Half Moon Bay City Council
April 4, 2023

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2023

HYBRID MEETING (SEE NEXT PAGE)

ADCOCK COMMUNITY CENTER
535 KELLY AVENUE
HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019
Deborah Penrose, Mayor
Joaquin Jimenez, Vice Mayor
Robert Brownstone, Councilmember
Harvey Rarback, Councilmember
Debbie Ruddock, Councilmember
7:00 PM
This agenda contains a brief description of each item to be considered. Those wishing to address the City Council on any matter not listed on the agenda, but within the jurisdiction of the City Council to resolve, may come forward to the podium during the Public Forum portion of the agenda and will have a maximum of three minutes to discuss their item.

Comments on Consent Calendar items should be made during the Public Forum section of the agenda. Those wishing to speak on a Business or Public Hearing matter will be called forward at the appropriate time during that item’s consideration.

Please Note: Anyone wishing to present materials to the City Council, please submit seven copies to the City Clerk.

Copies of written documentation relating to each item of business on the agenda are on file in the Office of the City Clerk at City Hall where they are available for public inspection. If requested, the agenda shall be available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132.) Information may be obtained by calling 650-726-8271.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, special assistance for participation in this meeting can be obtained by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at 650-726-8271. A 48-hour notification will enable the City to make reasonable accommodations to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). http://hmbcity.com/
1 HYBRID MEETING PARTICIPATION PROTOCOLS
This meeting will be held in-person and via Zoom for public participation. Public comments may be made in-person or remotely via Zoom, and interpretation will be available. All Councilmembers will participate in person. During any public comment portions, attendees may use the “raise your hand” feature and will be called upon and unmuted when it is their turn to speak. The meeting will also be streamed on Channel 27, on pacificcoast.tv, and on Facebook at www.facebook.com/cityofhalfmoonbay. Please click to join the webinar: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87674804231 or join by phone at 669-900-9128, using Webinar ID 876-7480-4231. If joining by phone, use *9 to raise your hand, *6 to mute and unmute.

ROLL CALL / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

MAKE IT MAIN STREET ANNOUNCEMENTS

MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

REPORT OUT FROM RECENT CLOSED SESSION MEETINGS

CITY MANAGER UPDATES TO COUNCIL

PUBLIC FORUM

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

1.A WAIVE READING OF RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES

1.B WARRANTS FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2023
Staff Recommendation: Accept the warrants list for the month of February 2023.

STAFF REPORT

ATTACHMENT

1.C PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ON-CALL GEOMORPHOLOGY SERVICES Staff Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to award and execute a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) for On-Call Professional Geomorphology Services through June 30, 2024 to the most qualified consultant, Waterways Consulting, Inc., of Santa Cruz, CA, in an amount not-to-exceed $50,000.

STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
2 1.D ACCEPTANCE OF THE MIRAMONTES POINT SEA LEVEL RISE VULNERABILITY AND FISCAL

IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Staff Recommendation: By resolution, accept the Miramontes Point Sea Level Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment.

STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3

1.E RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE CITY MANAGER, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR, AND

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, BY TITLE, AS APPLICANT'S AGENDA FOR NON-STATE

AGENCIES FOR THE CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES (CALOES) PUBLIC

ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
Staff Recommendation: Adopt a resolution entitled, “Designation of Applicant’s Agent Resolution for Non-State Agencies” designating the City Manager, Public Works Director and the Administrative Services Director, by title, as Applicant's Agent for Non-State Agencies for the California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) Public Assistance Program & Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

STAFF REPORT

ATTACHMENT

1.F ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF A 3-FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT AT 419 GARCIA AVENUE
Staff Recommendation: Adopt a resolution accepting dedication of a 3-foot Public Utility and Pedestrian Access Easement from Babak and Katja Kamangar, owners of 419 Garcia Avenue, APN: 056-118-190, and authorizing the City Manager to sign the certificate of acceptance for said easement.

STAFF REPORT

RESOLUTION
ATTACHMENT 2

2. ORDINANCES AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
3 3. RESOLUTIONS AND STAFF REPORTS

3.A ADOPTION OF THE 2023 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM
Staff Recommendation: Adopt a resolution establishing a Legislative Platform for 2023.

STAFF REPORT

RESOLUTION
ATTACHMENT 1

3.B WORK SESSION ON THE OPERATION OF E-BIKES AND OTHER ELECTRIC DEVICES ON TRAILS

AND PATHS
Staff Recommendation: Conduct a work session and, by motion, direct staff to:

1. Draft an ordinance amending the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code to:
a. Establish a speed limit of 15 miles per hour with 5 miles per hour when passing on all Half Moon Bay trails.
b. Permit Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes as well as electric scooters and electric boards on all Half Moon Bay-owned multi-use paths and trails.

2. Create and place "share the trail" signage along Half Moon Bay’s multi-use trails.

STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3

3.C MID-YEAR REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 BUDGET
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the attached Resolution to amend the FY 2022-23 Operating and Capital budget.

STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 4
4 3.D CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARD FOR THE 2023 STREET MAINTENANCE PROJECT (CIP PROJECT NO. 0514)
Staff Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to award and execute a construction contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Dryco Construction, Inc., of Fremont, California in the amount of $281,177 and approve a construction contingency amount not exceeding an amount of $42,176.55 (15 percent) for potential change orders for the 2023 Street Maintenance Project (CIP Project No. 0514).

STAFF REPORT

RESOLUTION

COMMISSION / COMMITTEE UPDATES

FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION / POSSIBLE AGENDA ITEMS

CITY COUNCIL REPORTS

ADJOURNMENT
5 BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: March 21, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
From: Lisa Lopez Rossi, Interim Assistant City Manager
TITLE: WARRANTS FOR THE MONTH OF FEBURARY 2023
______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:

Accept the warrants list for the month of February 2023.

STRATEGIC ELEMENT:

This recommendation supports the Fiscal Sustainability and Inclusive Governance Elements of the Strategic Plan.

DISCUSSION:

During this month, the City processed 5 check runs. The first was on February 1, totaling $1,145,555. The second was on February 4, totaling $15,094. The third was on February 9, totaling $293,235. The fourth was on February 16, totaling $523,354. The fifth was on February 22, totaling $38,432. The total for the month was $2,015,670.

The City processed payments related to 9 capital improvement projects, in a total amount of $190,181. These projects include Pavement Management/Traffic Program, Highway 1 North, Parks Master Plan, Carter Park, Eastside Parallel Trail, Climate Action and Adaptation, Sidewalk Replace and Repair Program, Kehoe/Pilarcitos Outfall Repair, Pump Station and Force Main.

Staff is also including a list of all payments above $30,000 processed during this reporting period, as listed in the table below.

ATTACHMENTS:

Check Disbursement List by Check Date
Check # Payee Check Date Payment Amount Description
52234 SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE 2/1/2023 919,568 SHERIFF PATROL SERVICES 52326 SEWER AUTHORITY MID-COASTSIDE 2/16/2023 427,146 SAM OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 52289 WICKMAN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTIO 2/9/2023 106,770 CARTER PARK IMPROVEMENTS 52235 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP 2/1/2023 81,945 LEGAL COUNSEL 52229 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 2/1/2023 71,870 CITY-WIDE ELECTRICITY 52223 EL CENTRO DE LIBERTAD 2/1/2023 34,985 CARES PROGRAM Over $30,000
6 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - Summary HMB Page: 1 Check Issue Dates: 2/1/2023 - 2/28/2023 Mar 15, 2023 12:30PM Report Criteria:

