Here are some drawings of the project. (These are from the EIR.)

Site from the air	The retail mall	At ground level	Elevations

Here is some of the press coverage from 1989 and 1990:

• "At a supervisor's meeting last month, hundreds of residents crowded the Coastside Community Center in Half Moon Bay to complain that the roject would cause monstrous traffic jams and block views of the ocean." -- San Francisco Examiner, December 11, 1989
• "A planned development near Pillar Point Harbor is inappropriately large for the area, and is incompatible with the flavor of Pillar Point, one of the States last working, commercial harbors. ... We advocate a smaller hotel with adjoining restaraunt. ... We urge the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors to meet Coastside residents halfway by approving a scaled-down project." -- Editorial in Half Moon Bay Review, December 6, 1989
• "Opponents of a major resort proposed for Pillar Point Harbor in San Mateo County have been given a boost by the California Coastal Commission, which has ordered a review of the controversial $20 million project. ... Opponents of the development had complained -- and the commission's staff agreed in a report last week -- the construction of a 95-room hotel, a 280-seat restaraunt, a bar, shops and a huge parking lot would violate the county's local coastal plan." -- San Francisco Chronicle, February 15, 1990

Here are some of the reasons that the Coastal Commission staff opposed the project:

• "The proposed building is 10-12 times larger than any other structure in the area and the project is therefore substantially out of scale with nearby development. As such it is inconsistent with LCP Policies and implementing ordinances which require the maintenance of the small scale character of Princeton.
• "The project will block (approximately) 57% of the existing view to the harbor and sea from Highway One. LCP Policies and ordinances prohibit the obstruction of views to the sea from public viewing points such as Highway One. Cumulative impacts of projects similar to this one could result in the loss of virtually all vies to the sea from Highway One in the Princeton area.
• "The project is inconsistent with LCP Policies relevant to the protection of agriculture, commercial fishing and recreational boating, hazards and public access."

Despite the staff's recommendation, the project was approved by the Commission and we continued our opposition to the project as currently desiged in court.