On the agenda: San Clemente meeting — surveillance camera (May 19)

1. Public Comments
Documents:
FW_ JULY 3 CONCERT AT PIER BOWL PARKING LOTS_REDACTED.PDF
PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR CC 5_19, THANK YOU!_REDACTED.PDF
8A - OPPOSITION TO HANSON HOTEL PROJECT AND
DEFE..._REDACTED.PDF
8A - FW_ OPPOSITION TO HANSON HOTEL PROJECT AND DEFECTIVE
PUBLIC NOTICE, TO THE PROPOSED H AND COUCIL EARING ON
5_19_26_REDACTED.PDF
8A - LETTER RE SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO APPEAL JUSTIFICATION FOR
HANSON HOTEL.PDF
FW_ INVESTIGATE VEGETATION REMOVAL AT SITE OF THE PROPOSED
HANSON HOTEL (ITEM 8A, COUNCIL MEETING 5_19_26, PHP 25-323)
ANGELLA.PDF
FW_ INVESTIGATE VEGETATION REMOVAL AT SITE OF THE PROPOSED
HANSON HOTEL (ITEM 8A, COUNCIL MEETING 5_19_26, PHP 25-323)
NANCY.PDF
FW_ INVESTIGATE VEGETATION REMOVAL AT SITE OF THE PROPOSED
HANSON HOTEL (ITEM 8A, COUNCIL MEETING 5_19_26, PHP 25-323)
EMILY.PDF
FW_ INVESTIGATE VEGETATION REMOVAL AT SITE OF THE PROPOSED
HANSON HOTEL (ITEM 8A, COUNCIL MEETING 5_19_26, PHP 25-323)
JAVIER.PDF
FW_ INVESTIGATE VEGETATION REMOVAL AT SITE OF THE PROPOSED
HANSON HOTEL (ITEM 8A, COUNCIL MEETING 5_19_26, PHP 25-323)
DIANE.PDF
FW_ INVESTIGATE VEGETATION REMOVAL AT SITE OF THE PROPOSED
HANSON HOTEL (ITEM 8A, COUNCIL MEETING 5_19_26, PHP 25-323)
BRITTANY.PDF
FW_ INVESTIGATE VEGETATION REMOVAL AT SITE OF THE PROPOSED
HANSON HOTEL (ITEM 8A, COUNCIL MEETING 5_19_26, PHP 25-323)
THUYNGA.PDF
FW_ INVESTIGATE VEGETATION REMOVAL AT SITE OF THE PROPOSED
HANSON HOTEL (ITEM 8A, COUNCIL MEETING 5_19_26, PHP 25-323)
REINA.PDF
FW_ INVESTIGATE VEGETATION REMOVAL AT SITE OF THE PROPOSED
HANSON HOTEL (ITEM 8A, COUNCIL MEETING 5_19_26, PHP 25-323)
LAURIE.PDF
FW_ INVESTIGATE VEGETATION REMOVAL AT SITE OF THE PROPOSED
HANSON HOTEL (ITEM 8A, COUNCIL MEETING 5_19_26, PHP 25-323)
WENDY.PDF
FW_ INVESTIGATE VEGETATION REMOVAL AT SITE OF THE PROPOSED
HANSON HOTEL (ITEM 8A, COUNCIL MEETING 5_19_26, PHP 25-323)
MARISA.PDF
FW_ INVESTIGATE VEGETATION REMOVAL AT SITE OF THE PROPOSED
HANSON HOTEL (ITEM 8A, COUNCIL MEETING 5_19_26, PHP 25-323)
DEBRA.PDF
FW_ INVESTIGATE VEGETATION REMOVAL AT SITE OF THE PROPOSED
HANSON HOTEL (ITEM 8A, COUNCIL MEETING 5_19_26, PHP 25-323)
CINDY.PDF
FW_ INVESTIGATE VEGETATION REMOVAL AT SITE OF THE PROPOSED
HANSON HOTEL (ITEM 8A, COUNCIL MEETING 5_19_26, PHP 25-323)ANNEMARIE.PDF
FW_ INVESTIGATE VEGETATION REMOVAL AT SITE OF THE PROPOSED
HANSON HOTEL (ITEM 8A, COUNCIL MEETING 5_19_26, PHP 25-323)
PATRICIA.PDF
FW_ INVESTIGATE VEGETATION REMOVAL AT SITE OF THE PROPOSED
HANSON HOTEL (ITEM 8A, COUNCIL MEETING 5_19_26, PHP 25-323)