Report type: SummaryCheck.Type = "Calculated"
Check Number Vendor Number Payee Check Issue Date Amount Description 52221 5526 CLEMENTINA HUERTA 02/01/2023 500.00 DEPOSIT REFUND52222 4576 DONNA J. VAILLANCOURT 02/01/2023 1,500.00 FACILITATION/TRAINING SERVICES52223 3673 EL CENTRO DE LIBERTAD 02/01/2023 34,984.91 JAN'23, CARES PROGRAM52224 4398 ELS ARCHITECTURE & URBAN DESIGN 02/01/2023 3,300.00 JAN'23,CITY HALL RELOCATION STUDY52225 5490 HDL COREN & CONE 02/01/2023 3,671.33 FY22/23 ACFR STATISTICAL PACKAGE52226 3083 JOINT VENTURE SILICON VALLEY 02/01/2023 3,500.00 2023 SPONSERSHIP OF STATE OF THE VALLEY CONFERENCE52227 3746 MALCOLM C SMITH 02/01/2023 247.50 JAN 23,, COMMUNICATION CONSULTANT52228 5503 MIKE GERONIMO 02/01/2023 665.00 CLASS REFUND52229 137 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 02/01/2023 71,870.17 TRAIN DEPOT52230 137 PG&E 02/01/2023 7,988.99 555 KELLY ST52231 4339 PLAN JPA 02/01/2023 7,305.19 GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS52232 5403 ROBERT HALF 02/01/2023 3,270.00 TEMP EMPLOYEE W.Ngo/WEEK ENDING 01/27/23 52233 3131 ROBERT W. SMITH 02/01/2023 441.00 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT- CCO 11/30/22-1/18/2352234 216 SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE 02/01/2023 919,568.30 Q3, FY22/23 Less credits52235 3085 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP 02/01/2023 81,944.58 GENERAL MATTERS52236 165 STRAWFLOWER ELECTRONICS 02/01/2023 96.09 MAINT SUPPLIES52237 3519 SWCA INCORPORATED 02/01/2023 4,702.00 HWY1 NORTH SAFETY & OP IMPROVEMENTS RIPARIAN MITIGA 52238 4270 4LEAF INC. 02/09/2023 14,924.47 ON-CALL SERVICES52239 3332 AMERICAN DEBRIS BOX SERVICE INC. 02/09/2023 1,025.88 FY22/23 PORTABLE RESTROOMS52240 5527 AMY ARTAL 02/09/2023 100.00 DEPOSIT REFUND52241 2407 ARAMARK 02/09/2023 276.47 MAINT SUPPLIES52242 444 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS 02/09/2023 696.54 LEVELIZED CHARGE NAT GAS52243 5168 BLEYLE ELEVATOR, INC 02/09/2023 886.00 MAINT SERVICE52244 5359 BLUEBEAM, INC. 02/09/2023 1,090.00 ANNUAL MAINTENANCE52245 1925 CITY OF BURLINGAME 02/09/2023 4,730.64 DEC'23 SMCO BID52246 2861 CODE PUBLISHING COMPANY 02/09/2023 70.50 MUNICIPAL CODE WEB UPDATE52247 4542 COLLEEN LETTIRE 02/09/2023 111.29 HMB BAKERY/BREAKFEAST FOR EOC52248 5318 COLUMN SOFTWARE, PBC 02/09/2023 1,534.50 PDP-22-05452249 3643 CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEMENT INC 02/09/2023 332.79 RECORDS MANAGEMENT52250 390 DFM ASSOCIATES 02/09/2023 151.28 CA ELECTIONS CODE52251 5530 EMMA V. ALMARAZ 02/09/2023 500.00 DEPOSIT REFUND REQUEST FOR GRAND OAK 2/4/23 52252 3446 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC 02/09/2023 2,841.32 VEHICLE FUEL52253 2564 HALF MOON BAY GRADING & PAVING INC. 02/09/2023 1,127.10 MAINT SUPPLIES52254 5529 HAZEL JOANES 02/09/2023 257.00 PDP-21-01052255 89 HMB COASTSIDE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 02/09/2023 13,815.00 DEC'23 HMB CITY BID52256 2444 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 02/09/2023 43.73 MAINT SUPPLIES M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
7 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - Summary HMB Page: 2 Check Issue Dates: 2/1/2023 - 2/28/2023 Mar 15, 2023 12:30PM Check Number Vendor Number Payee Check Issue Date Amount Description 52257 4267 IMPEC GROUP INC. 02/09/2023 17,356.00 FY22/23 JANITORIAL SERVICES52258 3944 JESSICA BLAIR 02/09/2023 454.28 EMERGENCY HOTEL STAY52259 5509 JESSICA CARLSON 02/09/2023 175.00 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT52260 4646 KENNETH STILES 02/09/2023 1,444.03 OFFICE DEPOT/1099 FORMS52261 5517 LAURA CAMODECA 02/09/2023 1,232.00 Payment for Dog Training classes52262 291 LAURIE BECKER 02/09/2023 737.10 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT ZUMBA52263 1206 MARK THOMAS & CO. INC. 02/09/2023 25,701.80 CHANGE ORDER 1, HWY1 NORTH SAFETY & OPERATIONAL IM 52264 3872 MUNICIPAL FINANCIAL SERVICES 02/09/2023 3,420.00 MID-POINT ASSESSMENT OF SEWER SERVICE RATES52265 4464 MuniServices 02/09/2023 500.00 SUTA Q152266 3726 NICHOLAS TRANSLATIONS & INTERPRETATIONS 02/09/2023 523.00 TRANSLATION SERVICES52267 4472 ON POINT LANGUAGE SOLUTIONS LLC 02/09/2023 6,367.11 TRANSLATION SERVICES52268 5487 PABLO OROPEZA 02/09/2023 3,144.68 CATERING PROPOSAL52269 137 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 02/09/2023 2,500.00 ENGINEERING ADVANCE52270 3479 PARKEON INC 02/09/2023 56.00 MAINT SERVICE52271 3956 PENINSULA MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING INC. 02/09/2023 23,086.00 CHANGE ORDER 3, PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR E52272 4339 PLAN JPA 02/09/2023 1,974.00 GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS52273 5531 PORSCHE DIGITAL INC 02/09/2023 200.00 DEPOSIT REFUND52274 3951 PUBLIC PARKING ASSOCIATES INC 02/09/2023 547.00 MAINT SERVICE52275 5403 ROBERT HALF 02/09/2023 6,232.59 TEMP EMPLOYEE LABATE/WEEK ENDING 02/03/2023 52276 708 SAN MATEO COUNTY NARCOTICS TASK FORCE 02/09/2023 14,372.00 FY22/23 NARCOTICS TASK FORCE CONTRIBUTION 52277 1392 SAN MATEO RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRIC 02/09/2023 184.00 CONSERVATION PROJECT MANAGER 52278 3757 SCHAAF & WHEELER 02/09/2023 3,500.00 AUG'22, PELICAN POINT GENERATOR REPLACEMENT52279 129 SERVICE PRESS INC. 02/09/2023 114.04 OFFICE SUPPLIES52280 5528 SOPHIA WAMBACH 02/09/2023 100.00 DEPOSIT REFUND52281 3717 STERICYCLE SPECIALTY WASTE SOLUTIONS INC 02/09/2023 194.72 MAINT SERVICE52282 5301 SUBURBAN PROPANE LP 02/09/2023 1,233.79 DISCOUNT PROPANE52283 3519 SWCA INCORPORATED 02/09/2023 1,108.75 HWY1 SAFETY - NORTH PROJECT52284 3519 SWCA INCORPORATED 02/09/2023 713.75 HWY1 SAFETY - NORTH PROJECT52285 4487 THE HOME DEPOT PRO 02/09/2023 955.25 MAINT SUPPLIES52286 3955 TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS 02/09/2023 5,000.00 TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS52287 1497 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS 02/09/2023 533.52 CITATION PROCESSING52288 4429 WESTERN EXTERMINATOR COMPANY 02/09/2023 1,207.42 FY22/23 EXTERMINATOR SERVICES52289 5406 WICKMAN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION 02/09/2023 106,769.74 CARTER PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT52291 3923 WELLS FARGO 02/09/2023 17,082.46 RECONCILING CREDITS52293 4270 4LEAF INC. 02/16/2023 36.00 FEB'23, ON-CALL SERVICES52294 2022 ACC BUSINESS 02/16/2023 792.62 INTERNET SERVICE52295 5532 ADELA VILLALOBOS 02/16/2023 500.00 DEPOSIT REFUND REUEST52296 5493 ALENA JEAN 02/16/2023 3,112.50 FLOWERS FOR VIGIL/DINNER52297 3954 ALTA PLANNING & DESIGN 02/16/2023 1,301.50 CHANGE ORDER 3, PACIFIC COAST BIKEWAY CONNECTIVITY N 52298 18 ANDREINI BROTHERS INC. 02/16/2023 27,858.75 FY22/23 ON-CALL SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
8 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - Summary HMB Page: 3 Check Issue Dates: 2/1/2023 - 2/28/2023 Mar 15, 2023 12:30PM Check Number Vendor Number Payee Check Issue Date Amount Description 52299 1046 APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS INC. 02/16/2023 809.24 MEASURE D ANALYSIS52300 4115 BIG BELLY SOLAR INC 02/16/2023 283.92 DEC '23, SMART TRASH RECEPTACLES52301 1826 CA DEPT OF JUSTICE 02/16/2023 96.00 FINGERPRINT APPS52302 32 CA DEPT OF TRANSPORTION 02/16/2023 6,208.50 SIGNALS & LIGHTING52303 4300 CALNET3 02/16/2023 48.28 PHONE SERVICE52304 5223 CAPITAL ONE TRADE CREDIT 02/16/2023 3,732.64 MAINT SUPPLIES52305 4193 CASELLE INC. 02/16/2023 3,695.00 ERP CONTRACT SUPPORT & MAINTENANCE52306 2859 CLAUDIA MARSHALL 02/16/2023 945.00 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT, JANUARY 2352307 51 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 02/16/2023 3,804.13 LIFT STATION FAIRWAY52308 4542 COLLEEN LETTIRE 02/16/2023 91.90 TABLECLOTHES FOR VICTIM REMEMBRANCE DINNER52309 5515 CRUZIO INTERNET 02/16/2023 19.95 INTERNET SERVICE52310 2941 CSG CONSULTANTS INC. 02/16/2023 6,107.50 FEB'23, NPDES STORMWATER SERVICES52311 202 FEDEX 02/16/2023 49.70 SHIPPING SERVICE52312 2668 GAYTON ARRIGOTTI 02/16/2023 346.50 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT 02/11/2352313 70 GRAINGER 02/16/2023 676.38 MAINT SUPPLIES52314 1853 HDL SOFTWARE LLC 02/16/2023 3,671.33 TOT AND BUSINESS LICENSE MANAGEMENT52315 3429 HUE & CRY 02/16/2023 641.62 SECURITY SERVICE52316 5444 JOYA CUNHA 02/16/2023 2,000.00 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT52317 108 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 02/16/2023 6,546.00 MEMBERSHIP DUES52318 4293 LOCKWORKS UNLIMINTED INC 02/16/2023 661.24 MAINT SERVICE52319 4028 LORAL LANDSCAPING INC. 02/16/2023 2,000.00 FY22/23 MEDIAN MAINTENANCE52320 4489 MTA PARTS INC. 02/16/2023 212.68 VEHICLE PARTS52321 457 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC 02/16/2023 111.30 SUPPLIES52322 5020 QUADIENT FINANCE USA, INC 02/16/2023 425.67 POSTAGE52323 5403 ROBERT HALF 02/16/2023 3,837.66 TEMP EMPLOYEE S.Vivika /WEEK ENDING 02/10/23 52324 217 SAN MATEO COUNTY INFORMATION SVCS. 02/16/2023 82.25 MICROWAVE SERVICE52325 2797 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 02/16/2023 828.00 MESURE D ANALYSIS52326 159 SEWER AUTHORITY MID-COASTSIDE 02/16/2023 427,146.00 FEB'23 , SEWER AUTHORITY MID-COASTSIDE OPERATIONS AN 52327 5224 SMCU COMMUNITY FUND 02/16/2023 10,000.00 COASTSIDE VICTIMS FUND52328 1760 STEPFORD 02/16/2023 4,674.00 FY22/23 IT SERVICES UNTIL DECEMBER 2022 52329 5536 ALTAMIRANO, GABRIELA 02/22/2023 670.50 DEPOSIT REFUND REQUEST52330 5372 CARTWRIGHT DESIGN STUDIO 02/22/2023 1,395.00 DESIGN SERVICE52331 5402 CDW GOVERNMENT 02/22/2023 1,153.00 IT SUPPLIES52332 4542 COLLEEN LETTIRE 02/22/2023 60.54 PEETS/COFFE FOR EOC52333 3404 ECS IMAGING INC. 02/22/2023 18,950.00 LASERFICHE RENEWAL52334 1283 KATHY OLER 02/22/2023 2,226.67 MAR' 23, TEMPORARY CITY PARKING LOT RENTAL 52335 5369 KIS 02/22/2023 1,777.00 OUTDOOR 4K NETWORK CAMERA52336 108 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 02/22/2023 300.00 MEMBERSHIP DUES52337 3069 MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK 02/22/2023 304.00 EAP52338 5403 ROBERT HALF 02/22/2023 6,735.00 TEMP EMPLOYEE W.Ngo/WEEK ENDING 01/20/2023 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
9 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - Summary HMB Page: 4 Check Issue Dates: 2/1/2023 - 2/28/2023 Mar 15, 2023 12:30PM Check Number Vendor Number Payee Check Issue Date Amount Description 52339 5535 SARABIA, ERIBERTO 02/22/2023 500.00 DEPOSIT REFUND REQUEST52340 3922 SCOTT MCVICKER 02/22/2023 3,360.00 MAR'23 ANNEX RENT52341 233 SMCPCSA 02/22/2023 1,000.00 MEMBERSHIP FEES52371 3923 WELLS FARGO 02/04/2023 15,094.43 AMAZON/SUPPLIES Grand Totals:
120 2,015,669.50
Report Criteria:

Report type: SummaryCheck.Type = "Calculated"
M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
10

BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: April 4, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Mathew Chidester, City Manager
FROM: Maz Bozorginia, Public Works Director/City Engineer Denice Hutten, Associate Engineer
TITLE: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ON-CALL GEOMORPHOLOGY

SERVICES
_____________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to award and execute a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) for On-Call Professional Geomorphology Services through June 30, 2024 to the most qualified consultant, Waterways Consulting, Inc., of Santa Cruz, CA, in an amount notto-exceed $50,000.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The FY 2022-23 budget has allocated sufficient funds for this contract award, potential contract changes, and project management from the Green Infrastructure and Storm Water Program (CIP No. 563).

