieiipommannpdfcmfdpjjmeolj/screenshot.html chrome-extension://ohlencieiipommannpdfcmfdpjjmeolj/screenshot.html 1/1
EXHIBIT D