HANSON HOTEL (ITEM 8A, COUNCIL MEETING 5_19_26, PHP 25-323)ANNEMARIE.PDF
FW_ INVESTIGATE VEGETATION REMOVAL AT SITE OF THE PROPOSED
HANSON HOTEL (ITEM 8A, COUNCIL MEETING 5_19_26, PHP 25-323)
PATRICIA.PDF
FW_ INVESTIGATE VEGETATION REMOVAL AT SITE OF THE PROPOSED
HANSON HOTEL (ITEM 8A, COUNCIL MEETING 5_19_26, PHP 25-323)
JENE.PDF
FW_ INVESTIGATE VEGETATION REMOVAL AT SITE OF THE PROPOSED
HANSON HOTEL (ITEM 8A, COUNCIL MEETING 5_19_26, PHP 25-323)
JARED.PDF
FW_ INVESTIGATE VEGETATION REMOVAL AT SITE OF THE PROPOSED
HANSON HOTEL (ITEM 8A, COUNCIL MEETING 5_19_26, PHP 25-323)
JOANNA.PDF
FW_ INVESTIGATE VEGETATION REMOVAL AT SITE OF THE PROPOSED
HANSON HOTEL (ITEM 8A, COUNCIL MEETING 5_19_26, PHP 25-323)
LAUREL.PDF

From: Kathy n Joe Owens <
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 11:31 AM
To: Campagnolo, Laura <[email protected]>
Subject: JULY 3 CONCERT AT PIER BOWL PARKING LOTS
You don't often get email from

. Learn why this is important

I understand that you are the city clerk and can read the during Public Comments tonight at
the city council meeting-Thanks
Thank you for reading this at the Public Comments City Council meeting, as I am disabled
and unable to attend.
Living in the Pier Bowl area, we expect noise, traffic and disruption, but I have recently
heard that the city council is supporting a Coachella style festival , dubbed Coachella West
Coast with a beer garden in the Pier Bowl upper and lower parking lots the day before July
4th. Quite frankly, this is a dumb and dumber idea! Where is everyone going to park? Has
the city council thought about grid locked traffic on Avenida Victoria, Ave Del Mar and
surrounding Pier Bowl residential streets trying to find parking?
Myself and my neighbors have talked with the Pier Bowl restaurants and they just found
out about this as we did. Why weren’t Pier Bowl residents and restaurants brought into
any pre-planning or notification before this dumb idea is being mandated without our
knowledge? What about Residents First!
If the city council wants a scaled down concert why not have it on the beach where the
city does Summer Concerts?
This is a public safety issue and I thought public safety was the top priority of city council.
This dumb idea needs to be flushed down the sewer now.
Kathy Owens
Pier Bowl Residents

From: Donna Vidrine <
>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 4:03 PM
To: Campagnolo, Laura <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comments for CC 5/19, thank you!

Dear Mayor, Coucilmen and City leadership,
There has been significant community support for renegotiating the Federal surveillance
camera agreement due to serious concerns raised by San Clemente residents.
Those concerns include the proposed surveillance camera location not being appropriate for its
stated purpose, the lack of meaningful local oversight regarding the surveillance system, and
the decision to move forward with installation despite clear and demonstrated public
opposition.
This surveillance camera proposal was initially advanced under then-Mayor Steve Knoblock
and moved forward quickly without sufficient public input or transparent community
discussion. While the stated intent may have been to improve coastal security and address
concerns such as human trafficking and unauthorized maritime activity, many residents do not
believe this particular surveillance camera system — especially in its current proposed
location — is the right solution for improving public safety in San Clemente.
In addition, individuals with expertise in surveillance technology and camera systems have
publicly called for a re-evaluation of the surveillance camera agreement, camera placement,
operational oversight, and overall effectiveness before installation proceeds.
We respectfully ask the City Council to pause and reconsider this Federal surveillance camera
agreement. Please listen to the many San Clemente residents you were elected to represent and
direct qualified experts with technical knowledge of surveillance systems to fully review and
advise on this project before any final action is taken.
Thank you for your consideration.
Donna Vidrine

San Clemente resident

From: David Liu
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2026 2:56 PM
To: CityClerk Mail <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: Cabral, Victor <[email protected]>; Wu, Zhen <[email protected]>; Knoblock,
Steve <[email protected]>; Enmeier, Mark <[email protected]>; Planning
Mail <[email protected]>; Loeffler, Rick <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to Hanson Hotel Project and Defective Public Notice, to the Proposed H and
coucil earing on 5/19/26
You don't often get email from