STRATEGIC ELEMENT:

This action supports the Infrastructure and Environment, Healthy Communities and Public Safety Elements of the Strategic Plan.

BACKGROUND:

The City maintains approximately 11 miles of stormwater infrastructure and conducts annual routine maintenance, under an agreement with the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Five major creeks pass through city boundaries conveying stormwater ultimately to the Pacific Ocean— Arroyo de en Medio, Frenchmen’s Creek, Pilarcitos Creek, Arroyo Leon, and Arroyo Canada Verde all conveying flows from the vast watershed surrounding the City. Several private watercourses also are within the City limits, including channels that flow from the east, crossing Highway 1, and through various private properties.

Due to the impacts of climate change, bluff erosion, sea-level rise, development and other factors; the stormwater infrastructure continues to be a challenging and expensive issue to manage. Although there are some localized challenges related to portions of the enclosed or 11

“piped” network, the larger problems persist in open channel creeks, streams and ditches. The City’s approach to stormwater management is to consider long-term natural, geomorphic watershed review to work with the application of engineered principles.

On December 9, 2022, the City posted a Request for Qualifications for On-Call Geomorphology Services proposals from qualified firms. The scope of work includes review and support to the City on capital projects and master planning, including modeling and analysis of bank erosion, bed scour, sediment transport, and sediment deposition among others.

On January 12, 2023, the City received Statements of Qualifications from four well-qualified firms. On February 2, 2023, a City selection committee conducted interviews with each of the proposing firms. After careful consideration, Waterways Consulting Inc. was determined to be the most qualified and responsive professional.

DISCUSSION:

Waterways Consulting, Inc. is a small, full-service, owner-operated engineering and environmental consulting firm with offices in Santa Cruz, and Portland. Waterways was formed with the specific mission of fully integrating the science of geomorphology with practical engineering principles to improve the management and function of surface water systems and habitats.

Waterways has contributed to projects in the Pecadero-Butano watershed and is currently working with the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District to provide an assessment and management plan at lower Pescadero Creek, including habitat restoration and flood control management. Waterways has provided geomorphic assessments for a number of municipalities for watercourse repair and restoration projects.

City staff recommends the City Council to adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to award and execute a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) for On-call Geomorphology Services to Waterways Consulting, Inc., in and amount not to exceed $50,000.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Waterways Consulting, Inc. Rate Schedule
12 Resolution No. C-2023-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AWARD AND EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT FOR ON-CALL GEOMORPHOLOGY SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City seeks professionals to support its approach to stormwater management to consider long-term natural, geomorphic watershed review to work in conjunction with application of engineered principles; and, WHEREAS, the City has invited and opened four (4) Statements of Qualifications at the scheduled time, date and place as set forth in the Request for Qualifications for On-Call Geomorphology Services; and,
WHEREAS, the most qualified and responsive consultant was determined to be Waterways Consulting, Inc., of Santa Cruz, California; and, WHEREAS, sufficient funds are allocated in the City approved Capital Improvement Program under the Green Infrastructure and Stormwater Management Program (CIP No. 563) for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 for the recommended contract award.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay hereby accepts all Statements of Qualification and authorizes the City Manager to award and execute a Professional Services Agreement for On-Call Geomorphology Services to the most qualified and responsive consultant, Waterways Consulting, Inc., of Santa Cruz, California, in and amount not-to-exceed $50,0000.
***************************************************************** I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted on the 4th day of April 2023 by the City Council of Half Moon Bay by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
___________________________ _____________________________ Jessica Blair, City Clerk Deborah Penrose, Mayor
13 Ecological Restoration Design  ~  Civil Engineering  ~  Natural Resource Management 509A Swift St,  Santa Cruz, CA 95060,  Ph: 831‐421‐9291   //   1020 SW Taylor St., Ste. 380, OR 97205,  Ph: 503‐227‐5979 Client______ / Waterways ______
TABLE 3
WATERWAYS CONSULTING, INC.

Hourly Fee and Reimbursable Expense Schedule
Charges for Standard Services
The charges for services performed by the Waterways Professional Staff and other Waterways personnel shall be calculated on the basis of the number of hours worked on behalf of CLIENT at the hourly rate as of that staff position as set forth below, plus travel time and authorized overtime.

Waterways Professional Staff – VALID THROUGH JUNE 30th, 2023 Description                  Hourly Rate
Expert Witness         $375.00

SCIENCE STAFF
Principal Hydrologist/Geomorphologist   $175.00
Senior Hydrologist/Geomorphologist   $150.00
Science Technician       $120.00

ENGINEERING STAFF
Principal Engineer        $190.00
Senior Engineer         $165.00
Staff Engineer         $130.00
CAD Drafter/Junior Engineer     $115.00
Survey Team
1 Person         $185.00
2 Person         $295.00
Survey Team – Prevailing Wage
1 Person         $215.00
2 Person         $325.00
3 Person         $400.00
Non‐technical Staff       $ 70.00
Charges for non‐technical staff will be made for services specifically performed on CLIENT’S Project.  Overtime, authorized by CLIENT, shall be charged only for non‐exempt employees and calculated at the employee's listed rate multiplied by the factor required by applicable Labor Laws.

Charges for Reimbursable Expenses
Waterways shall be reimbursed for all out‐of‐pocket expenses incurred for the benefit of the CLIENT and/or the Project including the following:

A. Consultants: Consultants are independent professional persons or firms, hired with the approval of CLIENT to render specialized services.  Waterways shall be paid the actual cost of consultant's fee plus (10%) ten percent.

B. Testing Laboratories: If services of a testing laboratory are required, Waterways may retain these with the approval of CLIENT, and will be reimbursed for costs plus (10%) ten percent. 14 Ecological Restoration Design ~ Civil Engineering ~ Natural Resource Management Client ______ / Waterways ______
Travel: Travel charges shall be consist of the actual cost of transportation by air, sea, rail and other surface means as provided by regularly scheduled carriers, plus (10%) ten percent.  Air travel shall be business class where available and otherwise economy class.  The use of company and personal vehicles shall be billed at the then current IRS mileage reimbursement rate, currently $0.625 per mile.

Subsistence: Subsistence charges shall include the actual cost plus (10%) ten percent of meals, lodging and local transportation, including car rental costs incurred whenever Waterways employees are required to be away from their normal place of business.  In lieu of these actual costs plus ten percent (10%), Waterways and CLIENT may agree on a lump sum per diem charge to cover subsistence in writing.

Photocopies:

8.5x11,bw   $ 0.25

8.5x11, color   $ 0.75
11x17, bw   $ 0.50
11x17, color   $ 1.25
24x36, bw   $ 3.50
24x36, color   $ 6.00
Binding: Services for spiral binding of reports and other documents will be billed at $60.00 per document, minimum.

Other Reimbursable Costs/Expenses
Waterways shall be paid the actual cost plus ten percent of all other out‐of‐pocket expenses, including any applicable sales, use and city taxes, as well as miscellaneous outside services and facilities, equipment rental, duplicating and printing, long distance telephone calls, telexes and telegrams, postage and similar expenses incurred in connection with services performed for CLIENT.

Corporate Policy
Waterways has a corporate policy of reviewing compensation semiannually and adjusting salaries as of e.g. [Jan 1 and July 1] as appropriate.  Waterways will provide CLIENT with written notice of any changes in rates. 15

BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: April 4, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
FROM: Maziar Bozorginia, Public Works Director/City Engineer Veronika Vostinak, Public Works and Sustainability Programs Manager TITLE: ACCEPTANCE OF THE MIRAMONTES POINT SEA LEVEL RISE VULNERABILITY AND

FISCAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
RECOMMENDATION:

By resolution, accept the Miramontes Point Sea Level Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

STRATEGIC ELEMENT:

This action supports all Elements of the Strategic Plan.

BACKGROUND:

In April 2015, the City successfully secured a grant from the Ocean Protection Council to conduct a sea level rise (SLR) vulnerability assessment. The assessment addressed flooding, tsunami, and erosion risks exacerbated by sea level rise from the north end of the City limits to the north end of the Ocean Colony Golf Courses, at which point there was no longer USGS data available. This assessment was adopted by the City Council in April 2016. Since its completion, additional data for the area of Miramontes Point in southern Half Moon Bay to the south end of the city limits has become available.

In 2019, the County of San Mateo (County) began work on the South Coast Sea Level Rise Risk and Solutions Study, continuing south from Ocean Colony area to the Santa Cruz/San Mateo County line (South County).

In April 2021, the City’s comprehensive update to the Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) was certified by the Coastal Commission. The updated LUP incorporates policies about climate 16

change and sea level rise, such as Policy 7-11 that calls for the City to use best available sea level rise science to periodically assess vulnerable assets and develop adaptation strategies.

While the County incorporated this area into their South County Study, staff believed the unique nature of the properties and location within the City limits (e.g. Coastal Trail, Ocean Colony Golf Courses and Ritz Carlton) warranted a more tailored approach. Following release of the South County study, City staff reached out to the Integral Consulting, Inc. (Integral), the County’s consultant, to discuss expanding assessment and adaptation in the Ocean Colony area.

