Ritz-Carlton Half Moon Bay faces $1.6 million penalty for failing to provide public beach access

One of Northern California’s most exclusive hotels, the Ritz-Carlton Half Moon Bay, where rooms rent for $1,000 a night and Silicon Valley companies regularly hold posh retreats, is facing $1.6 million in penalties from the California Coastal Commission to settle years of violations of state coastal laws.

The penalties, which would be the second-largest of their kind in Coastal Commission history, were being debated Thursday at the commission meeting in San Diego.

The luxury oceanfront hotel, golf course and spa was built in 2001 after years of battles with environmentalists and local residents in San Mateo County, who said it would block public access to two sandy beaches.

As a result, when the Coastal Commission first issued the project a permit in the 1990s, the agency required the hotel to build a free public parking lot with 15 spaces overlooking Cañada Verde Beach, a scenic beach just south of the hotel. The commission also gave the hotel the option of building a second public beach parking lot a mile north at Redondo Beach, or allowing the public to park in the hotel parking garage. The hotel chose to set aside 25 public spaces in its garage for beachgoers.

But over the years, hotel valets have parked cars of hotel guests and golfers in the public spots, or told members of the public they couldn’t park there, despite multiple warnings and fines from the commission. The hotel also failed to put up signs telling the public the beaches are open and free to anyone, not just hotel guests or golfers.

After being hit with a $50,000 penalty by the commission in 2004, the hotel promised changes, but did not deliver. It was issued violations in paid additional penalties again in 2007 and 2011.

On Thursday, commissioners were clearly angry.

“When I see these legacy violations there’s outrage and exhaustion,” said Commissioner Donnie Brownsey. “You think about the families and local folks and visitors who have not been able to go to those beaches for almost a generation.”

Others noted that when working class families have tried to go to the beaches by driving down Miramontes Point Road, they face an intimidating array of hotel staff members, wealthy golfers, fences, guard stations and gates.

“The Ritz-Carlton wouldn’t want to inform the public about the rights on which they are infringing,” said Mandy Sackett, state policy director for the Surfrider Foundation, an environmental group.

“Perhaps creating the illusion of a private beach helps justify the exorbitant cost of the rooms.”

Rather than face years in court, the hotel owners negotiated a settlement agreement with the Coastal Commission staff in which they agreed to pay $1.6 million — $600,000 of which will go to the Peninsula Open Space Trust, a Palo Alto land conservation group, to help purchase an adjacent 27-acre property north of the hotel to provide more public beach access. The other $1 million will go into a Coastal Commission fund that provides signs, trails and other amenities for the public to use beaches around the state.

The company also agreed to expand the beach lot to 22 spaces, put up signs clearly stating the beaches are public, better train its staff, and post the information on its website.

“We want to be a good partner in this. We have spent a year, or year-and-a-half working through this. We have given quite a lot,” said Dave Hogan, chief operating officer of Strategic Hotels and Resorts, the company that owns the Ritz-Carlton Half Moon Bay.

A final vote to approve the deal, however, was delayed Thursday morning when the commissioners attempted to strengthen it, by requiring that the hotel face $25,000 per day per violation in the future, rather than $5,000, as the staff and hotel had agreed upon.

“Past behavior is a predictor of future behavior,” said Commissioner Aaron Peskin. “Not always, but often. I don’t want this to be another Charlie Brown-Lucy and the football situation.”

But company representatives said they needed more time to consider the proposed change. The final vote was delayed until the end of the meeting and had not occurred by 1 p.m. Thursday.