. Learn why this is important

Hon. Mayor and Councilmembers,
I will be out of town on May 19, 2026, and therefore would like to submit my concerns by email for the
record.
I am a resident of Sea Summit. Our Homeowners Association (HOA) is responsible for maintaining the
common areas adjacent to the proposed Hanson Hotel project. Pursuant to the City of San Clemente’s
public hearing and planning notice requirements, affected property owners and interested parties within
the applicable notification radius are entitled to receive proper notice of a public hearing concerning a
development project. The City’s planning materials and zoning procedures commonly utilize a 300-foot
notification radius for affected properties and nearby parties.
However, after confirming with both Sea Summit HOA board members and the HOA management
company, I was informed that neither the HOA nor its representatives received any notice regarding this
hearing. As a result, the public notice process appears to have been defective and failed to provide
affected stakeholders with adequate notice and an opportunity to participate.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the hearing be continued and re-noticed in compliance with the
applicable municipal code and due process requirements.
In addition, I strongly urge the City and council members to vote against the proposed project due to its
impacts on the surrounding community and residents.
Thank you for your consideration.
David Liu

From: David Liu
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2026 1:24 PM
To: Atamian, Adam <[email protected]>
Cc: CityClerk Mail <[email protected]>; CityClerk Mail <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Opposition to Hanson Hotel Project and Defective Public Notice, to the Proposed H and
coucil earing on 5/19/26
You don't often get email from

. Learn why this is important

Thank you for your response and for confirming that the mailed notices sent to the Sea Summit HOA
regarding both the previously scheduled hearing and the upcoming hearing were returned as
undeliverable.
Do you have the copies of returned mail which can provide as a record? Which address city sent? Also, I
have included the manager from management company of HOA.
While I understand the City’s position that notices were mailed using addresses obtained from Orange
County Assessor records, the issue here is not merely whether a notice was placed in the mail. Rather,
the City has acknowledged that it acquired actual knowledge that the notices failed to reach the intended
recipient before proceeding with the hearing process.
This distinction is significant under longstanding due process principles.
In Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950), the United States Supreme Court
held that notice must be “reasonably calculated” under the circumstances to apprise interested parties of
the proceeding and provide them an opportunity to present objections. The constitutional inquiry therefore
extends beyond the mechanical act of mailing itself.
More importantly, in Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006), the Supreme Court held that when the
government becomes aware that mailed notice was unsuccessful, it may be required to take additional
reasonable steps to attempt notice before proceeding, if practical alternatives are available. The Court
specifically rejected the notion that the government may simply rely on the fact that notice was mailed
once it has actual knowledge that delivery failed.
Here, the City has expressly acknowledged that:
1. the mailed notices were returned as undeliverable;
2. the City therefore knew the HOA had not received notice; and
3. despite that knowledge, no additional reasonable effort appears to have been undertaken to provide
actual notice to the HOA before proceeding with the hearing.

This is particularly concerning given that the Sea Summit HOA maintains common areas adjacent to or
potentially affected by the project, and therefore has a direct and substantial interest in the proceedings.
While the City references Section 17.12.100(C) of the San Clemente Municipal Code, municipal code
provisions cannot override constitutional due process requirements where the government has actual
knowledge that notice failed. The issue is not simply “failure to receive” notice in the ordinary course, but
rather the City’s admitted awareness that its notice attempt was unsuccessful before the hearing moved
forward.
In addition, the City and the HOA have ongoing interactions through multiple channels, including HOA
management and publicly available contact information. Under these circumstances, it would have been
reasonably practicable to undertake additional steps to provide notice once the mailed notices were
returned.
Accordingly, I respectfully disagree with the conclusion that the noticing deficiencies have been cured
merely because an initial mailing occurred.
At minimum, I request that this correspondence be included in the full administrative record for the project
and hearing proceedings, including any future CEQA-related review or appellate review associated with
this matter.
Thank you again for your attention to these concerns.
Sincerely,
David Liu
On Friday, May 15, 2026 at 10:22:09 AM PDT, Atamian, Adam <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mr. Liu,
Thank you for taking the time to provide your comments regarding the upcoming public hearing. I
appreciate you sharing your concerns and understand the importance residents place on receiving
notice of items that may affect their community.
Please note that I have included the City Council on this response via Bcc because your original email
was directed to the Mayor and Councilmembers. To avoid potential Brown Act concerns associated
with serial communications, Councilmembers generally do not respond to emails where the full
Council has been copied. However, your comments have been received and will remain part of the
record associated with this matter.
City staff is aware that the mailed notices sent to the Sea Summit HOA regarding this hearing, as well
as the previously scheduled hearing, were returned as undeliverable. For public hearing noticing,
mailed notices are sent using ownership and mailing address information maintained by the Orange
County Assessor’s records. In this case, notices were mailed to the addresses associated with the
two HOA-owned properties reflected in those records. As those notices were returned, it may be

helpful for the HOA to verify that its mailing information on file with the County is current to help
ensure receipt of future notices.
Staff has reviewed the noticing requirements applicable to this hearing and determined that the City
satisfied those requirements. In addition, Section 17.12.100(C) of the San Clemente Municipal Code
provides that failure of any person to receive a mailed notice does not invalidate proceedings
related to the hearing.
For those reasons, the hearing is not anticipated to be continued on the basis that mailed notice was
not received. That said, staff values public participation in the process and appreciates receiving
comments and perspectives regarding the project for consideration as part of the public record.
While you are unable to attend the hearing, I recommend that you provide any additional comments
you may have on the item in writing, prior to the hearing, for the City Council’s consideration on the
matter.
Thank you again for your engagement on this matter.
Sincerely,
Adam Atamian, MPA, AICP
Community Development Director
Community Development Department
910 Calle Negocio
San Clemente, CA 92673
p: (949) 361-6196
[email protected]