In November 2021, the City executed a contract with Integral under the City Manager’s authority to complete Phase 1 of a Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment (SLR Assessment). This work resulted in the consolidation of the entire City coastline into a single assessment. This allowed the County to proceed with South County work absent this small portion of the City. The current assessment was completed in two phases. Phase 1 included a vulnerability and economic impact assessment of the aforementioned area.

In December 2021, City and County staff provided an update to the City Council on the work being done by the County’s South County study and the City’s SLR Assessment and requested direction on Phase 2 of the SLR Assessment project. On February 1, 2022, the City Council approved an amendment request to fund and proceed with Phase 2 of the project. Phase 2 included topographic and image data collection of the area, evaluation of adaption alternatives, and public outreach. In August 2022, the Council received a presentation from Integral and provided feedback on the draft SLR Assessment. Staff received a comment letter from Ocean Colony Partners (OCP) regarding the draft assessment on September 8, 2022 (Attachment 1).

DISCUSSION:

The Miramontes Point Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment focuses on the southern end of the City limits, encompassing the approximate one mile stretch of coast extending from the southerly City limit to just south of Redondo Beach Road. Revenue generated from the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), sales tax, and property tax in this area accounts for a substantial percentage of the City’s entire budget. This study area includes a popular section of the California Coastal Trail, the Ritz Carlton Hotel, and two privately owned (open to public) golf courses (Old Course and Ocean Course).

The assessment was undertaken in two distinct phases. Phase 1 is an historical coastal bluff retreat analysis, using historical aerial photography, more recent lidar digital elevation models (DEMs), and a new photographic survey collected via drone in the winter of 2022 to understand the processes of bluff retreat and to generate rates of historical change for future vulnerability modeling. Cliff toe and bluff top edges were automatically extracted from the DEM surfaces using the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Cliff Delineation Tool and visually interpreted from the older aerial photography. The study then used the USGS Digital Shoreline Analysis System to measure rates and amount of change of the cliff toe and bluff top edge positions. The model accelerates historical rates of bluff retreat using future total water levels and generates exceedance curves for when the water levels will increasingly exceed both the cliff toe and the 17

contact between the geologic units. The increase in the area beneath the exceedance curve through time is a proxy for accelerated rates of bluff retreat. The estimated future bluff top positions are then translated to maps that show the bands of future bluff position, and also evaluates what assets will be impacted in which period (2020–2040, 2040–2070, and 2070– 2100). The study area was divided into six sections, extending from Section 1 in the north to Section 6 in the south. The report indicated that rates of erosion vary substantially along the study area, with the highest retreat rates occurring in the three northern sections, including Miramontes Point (near the most southerly portion of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel).

Phase 2 included a coastal bluff retreat vulnerability assessment that estimated what infrastructure would be at risk or lost due to bluff retreat with sea level rise for 2040, 2070, and 2100. The model used in the assessment accelerates historical rates of bluff retreat using future total water levels and generates exceedance curves for when the water levels will increasingly exceed both the cliff toe and the contact between the geologic units. The increase in the area beneath the exceedance curve through time is a proxy for accelerated rates of bluff retreat. The estimated future bluff top positions are then translated to maps that show the bands of future bluff position, and evaluates what assets will be impacted in which period (2020–2040, 2040– 2070, and 2070–2100). Overall, the study found a rapid acceleration of bluff retreat, increasing through time, with the highest retreat rates in the northern four sections of the study area.

Projections indicate that impacted infrastructure includes features associated with both golf courses, the Coastal Trail, the Ritz-Carlton Hotel and associated property amenities. Assets and infrastructure concentrated at Miramontes Point will experience the greatest impacts.

Additionally, the report outlines an estimate of the current economic value and the most feasible adaptation strategies for at-risk assets in the study area. Due to coastal regulations in California, and given the remoteness of the area, there are limited adaptation strategies available in the traditional, structural sense such as seawalls or riprap, and the strategies outlined in the assessment may slow bluff erosion but will not be sufficient to stop coastal retreat. As such, the forecasted bluff position estimates for 2040, 2070, and 2100 provide managers, decision makers, and property owners with the tools needed to understand what will likely need to be relocated, realigned, or removed, and what time horizons these actions will need to begin planning and implemented by to avoid these future erosion hazards.

In response to the comments provided by OCP, the assessment was updated to include a more accurate timeline of riprap removal. Additional information was also included to better reflect OCP’s improvements and irrigation practices as well as OCP’s observations of erosion rates monitored from 2006 to 2022.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Comment letter from Ocean Colony Partners

2. City of Half Moon Bay, Miramontes Point Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment

3. Resolution
18 OCP Comments on Integral Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment, dated August 10, 2022
(September 8, 2022)
Ocean Colony Partners, LLC (“OCP”), owner of the Half Moon Bay Golf Links, submits the following comments to the above-referenced sea level rise assessment (“Report”).

OCP is pleased to review and comment on the Report and applauds the City of Half Moon Bay (“City”) for its proactive role in addressing sea level rise and potential consequences.

OCP lacks the expertise or qualifications to comment on the scientific methodologies, assumptions and extrapolations utilized in the Report, or to assess whether the sea rise guidelines selected by Integral reflect current expert consensus or how they compare to any competing/alternative guidelines. Therefore, OCP has no comment on the calculations and projections in the Report regarding sea rise, increased wave action, sand displacement, bluff stability/erosion or other condition changes. Similarly, OCP make no comments on the economic impacts of future sea rise on the City, golf courses, Ritz hotel or any recreational facilities/amenities such as the coastal trail and beach staircase.

A. 2006 Riprap Removal And Other 18th Hole Work
Contrary to the Report, the vast majority of the Old Course 18th hole riprap was removed in 2006, not 2000, 2004, 2007 or 2008. At the time of that removal in 2006, OCP also: (i) removed the original 1973 concrete and metal slab structures under the 18th hole green and tee areas; (ii) relocated the 18th green landward by over 30’ and enlarged it so that it could be reduced if additional bluff erosion occurred and further “retreat” was necessary; (iii) moved the 18th hole tees landward by approximately 25’ to accommodate future bluff erosion; (iv) regraded bluff top areas seaward of the 18th green and tees to create a subtle “berm” to help eliminate direct bluff top irrigation and storm water runoff; (v) rerouted all surface and underground drainage systems landward from the 18th green and tees and redirected drainage to the 18th hole natural barranca and outfall; (vi) eliminated irrigation lines/sprinkler heads along several portions of the 18th hole bluff top; (vii) retained Go Native to remove areas of ice plant and plant extensive native vegetation on the top and face of the bluff to the extent possible; and (viii) erected split-rail wood fencing seaward of the 18th hole green and tees as a safety measure and to deter golfers or coastal visitors from entering those bluff top areas.

B. Post 2006 Riprap Removal Erosion
The Report (p. 24) suggests the riprap placed in 1998-2004 slowed erosion along the 18th green bluff. OCP did not find that to be the case. In fact, because of increased and redirected wave energy and significant sand displacement, the bluff face on each side of 19 the riprap deteriorated at a more rapid rate and contributed to several episodic incidents of bluff top failure during those years. Similarly, the Report’s statement that “erosion appears to have accelerated after the riprap was removed” (p. 24) is also inaccurate.

As noted in paragraph C below, the rate of bluff top erosion at the 18th hole green area (north of Hot Spot 3) between 2006 (when the riprap was fully removed) and 2022 has not exceeded 5-6” in 16 years (0.03125 feet per year). That rate of bluff top erosion is much less than identified in the Report (p. 24), and far less the historic erosion reported in the 2002 BAGG study (45’ between 1963 and 1998; average 1.286 feet per year) or the 2018 AECOM study reporting, 45-55’ of bluff erosion between 1973 and 2018 (average approximately 1.0 foot per year). It is important to understand that the BAGG study (commissioned by the then golf course operators to support its sea wall/riprap Coastal Development Permit application), primarily focused on Hot Spot 3, and the AECOM study focused on Hot Spot 4 (see pp. 24-25, Figure # 2-17). As can be seen in Figure 2- 16 (c) those two hot spots are actually south of the 18th green area, have not benefitted from the extensive 18th hole grading, drainage and irrigation mitigations instituted in 2006, appear to be areas with ongoing hotel surface irrigation and bluff top drainage runoff, enjoy less of a “cushioning” beach area at the cliff base, show much more ground water intrusion along the cliff base (assuming Figure 2-5 actually reflects ground water), have less rock outcroppings, and have a different orientation than the 18th green.

C. Old Course 18th Hole Green and Tee Bluff Top Erosion Since 2006 OCP monitors the bluff top erosion adjacent to the 18th hole green and tees on a regular semi-annual basis. Since the 2006 riprap removal and other work, OCP’s records show the bluff top at the 18th green area has eroded approximately 5-6” in 16 years, and erosion at the 18th tee area has eroded 6-7” in 16 years. It should be noted that the “fence erosion” shown in Figure 2-8 (c) is a 10-12’ area above and south of the 18th green complex at the property boundary with the hotel. OCP did no mitigation work in that location, and does not control the irrigation or drainage runoff in that area.

D. Old 1973 Hotel Piers, Grade Beams and Slab
The report correctly notes that the old hotel piers, grade beams and slab were constructed at Miramontes Point around 1973. While the report also correctly indicates that several of those piers (5-7) were removed in 2018 (p. 36, Figure 2-30) and that a few are still exposed (Figure 2-31), the report does not discuss the remaining piers, grade beams and slab foundation that may still be unexposed and underground beneath the seaward hotel landscaping, coastal trail and hotel improvements. We understand that the original 1973 hotel foundation may have included upwards of 20 deep piers with connecting grade beams and/or slab, and that aerial photographs and original hotel plans show those improvements. We are unaware of whether any of those piers, grade beams or slab components were removed during the Ritz hotel construction in the late 1990s, or what 20 impact they are having (or may have in the future) on bluff stability and erosion, particularly given the projected sea rise, increased wave action and sand displacement at this critical “hot spot”. When OCP elected in 2006 to remove the concrete slab and metal structures under the 18th hole green and tees, it was advised by its engineering consultants that the significant weight of such structures at the bluff top area would contribute to and accelerate bluff instability and erosion. The removed 18th hole concrete assemblies were de minimus in comparison to the size, weight and scope of the old hotel foundation complex.