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
From: David Liu
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2026 2:56 PM
To: CityClerk Mail <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: Cabral, Victor <[email protected]>; Wu, Zhen <[email protected]>; Knoblock,
Steve <[email protected]>; Enmeier, Mark <[email protected]>; Planning
Mail <[email protected]>; Loeffler, Rick <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to Hanson Hotel Project and Defective Public Notice, to the Proposed H and
coucil earing on 5/19/26
You don't often get email from
Hon. Mayor and Councilmembers,

Learn why this is important

I will be out of town on May 19, 2026, and therefore would like to submit my concerns by email for the
record.
I am a resident of Sea Summit. Our Homeowners Association (HOA) is responsible for maintaining the
common areas adjacent to the proposed Hanson Hotel project. Pursuant to the City of San Clemente’s
public hearing and planning notice requirements, affected property owners and interested parties within
the applicable notification radius are entitled to receive proper notice of a public hearing concerning a
development project. The City’s planning materials and zoning procedures commonly utilize a 300-foot
notification radius for affected properties and nearby parties.
However, after confirming with both Sea Summit HOA board members and the HOA management
company, I was informed that neither the HOA nor its representatives received any notice regarding this
hearing. As a result, the public notice process appears to have been defective and failed to provide
affected stakeholders with adequate notice and an opportunity to participate.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the hearing be continued and re-noticed in compliance with the
applicable municipal code and due process requirements.
In addition, I strongly urge the City and council members to vote against the proposed project due to its
impacts on the surrounding community and residents.
Thank you for your consideration.
David Liu

8A

550 CALIF O R NIA S TR EET, S U ITE 1200

G AB R IEL M .B . R O S S

S AN F R ANCIS CO , CA 94104

At t or ney

T: (415) 552- 7272

r oss@ smw l aw .c om

F : (415) 552- 5816

w w w .smw l aw .c om

May 18, 2026
Via E-Mail
Members of the City Council
City of San Clemente
910 Calle Negocio
San Clemente, CA 92673
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re:

Continued De Novo Appeal Hearing for Hanson Hotel (1801 N. El
Camino Real); May 19 2026 Agenda Item 8A, Development Permit
25-324, and Conditional Use Permit 25-329

Dear Councilmembers:
On behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11 (“Local 11” or “Appellant”), we
respectfully submit this letter responding the staff report for the City Council’s
consideration of the appeal filed September 2, 2025 (“Appeal”) of the City of San
Clemente (“City”) Planning Commission’s August 20, 2025 approvals of Development
Permit No. 25-324 and Conditional Use Permit 25-329 and associated findings under the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), concerning the proposed Hanson Hotel
(“the Project”). The Staff Report provides no substantive response to the appeal
justification dated September 2, 2025 (“the Appeal Letter”) or to our supplemental appeal
justification letter of April 21, 2026 (the “April 21 Letter”), each of which is incorporated
herein along with all exhibits and attachments. The Staff Report, like prior City
documents concerning the Project, continues to brush aside key legal issues that will
make any approval of the Project potentially invalid.
1. The Project Does Not Qualify for Limited Environmental Review Under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15183.
After going through several different CEQA approaches, the City appears
to have settled on the argument that the Project qualifies for streamlined review under
CEQA Guidelines section 15183, which provides that a project that is consistent with
“the development density established by existing . . . general plan policies for which an

Members of the City Council
May 18, 2026
Page 2
EIR was certified” may rely on that EIR rather than undergo complete environmental
review. CEQA Guidelines § 15183(a). The updated Staff Report, however, does not, and
cannot, cure the City’s failure to show the required consistency by substantial evidence.
The April 21 Letter explains that the Program Environmental Impact
Report prepared for the City’s General Plan (“the General Plan EIR” and the “General
Plan,” respectively) is insufficient to support approval of the Project, because it fails to
analyze consistency with the Coastal Act and impacts on Environmentally Sensitive
Habitat Areas (“ESHA”). The Project cannot rely on the General Plan EIR for an analysis
that the EIR does not include. That letter further shows that the Project is inconsistent
with several General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan (“Coastal LUP”) policies related to
density.
The Staff Report does not meaningfully address the sufficiency of the
General Plan EIR at all; its only detailed analysis of plan consistency concerns the
Project’s floor area ratio. Updated Agenda Packet 1 (“UAP”) at 9. Consistency with
governing plans is a fundamental requirement of Section 15183. Without that
consistency, the Project does not qualify for truncated environmental review and must
undergo a real CEQA process. Only through such rigorous analysis can the public and
decision makers be fully informed of the Project’s environmental consequences and
consistency with the City’s adopted policies.
The Staff Report’s failure to address these inconsistencies also undermines
the conclusion that the Project would have no site-specific impacts on biological
resources. As explained in the April 21 Letter, the Project site may be ESHA; it is
uncontestably adjacent to ESHA. Yet the Staff Report does not address any of the City’s
resource-protection policies that focus on ESHA and adjacent lands. UAP at 5-6. Nor
does it meaningfully consider the observed presence of several special-status species on
the Project site, including the California gnatcatcher.

2.
The Project is Inconsistent with The City’s General Plan and Coastal Land
Use Plan.
The April 21 Letter lists three General Plan policies and eight Coastal LUP
policies with which the Project is inconsistent. The Staff Report does not address a single
1 Citations herein to the “Updated Agenda Packet” are to the bates numbered pages of the

Agenda Report for the May 19, 2026 City Council hearing on this Appeal.

Members of the City Council
May 18, 2026
Page 3
one of these inconsistencies; nor does the “CEQA Section 15183 Exemption Report”
included with the Agenda Packet. The City adopted its plans in order to “[r]estore and
protect natural resources so that they continue to enhance our community.” General Plan
at p. NR-2. The City’s failure to adequately consider whether the Project is consistent
with those plans means that any approval may be rendered invalid. Orange Citizens for
Parks & Recreation v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 141, 153 (“The propriety of
virtually any local decision affecting land use and development depends upon
consistency with the applicable general plan and its elements.”).
3. The Project is Inconsistent with the Coastal Act.
As discussed in the April 21 Letter, the Project is inconsistent with the
Coastal Act’s lower-cost overnight accommodation (“LCOA”) policies. The Project
includes only a voluntary “commitment” to include the required units or pay an in-lieu
fee. The City has declined to include any binding requirement. UAP at 7. If the Project is
approved as proposed, the hotel could potentially choose to provide no LCOA units.
Such an outcome would be contrary to the policies of the Coastal Act and the General
Plan.
Looming over all of this analysis are the facts on the ground: the site was
recently subjected to unpermitted vegetation removal that, as explained in the April 21
Letter, likely needed a Coastal Development Permit. Labelling this action “routine” or
“typical” (UAP at 6) does not change the fact that it may have been undertaken without
adequate Coastal Act compliance. This approach to land management raises concerns
regarding whether the Project’s developer will be a reliable voluntary partner in
implementing the Coastal Act.
4. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Local 11 respectfully requests that the City grant
the Appeal and withhold approving the Project until, at minimum:
•

The applicant prepares a full EIR consistent with CEQA, which robustly analyzes
potential impacts to biological resources, including due to conflict with applicable
General Plan and Coastal LUP policies on ESHA-adjacent development, and
which is reflective of the current state of the Project site after the January 2026
vegetation removal;

Members of the City Council
May 18, 2026
Page 4
•

The applicant modifies the Project to be consistent with applicable Coastal LUP
policies for ESHA-adjacent areas and includes information demonstrating to the
City’s satisfaction that the Project site is not eligible to be designated as ESHA;

•

The City conditions any approval of the Entitlements on an enforceable
commitment to uphold Coastal Act and General Plan LCOA policies as discussed
here, in the Appeal Letter and in the April 21 Letter, and;

•

The applicant demonstrates that the Project is consistent with the City’s General
Plan, including its Coastal Element policies on natural resources protection.
Without these changes, the Project cannot be legally approved.
Very truly yours,
SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP

Gabriel M.B. Ross, Attorney

From: Angella Conrard <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 1:17 PM
To: CityClerk Mail <[email protected]>; Planning Mail <[email protected]>;
Tatich, Tamara <[email protected]>; Ciampa, John <[email protected]>
Subject: Investigate Vegetation Removal at Site of the Proposed Hanson Hotel (Item 8A, Council
Meeting 5/19/26, PHP 25-323)
Hon. Mayor and Councilmembers,
Someone cleared vegetation—including coastal sage scrub and other native plants—from
the site of the proposed Hanson Hotel on Pico and El Camino Real BEFORE approvals
were completed at the City or Coastal Commission level. This premature cutting is a blow
to our environmental protection efforts and will likely hamper any future investigation of
important native plants at this site. I demand an investigation into the vegetation removal.
Angella
California