E. Coastal Trail Realignment
Throughout the Report, there are numerous discussions of the near-term and long-term impact of sea rise and bluff erosion on the coastal trail and the likely need for it to be relocated landward and maintained. We agree that over time, portions of the existing coastal trail on the Ocean Course and Ritz properties may be lost or impacted. The report suggests in several sections (e.g., see p. 75-regulatory requirements/permits require the golf course to maintain the coastal trail and public access) that the golf course would be required to relocate and maintain the coastal trail even if it would subsume portions of the golf course property. That assertion is inconsistent with the coastal trail easement dedication history, the permit conditions and applicable law. It should be removed from the Report, clarified or legally supported.

The applicable Coastal Commission Permit (1-94-04; 12/13/94) for the Ocean Course in Section 3 required the golf course to construct and maintain specified public access improvements until such time as a public entity accepts any offer of dedication. With respect to the coastal trail all along the 16th, 17th and 18th holes of the Ocean Course, and around the hotel, an Offer of Dedication was recorded on 2/27/96 (Doc# 96022123) and on 1/22/99 (Doc# 99-011996), and fully accepted by the City of Half Moon Bay on 7/2/99 (Doc# 99-187000). Since those dedication acceptances, the City, not OCP or the Ritz, has been responsible for maintenance, repair, improvement and public access for the coastal trail. Additionally, in connection with Permit 1-94-04 and the Offer of Dedication a defined and specific easement area for the subject coastal trail was designated, surveyed and recorded. In neither the permit, the recorded easement nor any of the dedication documents is there any requirement whatsoever for relocating the coastal trail to other locations in the event of loss or destruction because of bluff erosion or other natural causes. And finally, it appears California law provides that an easement and easement use is terminated if the subject land (or burdened tenement) is destroyed.

Notwithstanding the permit/legal issues that may be involved in relocation of the coastal trail because of bluff erosion, OCP is prepared to cooperate reasonably with the City and other agencies if minor trail relocations become necessary provided they did not adversely impact the existing golf course layout and operations. As noted in paragraph F below, OCP has investigated the possibility of green, tee and golf hole redesigns and 21 reorientation due to future bluff top erosion. In most locations, OCP believes those changes, if necessary, could be accomplished and could accommodate some limited degree of coastal trail realignment. However, in some areas it would not be feasible (from a financial, design and operational standpoint) if the changes would involve significant relocation of portions of the coastal trail into fairways or close to greens and tees. In those cases, other options would need to be considered for the coastal trail.

F. Future Golf Course Design Changes and Reconfigurations Over the past several years, OCP has investigated potential sea rise issues and future bluff erosion, and has outlined possible golf course design and reconfiguration changes that may become necessary. The potential impacted areas primarily involve the Old Course 18th hole, and Ocean Course 16th, 17th, and 18th holes. With respect to the Old Course 18th hole; (i) the green is large enough to be reduced on its seaward side by upwards of 25’ and the right greenside bunker eliminated; (ii) the tees can easily be moved landward by up to 40’ and the adjacent cart path relocated; and (iii) future fairway erosion at Hot Spot #1 would not significantly affect golf play off the tee, but Hot Spot #2 could, with substantial future erosion, require narrowing of the fairway or a redesign landward. In terms of the Ocean Course 16th and 18th holes, the green, tees and fairways could be redesigned and relocated (or the 18th hole shortened or tee moved to north of Canada Verde Creek) if necessary, but only minor coastal trail relocations would be possible in several areas (Hot Spots # 5-7; and Undercut #2 and 3) without significant impacts to the golf course. Finally, the Ocean Course 17th hole presents the most difficultly at the green and some of the tee areas if there was future major bluff erosion in those areas. While some landward relocation is possible, any significant bluff erosion would likely require eliminating the hole and rebuilding another hole in an alterative location on the golf course. The existing coastal trail would also be threatened.

G. Irrigation, Ground Water and Drainage Comments
The Report states that extensive irrigation and runoff from the golf course and hotel are causing vegetation growth along the basal unit (p. 11; Figure 2-5) and high ground water levels. The Report also claims that “through year-round irrigation of the golf courses, there has been increased infiltration to the substrate” and “weakening the bluff-forming material and increasing pore pressures, which drives failures (p. 36)”.

Although, OCP is unaware of the hotel’s irrigation program or drainage system along the bluff tops, the golf course does not irrigate extensively in those areas on its property. In fact, the two locations noted in Figure 2-5 are almost exclusively below the hotel property. Furthermore, the Report seems to lack any reference to soil borings, or ground water investigations that would identify the existence of ground water or its levels in these areas. Given the soil composition of the golf course, the golf course’s current reduced irrigation scope, timing and locations (40% reduction since 2008), and OCP’s 22 history with extensive excavations, remodeling and deep earth work, we are doubtful that OCP’s current irrigation has contributed to groundwater penetration of the bluff base.

And finally, we can find nothing in the Report that substantiates that during the post golf course development and corresponding irrigation periods (Old Course 1973 and Ocean Course 1995), average annual bluff top erosion rates exceeded those from 1931/2 – 1973/1995 when there was no golf course development in the subject areas. Interesting enough, except for Miramontes Point and a few portions of Manhattan Beach, Figures 2-11, 2-16, 2-21, 2-24 and 2-29 seem to indicate that there has been minimal change, if any, in bluff top erosion along most areas of the golf courses from 1931/2 – 1973/1995 compared to the post development period of 1973/1995-2022. This would seem to call into question the Report’s conjecture that golf course irrigation is a significant “culprit” with respect to bluff instability and erosion. Indeed, the Report itself also acknowledges that comparison of historical erosion rates is difficult for a host of reasons (p. 13) and in several sections it notes that little bluff top erosion has occurred in many areas during these years. It should also be recognized that impacts resulting from annual rainfall, nonirrigation runoff, storm drainage from large areas east of Highway 1 though the Ocean Colony storm drainage system and golf course ponds, and other potentially contributing factors are not sufficiently mentioned or analyzed.
23 City of Half Moon Bay, Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment Photo: Integral Consulting, 2022
Prepared by

200 Washington Street
Suite 201
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
March 21, 2023
24 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. ii Normal

CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................................................iv List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................v List of Tables..............................................................................................................................................ix Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions............................................................................................x Disclaimer ..................................................................................................................................................xi Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................xii 1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................1 Purpose of this Study ............................................................................................................................1 Study Area ..............................................................................................................................................1 2 COASTAL PROCESSES AND HAZARDS.....................................................................................5

2.1 Waves...........................................................................................................................................5

2.2 Tides and Water Level Data .....................................................................................................8

2.3 Sea Level Rise .............................................................................................................................9

2.4 Coastal Erosion.........................................................................................................................10

2.5 Geology and Geomorphology................................................................................................11

2.6 Historical Erosion Section Overview ....................................................................................12

2.6.1 Section 1. Redondo Beach to Three Rocks Beach.........................................................17

2.6.2 Section 2. Three Rocks Beach to Miramontes Point ....................................................21

2.6.3 Section 3. Miramontes Point to Manhattan Beach North ...........................................26

2.6.4 Section 4. Manhattan Beach North to Cañada Verde Creek ......................................29

2.6.5 Section 5. Manhattan Beach South.................................................................................32

2.6.6 Section 6. Manhattan Beach South to HMB City Line ................................................34

2.7 Coastal Armoring and Anthropogenic Terrace Changes...................................................37 3 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH .........................................................................................38

3.1 Shore Sections and Subsection Block Delineation...............................................................38

3.2 Beach and Cliff Feature Delineation......................................................................................38

3.3 Rate of Sea Level Rise..............................................................................................................41

3.4 Nearshore Wave, Total Water Levels, and Exceedance Curve Calculations...................41 25 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. iii Normal

3.5 Erosion Rate Calculations .......................................................................................................45

3.6 Erosion Rate Results ................................................................................................................46 4 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT.................................................................................................49

4.1 Vulnerabilities ..........................................................................................................................51

4.2 Vulnerability Maps ..................................................................................................................53 5 ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT...........................................................................................................63 6 ADAPTATION PLANNING..........................................................................................................78

6.1 Protect........................................................................................................................................79

6.2 Accommodate...........................................................................................................................80

6.3 Managed Retreat/Realignment/Relocation...........................................................................81

6.4 Most Feasible Adaptation Approaches.................................................................................82

6.5 Adaptation Pathway................................................................................................................83

6.5.1 Short Term (0 to 10 years)...............................................................................................85

6.5.2 Medium Term (10 to 30 years) .......................................................................................85

6.5.3 Long Term (30 + years)....................................................................................................85 7 KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................85 References .................................................................................................................................................86 Appendix A...............................................................................................................................................89 Modern Timeline of Coastal Development and Major Erosion Events........................................89 Appendix B. ..............................................................................................................................................91 Digital Elevation Transect Model Comparison ...............................................................................91 26 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. iv Normal

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1 Integral Consulting
• David L. Revell, Ph.D., Project Director
• Matt Jamieson, GIS & Project Manager
• Cheryl Hapke, Ph.D., Coastal Scientist & Technical Advisor • Justin Cummings, Ph.D., Drone Surveying
• Sam Blakesley, Coastal Scientist
• Sam McWilliams, Coastal Scientist—Erosion Modeling
• Tim Nelson, Ph.D., Coastal Scientist—Erosion Modeling • Dave Anning, Ph.D., Environmental Economist
2 City of Half Moon Bay
• Veronika Vostinak, Sustainability Analyst
• Jennifer Chong, Public Works Program Manager
• John Doughty, Public Works Director
• Ocoee Wilson, Assistant Planner
27 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. v Normal
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Study area. ........................................................................................................................2 Figure 1-2. Drainage at Cañada Verde Creek. Source: Integral Consulting, 2022 ........................3 Figure 2-1. Conceptual diagram of the components of total water level. Image courtesy of Our Coast Our Future Web Platform (Point Blue and USGS 2021)..........................5 Figure 2-2. General wave patterns (degrees of azimuth) along the Central Coast (1993–2002) (Storlazzi and Wingfield 2005).......................................................................................7 Figure 2-3. Relative sea level trend for the NOAA San Francisco tide gauge (Station 9414290) ............................................................................................................................................9 Figure 2-4. Study-specific rate of sea level rise from 2020 to 2100, based on OPC Guidance (2018)................................................................................................................................10 Figure 2-5. Miramontes Point, with patches of vegetation evidence of high groundwater highlighted by the red ovals. Source: Integral Consulting, 2022...............................11 Figure 2-6. Lower portion of cliff is comprised of the Purisima Formation, which forms a steeper slope in most locales as compared to the upper bluff marine terrace deposits. Source: Integral Consulting, 2022..................................................................12 Figure 2-7. Site characteristics showing major points of interest and erosion features...........14 Figure 2-8. Site characteristics showing field photos....................................................................15 Figure 2-9. Site characteristics showing section-by-section geomorphic parameters..............16 Figure 2-10. Section 1. Source: Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, 2019 ................................................17 Figure 2-11. Historical and modern aerial photographs from 1931 (A), 1965 (B), and 2022 (C) of Section 1, the northernmost section of the study area. The hatched areas in panels B and C represent areas where there has been retreat of the cliff toe or bluff-top edge. ................................................................................................................18 Figure 2-12. The location of the toe at Three Rocks Beach Point can be seen to extend out the location of the offshore rock. Source: Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, 1972 ..............19 Figure 2-13. Very steep section near the 18th hole tee boxes. Source: Google Earth, 2022 ...........20 Figure 2-14. Section 2: Three Rocks Beach to Miramontes Point. Source: Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, 2019..................................................................................................................21 Figure 2-15. Miramontes Point before the development of Ocean Colony. Source: Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, 1972 ..................................................................................................22 28 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. vi Normal
Figure 2-16. Historical and modern aerial photographs from 1931 (A), 1965 (B), and 2022 (C) of Section 2, the portion of the study area that includes Miramontes Point and the Ritz-Carlton.....................................................................................................................23 Figure 2-17. Left: Blue circle – Location of Bay Area Geotechnical Study in 2002. Red circle – Location of erosion near the Ocean Lawn of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, 2006. Right:

A fence was erected, which has been subsequently undermined, in 2022. Source:

Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman 2006 & Integral Consulting, 2022..................................24 Figure 2-18 Left - Riprap in place in 2002. Exposed pier foundation structure in the late 2000s. Source: Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, 2002, VisualHunt.com CC. ..................26 Figure 2-19. Geologic cross section at the Miramontes Point from the AECOM study, 2017...26 Figure 2-20. Section 3: Miramontes Point to Manhattan Beach North. Source: Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, 2019 ..................................................................................................27 Figure 2-21. Historical and modern aerial photographs from 1931 (A), 1965 (B), and 2022 (C) of Section 3. .....................................................................................................................28 Figure 2-22. Section 4: Manhattan Beach North to Cañada Verde Creek. Source: Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, 2019 ..................................................................................................29 Figure 2-23. Steep and concave bluff is indicative of recent, rapid erosion at hot spot #7.

Source: Google Earth, 2022 .............................................................................................30 Figure 2-24. Historical and modern aerial photographs from 1931 (A), 1965 (B), and 2022 (C) of Section 4 ......................................................................................................................31 Figure 2-25. Section 5: Manhattan Beach North to Cañada Verde Creek. Source Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, 2019 ..................................................................................................32 Figure 2-26. Historical and modern aerial photographs from 1931 (A), 1965 (B), and 2022 (C) of Section 5. .....................................................................................................................33 Figure 2-27. Section 6: Manhattan Beach South to HMB City Line. Source: Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, 2019..................................................................................................................34 Figure 2-28. Waves crashing along the cliff of Section 6 near the 17th tee boxes. Source: Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, 2002 ..............................................................................................34 Figure 2-29. Historical and modern aerial photographs from 1931 (A), 1965 (B), and 2022 (C) of Section 6. .....................................................................................................................36 Figure 2-30. Left: Riprap structure and foundation piers in place, 2004. Right: Riprap is no longer present and some of the foundation piers were removed in 2019. Source:

Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman 2004 & 2019....................................................................37 29 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. vii Normal
Figure 2-31. Remnants of the foundation piers that remain, 2022. These piers were not fully exposed from the bluff in the 2004 image. Source: Integral Consulting, 2022.........37 Figure 2-32. Toe protection of beach access stairway. Source: Integral Consulting, 2022 ...........38 Figure 3-1. Example of wave parameters including significant wave height, peak period, as well as total water level for the nearshore at Station 2 (corresponding to Section 2).......................................................................................................................................42 Figure 3-2. Total water level exceedance curve for each section (station) for 1995 to 2100 along with toe and bluff contact elevations for each section...................................43 Figure 3-3. Total water level exceedance curves for each section (station) for each period of time. .................................................................................................................................44 Figure 3-4. Left: Example of a DSAS linear regression rate statistic represented as a best-fit regression line (dotted line) among the bluff-top locations (colored points). The yellow shaded line represents the 95 percent confidence band for the position of the regression line. This band was used to determine the factor of safety. Right:

Example of the area represented under both the existing (red) and future (shades of blue) exceedance curve and above the toe elevation (green line). .....................45 Figure 4-1. Acceleration of erosion rates. The blue shaded area represents the range of erosion rates among all subsection blocks..................................................................49 Figure 4-2. Erosion rates by study area subsection blocks. Not particularly in Sections 2 and 4 that sea level rise tends to accelerate the projected erosion distances more rapidly. ............................................................................................................................50 Figure 4-3. Future bluff position envelope for near-, mid-, and long-term within the northern portion of Section1 (Section 1a)....................................................................................54 Figure 4-4. Future bluff position envelope for near-, mid-, and long-term within the southern portion of Section1 (Section 1b). ..................................................................................55 Figure 4-5. Future bluff position envelope for near-, mid-, and long-term within the northern portion of Section 2 (Section 2a)...................................................................................56 Figure 4-6. Future bluff position envelope for near-, mid-, and long-term within the southern portion of Section 2 (Section 2b). .................................................................................57 Figure 4-7. Future bluff position envelope for near-, mid-, and long-term within the northern portion of Section 3 (Section 3a)...................................................................................58 Figure 4-8. Future bluff position envelope for near-, mid-, and long-term bluff position envelope within the southern portion of Section 3 (Section 3b) and the northern portion of Section 4 (Section 4a)...................................................................................59 30 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. viii Normal
Figure 4-9. Future bluff position envelope for near-, mid-, and long-term within the southern portion of Section 4 (Section 4b). .................................................................................60 Figure 4-10. Future bluff position envelope for near-, mid-, and long-term within Section 5..61 Figure 4-11. Future bluff position envelope for near-, mid-, and long-term within Section 6..62 Figure 5-1. The layout of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel West / East Wing ...........................................74 Figure 6-1. A range of green to gray adaptation strategies intended to mitigate erosion, flooding, or both Source: www.habitatblueprint.noaa.gov/living-shorelines................79 Figure 6-2. Potential adaptation pathway timeline.......................................................................84 31 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. ix Normal
List of Tables
Table 3-1. Data Sets Used in Cliff Feature Delineation...............................................................39 Table 3-2. Bluff Top and Cliff Toe Erosion Result.......................................................................48 Table 5-1. Parcel Value Averages for 2018–2022 by APN ..........................................................64 Table 5-2. Average Values by Category for 2018–2022...............................................................65 Table 5-3. Events by Type at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel...................................................................66 Table 5-4. Property Tax Revenue by Property and Year............................................................70 Table 5-5. Business Improvement District Revenue (2018–2020)..............................................71 Table 5-6. Golf Course Fees ............................................................................................................71 Table 5-7. Estimated Economic Impact of Erosion......................................................................73 Table 5-8. Estimated Value of Potential Direct Damage to Ritz-Carlton Hotel ......................75 Table 5-9. Length of Trail Affected by Cliff Erosion by Time Period and Estimated Cost....76 Table 6-1. Feasibility of Adaptation Solutions .............................................................................82 32 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. x Normal
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
basal unit Lower geologic formation of the cliff
BID Business Improvement District
bluff Soft unconsolidated materials found in the marine terrace deposits bluff contact Location where the bluff meets the cliff
cliff Hard consolidated rock under the bluff
CCC California Coastal Commission
CoSMoS Coastal Storm Modeling System
DEM Digital Elevation Model
DSAS Digital Shoreline Analysis System (USGS)
ENSO El Niño Southern Oscillation
HMB Half Moon Bay
MHW Mean High Water
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OPC California Ocean Protection Council
PDO Pacific Decadal Oscillation
SWL still water level (observed tides including storm surge effects) toe of the cliff Location where the base of the cliff meets the beach TOT Transient Occupancy Tax
TWL Total Water Level (tides + wave run-up)
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
LCP Local Coastal Program
LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
33 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. xi Normal
Disclaimer
This study is part of an ongoing process to understand and prepare for coastal erosion associated with sea level rise for the City of Half Moon Bay around Miramontes Point. The maps and associated analyses are intended as planning tools to illustrate projected hazard exposure to existing infrastructure and other resources associated with a variety of future sea level rise scenarios.

There are inherent uncertainties associated with modeling and projecting future hazards and their potential impacts. Maps and tables produced for this report are based on model outputs and cannot account for all complex and dynamic ocean, terrestrial, and anthropogenic processes or future adaptation approaches such as shoreline protection. The contributors and sponsors of this product do not assume liability for any injury, death, or property damage. 34 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. xii Normal
Executive Summary
The City of Half Moon Bay (HMB) is a small incorporated city on the Pacific coast of central California 25 miles south of San Francisco. The majority of the city’s coastal cliffs are of variable height, except for the area immediately adjacent to Pillar Point Harbor. Narrow beaches are located seaward of the cliffs in most locations. Seasonal winter storms impact the coast, eroding beaches and causing coastal bluff retreat.

The project study area is located near the southern boundary of the city. There are two golf courses, a Ritz-Carlton Hotel, and a popular section of the California Coastal Trail (hereafter referred to as the Coastal Trail). These recreational and tourism facilities are large contributors to the overall economy of Half Moon Bay, with revenue from the Ritz-Carlton Hotel representing nearly one-fifth of the entire city budget (Schnayerson 2021). There is growing concern that with continual seasonal storms and higher sea levels associated with climate change, some of the recreational facilities will be impacted. This leads to the need to understand possible future vulnerabilities and when the various facilities will be affected by retreating bluffs.

Integral Consulting Inc. (Integral) was awarded a contract with the City of HMB in December 2021 to conduct a Miramontes Point Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment. The project was undertaken in several phases. Phase 1 is a historical coastal bluff retreat analysis to understand the processes of bluff retreat and to generate rates of historical change which are required for future vulnerability modeling. This was accomplished using both historical aerial photography, more recent lidar digital elevation models (DEMs), and a new photographic survey collected via drone in the winter of 2022. Cliff toe and bluff top edges were automatically extracted from the DEM surfaces using the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Cliff Delineation Tool (Seymour et. al. 2016) and visually interpreted from the older aerial photography. The study then used the USGS Digital Shoreline Analysis System (Himmelstoss et. al. 2018) to measure rates and amount of change of the cliff toe and bluff top edge positions.