From: Nancy Redlich Laub <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 1:19 PM
To: CityClerk Mail <[email protected]>; Planning Mail <[email protected]>;
Tatich, Tamara <[email protected]>; Ciampa, John <[email protected]>
Subject: Investigate Vegetation Removal at Site of the Proposed Hanson Hotel (Item 8A, Council
Meeting 5/19/26, PHP 25-323)
Hon. Mayor and Councilmembers,
Someone cleared vegetation—including coastal sage scrub and other native plants—from
the site of the proposed Hanson Hotel on Pico and El Camino Real BEFORE approvals
were completed at the City or Coastal Commission level. This premature cutting is a blow
to our environmental protection efforts and will likely hamper any future investigation of
important native plants at this site. I demand an investigation into the vegetation removal.
Nancy
California

From: Emily Rodriguez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 1:20 PM
To: CityClerk Mail <[email protected]>; Planning Mail <[email protected]>;
Tatich, Tamara <[email protected]>; Ciampa, John <[email protected]>
Subject: Investigate Vegetation Removal at Site of the Proposed Hanson Hotel (Item 8A, Council
Meeting 5/19/26, PHP 25-323)
Hon. Mayor and Councilmembers,
Someone cleared vegetation—including coastal sage scrub and other native plants—from
the site of the proposed Hanson Hotel on Pico and El Camino Real BEFORE approvals
were completed at the City or Coastal Commission level. This premature cutting is a blow
to our environmental protection efforts and will likely hamper any future investigation of
important native plants at this site. I demand an investigation into the vegetation removal.
Emily
California

From: Javier Rios <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 1:20 PM
To: CityClerk Mail <[email protected]>; Planning Mail <[email protected]>;
Tatich, Tamara <[email protected]>; Ciampa, John <[email protected]>
Subject: Investigate Vegetation Removal at Site of the Proposed Hanson Hotel (Item 8A, Council
Meeting 5/19/26, PHP 25-323)
Hon. Mayor and Councilmembers,
Someone cleared vegetation—including coastal sage scrub and other native plants—from
the site of the proposed Hanson Hotel on Pico and El Camino Real BEFORE approvals
were completed at the City or Coastal Commission level. This premature cutting is a blow
to our environmental protection efforts and will likely hamper any future investigation of
important native plants at this site. I demand an investigation into the vegetation removal.
Javier
California

From: Diane Mcdonald <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 1:22 PM
To: CityClerk Mail <[email protected]>; Planning Mail <[email protected]>;
Tatich, Tamara <[email protected]>; Ciampa, John <[email protected]>
Subject: Investigate Vegetation Removal at Site of the Proposed Hanson Hotel (Item 8A, Council
Meeting 5/19/26, PHP 25-323)
Hon. Mayor and Councilmembers,
Someone cleared vegetation—including coastal sage scrub and other native plants—from
the site of the proposed Hanson Hotel on Pico and El Camino Real BEFORE approvals
were completed at the City or Coastal Commission level. This premature cutting is a blow
to our environmental protection efforts and will likely hamper any future investigation of
important native plants at this site. I demand an investigation into the vegetation removal.
Diane
California

From: Brittany Crail <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 1:34 PM
To: CityClerk Mail <[email protected]>; Planning Mail <[email protected]>;
Tatich, Tamara <[email protected]>; Ciampa, John <[email protected]>
Subject: Investigate Vegetation Removal at Site of the Proposed Hanson Hotel (Item 8A, Council
Meeting 5/19/26, PHP 25-323)
Hon. Mayor and Councilmembers,
Someone cleared vegetation—including coastal sage scrub and other native plants—from
the site of the proposed Hanson Hotel on Pico and El Camino Real BEFORE approvals
were completed at the City or Coastal Commission level. This premature cutting is a blow
to our environmental protection efforts and will likely hamper any future investigation of
important native plants at this site. I demand an investigation into the vegetation removal.
Brittany
California

From: ThuyNga Vu <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 1:36 PM
To: CityClerk Mail <[email protected]>; Planning Mail <[email protected]>;
Tatich, Tamara <[email protected]>; Ciampa, John <[email protected]>
Subject: Investigate Vegetation Removal at Site of the Proposed Hanson Hotel (Item 8A, Council
Meeting 5/19/26, PHP 25-323)
Hon. Mayor and Councilmembers,
Someone cleared vegetation—including coastal sage scrub and other native plants—from
the site of the proposed Hanson Hotel on Pico and El Camino Real BEFORE approvals
were completed at the City or Coastal Commission level. This premature cutting is a blow
to our environmental protection efforts and will likely hamper any future investigation of
important native plants at this site. I demand an investigation into the vegetation removal.
ThuyNga
California

From: Reina Myers <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 1:15 PM
To: CityClerk Mail <[email protected]>; Planning Mail <[email protected]>;
Tatich, Tamara <[email protected]>; Ciampa, John <[email protected]>
Subject: Investigate Vegetation Removal at Site of the Proposed Hanson Hotel (Item 8A, Council
Meeting 5/19/26, PHP 25-323)
Hon. Mayor and Councilmembers,
Someone cleared vegetation—including coastal sage scrub and other native plants—from
the site of the proposed Hanson Hotel on Pico and El Camino Real BEFORE approvals
were completed at the City or Coastal Commission level. This premature cutting is a blow
to our environmental protection efforts and will likely hamper any future investigation of
important native plants at this site. I demand an investigation into the vegetation removal.
Reina
California

From: Laurie Jones <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 1:17 PM
To: CityClerk Mail <[email protected]>; Planning Mail <[email protected]>;
Tatich, Tamara <[email protected]>; Ciampa, John <[email protected]>
Subject: Investigate Vegetation Removal at Site of the Proposed Hanson Hotel (Item 8A, Council
Meeting 5/19/26, PHP 25-323)
Hon. Mayor and Councilmembers,
Someone cleared vegetation—including coastal sage scrub and other native plants—from
the site of the proposed Hanson Hotel on Pico and El Camino Real BEFORE approvals
were completed at the City or Coastal Commission level. This premature cutting is a blow
to our environmental protection efforts and will likely hamper any future investigation of
important native plants at this site. I demand an investigation into the vegetation removal.
Laurie
California

From: Wendy Berube <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 3:04 PM
To: CityClerk Mail <[email protected]>; Planning Mail <[email protected]>;
Tatich, Tamara <[email protected]>; Ciampa, John <[email protected]>
Subject: Investigate Vegetation Removal at Site of the Proposed Hanson Hotel (Item 8A, Council
Meeting 5/19/26, PHP 25-323)
Hon. Mayor and Councilmembers,
Someone cleared vegetation—including coastal sage scrub and other native plants—from
the site of the proposed Hanson Hotel on Pico and El Camino Real BEFORE approvals
were completed at the City or Coastal Commission level. This premature cutting is a blow
to our environmental protection efforts and will likely hamper any future investigation of
important native plants at this site. I demand an investigation into the vegetation removal.
Wendy
California

From: Marisa Digiovanni <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 2:34 PM
To: CityClerk Mail <[email protected]>; Planning Mail <[email protected]>;
Tatich, Tamara <[email protected]>; Ciampa, John <[email protected]>
Subject: Investigate Vegetation Removal at Site of the Proposed Hanson Hotel (Item 8A, Council
Meeting 5/19/26, PHP 25-323)
Hon. Mayor and Councilmembers,
Someone cleared vegetation—including coastal sage scrub and other native plants—from
the site of the proposed Hanson Hotel on Pico and El Camino Real BEFORE approvals
were completed at the City or Coastal Commission level. This premature cutting is a blow
to our environmental protection efforts and will likely hamper any future investigation of
important native plants at this site. I demand an investigation into the vegetation removal.
Marisa
California

From: Debra Jerrold-Jones <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 3:12 PM
To: CityClerk Mail <[email protected]>; Planning Mail <[email protected]>;
Tatich, Tamara <[email protected]>; Ciampa, John <[email protected]>
Subject: Investigate Vegetation Removal at Site of the Proposed Hanson Hotel (Item 8A, Council
Meeting 5/19/26, PHP 25-323)
Hon. Mayor and Councilmembers,
Someone cleared vegetation—including coastal sage scrub and other native plants—from
the site of the proposed Hanson Hotel on Pico and El Camino Real BEFORE approvals
were completed at the City or Coastal Commission level. This premature cutting is a blow
to our environmental protection efforts and will likely hamper any future investigation of
important native plants at this site. I demand an investigation into the vegetation removal.
Debra
California

From: Cindy Piro <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 2:52 PM
To: CityClerk Mail <[email protected]>; Planning Mail <[email protected]>;
Tatich, Tamara <[email protected]>; Ciampa, John <[email protected]>
Subject: Investigate Vegetation Removal at Site of the Proposed Hanson Hotel (Item 8A, Council
Meeting 5/19/26, PHP 25-323)
Hon. Mayor and Councilmembers,
Someone cleared vegetation—including coastal sage scrub and other native plants—from
the site of the proposed Hanson Hotel on Pico and El Camino Real BEFORE approvals
were completed at the City or Coastal Commission level. This premature cutting is a blow
to our environmental protection efforts and will likely hamper any future investigation of
important native plants at this site. I demand an investigation into the vegetation removal.
Cindy
California