The study area was divided into six sections, extending from Section 1 in the north to Section 6 in the south. The sections are largely based on the orientation, geology, and morphology of the cliffs. The geology throughout the study area is variable in that there is a lower, basal unit of the Purisima Formation overlain by poorly consolidated marine terrace deposits. The Purisima Formation dips to the northeast, and as a result, its thickness in the cliff face varies from as low as three ft in the north to more than 30 ft to the south. The Purisima Formation is more resistant to erosion than the marine terrace deposits, and where wave runup exceeds, or will exceed in the future, the contact between the two units, and rates of bluff retreat are expected to be higher.

As such, rates of erosion vary substantially along the study area, with the highest retreat rates occurring in the three northern sections, including Miramontes Point. The lowest rates were 35 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. xiii Normal
measured in the southernmost section, where the thickness of the stronger basal unit is the highest.

As part of Phase 2, a coastal bluff retreat vulnerability assessment was undertaken to estimate what infrastructure would be at risk or lost due to bluff retreat in future periods with sea level rise for 2040, 2070, and 2100. Impacted infrastructure includes features associated with two golf courses, the Coastal Trail, the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, and associated hotel property amenities.

Forecasting future bluff retreat position is a complex undertaking, and the methods used applied appropriate state of the science models. However, there are a number of associated assumptions and uncertainties, such that the outcomes presented in this report should be considered as estimates to be used for planning and decision-making, but are not absolute. As a result, the outcomes are presented as bands of potential future bluff positions to account for uncertainties.

The model used to forecast future bluff positions for this study is based on methods developed by ESA (2016) and adapted from work by Revell et al. (2011). The model is applicable for cliff compositions that have variable lithologies, like those found in the study area. The model accelerates historical rates of bluff retreat using future total water levels and generates exceedance curves for when the water levels will increasingly exceed both the cliff toe and the contact between the geologic units. The increase in the area beneath the exceedance curve through time is a proxy for accelerated rates of bluff retreat. The estimated future bluff top positions are then translated to maps that show the bands of future bluff position, and evaluate what assets will be impacted in which period (2020–2040, 2040–2070, and 2070–2100).

Overall, the study found a rapid acceleration of bluff retreat, increasing through time, with the highest retreat rates in the northern four sections of the study area. By 2040, features at risk include small portions of the Coastal Trail and two scenic overlook areas. By 2070, features at risk include a tee box, areas of rough in the bluff-adjacent portions of the golf course, as well as portions of the Coastal Trail. Features at risk by 2100 include fairways, greens, and tee boxes associated with the golf courses, nearly 1,500 ft of the Coastal Trail, and the Miramontes Terrace of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, as well as 1,500 sq ft of the hotel structure. Assets and infrastructure concentrated at Miramontes Point will experience the greatest impacts.

Due to coastal regulations in California, and given the remoteness of this locale, there are limited adaptation strategies available in the traditional, structural sense such as seawalls or riprap. Reducing irrigation and possibly regrading certain areas may help to slow the retreat of the bluff, but will not be sufficient to stop it, as the bluff retreat is driven by a combination of marine and terrestrial processes. The forecasted bluff position bands for 2040, 2070, and 2100 time periods, however, do provide managers and decision makers with the tools needed to understand what will likely need to be relocated, realigned, or removed, and what time 36 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. xiv Normal
horizons these actions will need to begin planning and implemented by to avoid these future erosion hazards.
37 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 1 Normal
1 INTRODUCTION
Purpose of this Study
The purpose of this study is to identify and project existing and future vulnerabilities, economic impacts, and adaptation planning options to coastal erosion hazards and sea level rise at the study site in southern Half Moon Bay (HMB). As sea level rises, the dynamics of beach erosion and bluff retreat will shift, increasing the risk of damage to two golf courses, a popular recreational trail, beach access infrastructure, and the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, which together constitute the study area.

This study will provide technical information based on the best science to understand when the various features on the bluff top will be impacted in the future with continued storms plus sea level rise forecast out to the year 2100. It will also provide an economic assessment of the impacts and losses to the community and the City of HMB. Although there is not a wide array of adaptation strategies available for this stretch of coastline due to the geomorphology, wave exposure, and state policies, the study does provide recommendations for viable adaptation strategies as well as suggested planning horizons for implementing the strategies.

Study Area
The Miramontes Point study area is located at the southern end of the City of HMB adjacent to the Ocean Colony and Cañada Cove neighborhoods and encompasses a one-mile stretch of coast between Redondo Beach and the city limit to the south (Figure 1-1). 38 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 2 Normal
Figure 1-1. Study area.
39 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 3 Normal
The area is characterized by medium to high coastal bluffs fronted by a relatively narrow beach.

A golf course, recreation trail, and the Ritz-Carlton Hotel are on the top of the bluff within the study area. The recreation trail is part of the California Coastal Trail (hereinafter referred to as the Coastal Trail) and is a 10-ft-wide paved path located at the bluff top with a beach access stairway immediately north of Cañada Verde Creek in the middle of the study area. Cañada Verde Creek is the largest drainage in the area, and it creates a roughly 200-ft break in the bluffs (Figure 1-2). A small watercourse also drains at the northern section of the study area through the Old Course 18th fairway and is the outlet for stormwater from the Ocean Colony neighborhood to the east. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel is the only structure in the study area.

Figure 1-2. Drainage at Cañada Verde Creek. Source: Integral Consulting, 2022 The study area is crenulated, similar to many locations on the central California coast. There are changes in orientation, and numerous promontories and embayments; both of which impact the wave energy reaching the cliff during any given wave event. In addition, there are alongshore variations in the bluff elevation, the geological makeup of the cliff, and variable exposure of rocks in the surf zone that all influence rates of retreat. To accommodate the variations, for the 40 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 4 Normal
vulnerability assessment and the forecasts of future cliff retreat, the study area was divided into six sections (Figure 1-1).

The largest coastal promontory in the study area, Miramontes Point, is located in the southern portion of Section 2. Another small, unnamed point (referred to herein as Manhattan Beach Point) defines the boundary between Sections 5 and 6, south of Cañada Verde Creek.

Manhattan Beach stretches along most of Sections 3–6 and can be accessed from the stairs at Cañada Verde Creek, although the southern stretch of the beach south of Manhattan Beach Point is narrow and is rarely accessible. Three Rocks Beach is a narrow stretch of beach within Sections 1–2 and is seasonally accessible from Manhattan Beach when tides are low enough for one to walk around Miramontes Point (Figure 1-1).

The study area is a popular destination for tourists and locals for recreation, including golfing, walking and biking along the Coastal Trail, and visiting the beach. As mentioned in the City’s Local Coastal Program, the long-term viability of and access to the Coastal Trail is a community priority, as it widely serves residents and visitors alike as a significant recreational, scenic, and low-cost visitor-serving experience (City of Half Moon Bay 2020). 41 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 5 Normal
2 COASTAL PROCESSES AND HAZARDS
Coastal processes along the HMB coast that create coastal hazards include tides, waves, and related storm conditions. An important measure of coastal hazards is the total water level (TWL) elevation—the combined effect of wave run-up height, storm surge, tides, and sea level elevations (Figure 2-1). River discharge is not a contributing factor to TWL in the study area. A combination of large waves occurring at high tides during storm conditions poses the largest potential for coastal erosion; including beach erosion and bluff retreat. As sea levels rise, both the wave run-up dynamics and the tide elevations will change, leading to higher total water levels for longer durations. Each coastal process is summarized below.

Figure 2-1. Conceptual diagram of the components of total water level. Image courtesy of Our Coast Our Future Web Platform (Point Blue and USGS 2021).

2.1 Waves
Waves created by distant and local winds, are one of the key drivers of wave run-up and resulting coastal change. When distantly generated waves approach the coast as swell, they interact with coastal and bathymetric features. A wave measured at a buoy offshore in deep water is quite different from one that breaks at the coast. Although Pillar Point refracts waves in the vicinity of Pillar Point Harbor and the coastline to the immediate south, the study area for this analysis is too far south to be impacted, and therefore is openly exposed to waves and swell from any westerly direction.
42 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 6 Normal
The waves that approach the study site are characterized by three dominant types, depending on their wave source and direction. The northern hemisphere waves typically are generated by cyclones in the North Pacific during the winter and bring the largest waves (up to 25 ft). The southern hemisphere waves are generated in the Southern Ocean during the summer months and produce smaller waves with longer wave periods (greater than 20 seconds). Local wind waves are generated throughout the year; either because of storms coming ashore during the winter, or strong sea breezes in the spring and summer. The shoreline varies in orientation throughout the site, trending either north–northwest or north–northeast, and therefore may be affected differently by the angles of wave approach.

Most wave energy approaches the study site from the northwest and west (Storlazzi and Wingfield 2005). This swell tends to peak in size and period during the winter months.

Additional wave energy from the northwest approaches the area in the form of wind waves, which occur frequently between April and October (Storlazzi and Wingfield 2005). During the summer months, strong storms in the southern hemisphere generate swell, although this occurs with less frequency and intensity (Figure 2-2). Wave climate fluctuates over interannual and longer time periods with ocean-atmosphere oscillations like the El Niño southern oscillation (ENSO). These storms tend to follow a more southerly track when El Niño conditions are strongest, resulting in more erosion potential for the study area. El Niño conditions generally occur every three to seven years, with particularly intense events every 10 to 20 years (Storlazzi and Griggs 2000). There are also longer-term climatic oscillations such as the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO). PDO warm phases have been associated with periods of increased storm frequency and intensity, resulting in accelerated erosion rates (Orme et al. 2011; Russell and Griggs 2012).
43 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 7 Normal
Figure 2-2. General wave patterns (degrees of azimuth) along the Central Coast (1993–2002) (Storlazzi and Wingfield 2005).