From: Anne-Marie Linas <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 4:00 PM
To: CityClerk Mail <[email protected]>; Planning Mail <[email protected]>;
Tatich, Tamara <[email protected]>; Ciampa, John <[email protected]>
Subject: Investigate Vegetation Removal at Site of the Proposed Hanson Hotel (Item 8A, Council
Meeting 5/19/26, PHP 25-323)
Hon. Mayor and Councilmembers,
Someone cleared vegetation—including coastal sage scrub and other native plants—from
the site of the proposed Hanson Hotel on Pico and El Camino Real BEFORE approvals
were completed at the City or Coastal Commission level. This premature cutting is a blow
to our environmental protection efforts and will likely hamper any future investigation of
important native plants at this site. I demand an investigation into the vegetation removal.
Anne-Marie
California

From: Patricia Bowles <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 8:21 PM
To: CityClerk Mail <[email protected]>; Planning Mail <[email protected]>;
Tatich, Tamara <[email protected]>; Ciampa, John <[email protected]>
Subject: Investigate Vegetation Removal at Site of the Proposed Hanson Hotel (Item 8A, Council
Meeting 5/19/26, PHP 25-323)
Hon. Mayor and Councilmembers,
Someone cleared vegetation—including coastal sage scrub and other native plants—from
the site of the proposed Hanson Hotel on Pico and El Camino Real BEFORE approvals
were completed at the City or Coastal Commission level. This premature cutting is a blow
to our environmental protection efforts and will likely hamper any future investigation of
important native plants at this site. I demand an investigation into the vegetation removal.
Patricia
California

From: Jene Dietz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 5:46 PM
To: CityClerk Mail <[email protected]>; Planning Mail <[email protected]>;
Tatich, Tamara <[email protected]>; Ciampa, John <[email protected]>
Subject: Investigate Vegetation Removal at Site of the Proposed Hanson Hotel (Item 8A, Council
Meeting 5/19/26, PHP 25-323)
Hon. Mayor and Councilmembers,
Someone cleared vegetation—including coastal sage scrub and other native plants—from
the site of the proposed Hanson Hotel on Pico and El Camino Real BEFORE approvals
were completed at the City or Coastal Commission level. This premature cutting is a blow
to our environmental protection efforts and will likely hamper any future investigation of
important native plants at this site. I demand an investigation into the vegetation removal.
Jene
California

From: Jared Ross <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 5:40 PM
To: CityClerk Mail <[email protected]>; Planning Mail <[email protected]>;
Tatich, Tamara <[email protected]>; Ciampa, John <[email protected]>
Subject: Investigate Vegetation Removal at Site of the Proposed Hanson Hotel (Item 8A, Council
Meeting 5/19/26, PHP 25-323)
Hon. Mayor and Councilmembers,
Someone cleared vegetation—including coastal sage scrub and other native plants—from
the site of the proposed Hanson Hotel on Pico and El Camino Real BEFORE approvals
were completed at the City or Coastal Commission level. This premature cutting is a blow
to our environmental protection efforts and will likely hamper any future investigation of
important native plants at this site. I demand an investigation into the vegetation removal.
Jared
California

From: Joanna Rice <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 1:29 PM
To: CityClerk Mail <[email protected]>; Planning Mail <[email protected]>;
Tatich, Tamara <[email protected]>; Ciampa, John <[email protected]>
Subject: Investigate Vegetation Removal at Site of the Proposed Hanson Hotel (Item 8A, Council
Meeting 5/19/26, PHP 25-323)
Hon. Mayor and Councilmembers,
Someone cleared vegetation—including coastal sage scrub and other native plants—from
the site of the proposed Hanson Hotel on Pico and El Camino Real BEFORE approvals
were completed at the City or Coastal Commission level. This premature cutting is a blow
to our environmental protection efforts and will likely hamper any future investigation of
important native plants at this site. I demand an investigation into the vegetation removal.
Joanna
California

From: Laurel Jiron <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 8:24 PM
To: CityClerk Mail <[email protected]>; Planning Mail <[email protected]>;
Tatich, Tamara <[email protected]>; Ciampa, John <[email protected]>
Subject: Investigate Vegetation Removal at Site of the Proposed Hanson Hotel (Item 8A, Council
Meeting 5/19/26, PHP 25-323)
Hon. Mayor and Councilmembers,
Someone cleared vegetation—including coastal sage scrub and other native plants—from
the site of the proposed Hanson Hotel on Pico and El Camino Real BEFORE approvals
were completed at the City or Coastal Commission level. This premature cutting is a blow
to our environmental protection efforts and will likely hamper any future investigation of
important native plants at this site. I demand an investigation into the vegetation removal.
Laurel
California