Waves change as they approach the shore, and bathymetry and wave conditions drive this change in a process called wave transformation, which is an important component in assessing vulnerabilities for this project. Waves break offshore at depths that are related to the wave height and the wave period. In general, the bigger the wave and the longer the wave period, the 44 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 8 Normal
deeper the water the wave will break. Smaller waves can travel much closer to shore before breaking and often pose more risk of causing damage than larger waves. Once the wave breaks, it runs up the shoreline and the slopes and roughness affect its elevation and inland extent across the surf zone and beach. Depending on the frequency of breaking waves, wave setup can occur when a series of breaking waves pile up water allowing subsequent waves to travel closer to shore before breaking with more energy. As sea levels rise, not only will the still water level (SWL) be affected, but the deeper water close to shore will allow waves to break closer to shore with less potential to dissipate the wave energy.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has created a database of nearshore waves that include hindcast, as well as modeled historical and future projected waves for the coast of California, as part of the Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS; https://www.usgs.gov/data/coastalstorm-modeling-system-cosmos-southern-california-v30-phase-2). The wave data are derived from a series of wave buoys located in deeper water. This study utilized the USGS nearshore wave data to then calculate total water levels at the study site (see the Methodology and Approach section in this report for additional detail).

2.2 Tides and Water Level Data
Tides in the study area are mixed, predominantly semidiurnal, and are composed of two low and two high water levels of unequal heights per 24.8-hour tidal cycle. Typically, the largest tide ranges in a year occur in late December to early January when the moon and sun are in alignment and closest in their orbits to the earth. These astronomical high tides are known as “king tides,” and often result in coastal flooding unrelated to storm events.

Maximum water levels occur due to astronomical tides, wind surges, wave setup, density anomalies, long waves (including tsunamis), and El Niño and PDO events. On longer time scales, the tides will reach higher elevations as sea level rise rates accelerate. The San Francisco Station 9414290, the station nearest to HMB with readings extending to the mid-1800s, is shown below (Figure 2-3). The relative sea level rise trend in this graph shows 1.97 mm/yr. with a 95 percent confidence interval of ±0.18 mm/yr. based on monthly mean sea level data from 1897 to 2020, which is equivalent to a change of 0.65 ft in 100 years. These measured local relative sea level rise trends when compared to the global average provide estimates of land motion, in this case, the land is rising, but just not as fast as sea levels. 45 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 9 Normal
Figure 2-3. Relative sea level trend for the NOAA San Francisco tide gauge (Station 9414290)

2.3 Sea Level Rise
Sea level rise is not the same everywhere around the world. Due to local differences in tectonic uplift; isostatic rebound; subsidence caused by oil, gas, and groundwater extraction; and saltwater intrusion; the land itself is moving vertically. According to OPC (2018), California experienced about seven inches of sea level rise from 1905 to 2005, and the rate of increase is projected to continue to increase over this century. Based on the updated sea level rise science, in 2018, the California Ocean Protection Council (OPC) and California Coastal Commission (CCC) both issued guidance documents that are meant to guide local jurisdictions on sea level rise planning. They are:
• State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance Year 2018 Update, adopted by OPC in 2018 • CCC Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance, certified by the Coastal Commission in 2018 Based on this guidance, this study used a medium–high-risk aversion scenario which sees 6.5 ft of sea level rise between 2020 and 2100 (Figure 2-4).
46 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 10 Normal
Figure 2-4. Study-specific rate of sea level rise from 2020 to 2100, based on OPC Guidance (2018).

2.4 Coastal Erosion
Several important physical processes shape the coastline in the study area—beach erosion and progradation, and coastal bluff retreat. Beaches can gain or lose sand in both the cross-shore and alongshore directions. Beaches are continually shaped by waves, and a common pattern along the central California coast is for beaches to erode in the winter in response to winter storms, then gradually build back in the summer. The beaches in the study area vary in width, and wider beaches provide more protection to the coastal cliffs. As sea levels rise, however, even the relatively wider beaches will experience more inundation and the duration that the cliffs are exposed to wave energy will increase. Beaches also change due to the alongshore transport of sediment, and within the study area, the dominant direction of transport is from the northwest to the southeast (Griggs and Patsch 2007). This means that if a beach to the north erodes, some of the sediment will gradually move to the south and may cause beaches at the site to prograde.

Coastal bluff retreat processes are somewhat more complex due to the episodic nature of bluff failure that can be driven by marine, terrestrial, or human-induced forcing. Over time, the more frequently coastal cliffs are exposed to waves, the more they will retreat. As wave energy and scouring attack the cliff base, this can lead to instability and bluff failure. For a time, the bluff material from the retreat event may stay on the beach, protecting it from further wave attacks.

However, this material will gradually erode, leaving the bluff exposed once again. 47 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 11 Normal
Coastal bluffs can also retreat after heavy precipitation events or a series of high rainfall days. In general, there is a lag time between rainfall events and bluff failure. As the rain infiltrates and saturates the bluff-forming material and increases the pore pressure, it can drive retreat occurrences. Rainfall can also cause erosion in very soft bluffs via overland flow, as the rain cascades over the bluff top and down the cliff face, the running water can form rivulets and small gullies. It is fairly common for big storm events to have both large waves and high rainfall, which results in coastal bluff retreat from a combination of the two.

One of the predominant ways that human activities can contribute to bluff retreat is by irrigation, especially near the bluff top. These activities are generally associated with landscaping or agriculture. In the study area, both the golf courses and the Ritz-Carlton Hotel irrigate their lawns and greens. Irrigation water, along with contributions from other sources such as non-irrigation stormwater runoff and drainage from areas higher in the local basin, can contribute to saturation through the basal unit. This is evident by the vegetation growing along the basal unit highlighted by the red ovals in Figure 2-5. Note that saturation through the basal unit is highly variable, as is apparent with the relative lack of vegetation growing at the point itself. Saturation of the basal unit and weaken it, thus accelerating erosion.

Figure 2-5. Miramontes Point (just under the hotel property) with patches of vegetation evidence of high groundwater highlighted by the red ovals. Source: Integral Consulting, 2022 Overall, coastal erosion is episodic and nonlinear, making it difficult to estimate the position of the bluff top for any given future year. A portion of bluff may retreat one year, and then remain relatively stable for many years after. As a result, bluff retreat rates are highly variable year to year, and across spatial scales.

2.5 Geology and Geomorphology
The cliffs within the study area are composed of Miocene to late-Pliocene siltstones and mudstones of the Purisima Formation, which are overlain by Pleistocene marine terrace deposits. The Purisima Formation is more resistant to erosion than the overlying marine terrace deposits, which are composed of loosely consolidated gravels, sands, and clays. As a result, in 48 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 12 Normal
many areas, especially in the northern and central parts of the study area, the slopes of the two units are different, with the Purisima Formation forming a near-vertical face and the marine terrace deposits generally more gently sloping (Figure 2-6). In some areas, the marine terrace deposits have eroded more quickly than the underlying Purisima Formation creating a ledge or platform. The Purisima Formation dips to the northeast and as a result, the thickness of the basal unit exposed varies significantly along the length of the study area, ranging from only a thin layer less than three ft thick in the north to more than 30 ft thick in the southern area (Figure 2-7).

Figure 2-6. Lower portion of cliff is comprised of the Purisima Formation, which forms a steeper slope in most locales as compared to the upper bluff marine terrace deposits. Source: Integral Consulting, 2022

2.6 Historical Erosion Section Overview
This section provides a series of study area diagrams, maps, and a description of each section along with an overview of locations of historical erosion as well as sea caves and undercuts of the basal unit. Included in each section is a three-panel map comparing cliff feature locations over time. Note that the historical three-panel maps include bluff-top locations for all three years, 1932, 1965, and 2022, however, the cliff toe is unresolvable in the imagery prior to 1965.

As a result, while historical bluff retreat is calculated using all dataset years, toe retreat is only calculated from 1965 to 2022.

Bluff: Composed
of Marine Terrace
Deposits
Cliff: Composed
of the Purisima
Formation
Bluff contact
location: Where
the two meet
49 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 13 Normal
Where previous studies have been made available, results have been compared in this study for reference. Site-specific studies were available for areas in Section 2, where findings were compared to previous studies by the Bay Area Geotechnical Group in 2004 and from AECOM in 2017. Direct comparison of historical erosion rates is difficult because they rely on different data sources, cover different time periods, utilize different bluff-top delineation techniques and transect orientations, and report different statistics. 50 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 14 Normal
Figure 2-7. Site characteristics showing major points of interest and erosion features. 51 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 15 Normal
Figure 2-8. Site characteristics showing field photos.
52 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 16 Normal
Figure 2-9. Site characteristics showing section-by-section geomorphic parameters. 53 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 17 Normal

2.6.1 Section 1. Redondo Beach to Three Rocks Beach
Section 1 extends from Redondo Beach at the northern end of the HMB Golf Links to a small creek that drains at the 18th hole fairway, and is defined by a narrow beach in the southern area and a wider beach in the north. This section is punctuated by a coastal promontory referred to herein as Three Rocks Beach Point and there is rock outcropping in the nearshore waters just off of the point. The 18th hole of the Old Course lies on top of the bluff (Figure 2-10). This part of the course was first built in the early 1970s, then redesigned in 2000, when the 18th hole tee boxes, many of which were once close to the bluff-top edge, were moved inland ~30 ft1.

This section is oriented north–northeast along its northern half and north–northwest south of Three Rocks Beach Point. The exposure of the Purisima Formation in this section ranges from less than three ft at the northern end and thickens to ~ 10 ft on the southern end, and the bluff is more than 70 ft in elevation to the north and slopes down to a low of ~38 ft in the south towards the small creek (Figure 2-9 and Figure 2-10).

Figure 2-10. Section 1. Source: Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, 2019 1 Ocean Colony Partners, owners of the golf course, have monitored erosion at the 18th tee area. Between 2006 and 2022, they have recorded 6-7 inches of erosion (OCP 2022). 54 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 18 Normal
Figure 2-11. Historical and modern aerial photographs from 1931 (A), 1965 (B), and 2022 (C) of Section 1, the northernmost section of the study area. The hatched areas in panels B and C represent areas where there has been retreat of the cliff toe or bluff-top edge.
55 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 19 Normal
Erosion Hot Spots #1 and #2
Figure 2-11 shows aerial images of Section 1 from 1931 (A), 1965 (B), and 2022 (C). The hatched areas, which are areas of retreat of the cliff toe and bluff-top edge indicate a substantial amount of toe retreat between 1965 and 2022, and gradual retreat of the bluff top edge, except for two erosion hot spots directly at and just south of Three Rocks Beach Point. Significant loss of the toe can be seen after 1972, as at this point the toe can still be seen to extend to the location of the first set of lateral offshore rock (Figure 2-12).

Figure 2-12. The location of the toe at Three Rocks Beach Point can be seen to extend out the location of the offshore rock. Source: Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, 1972 Area of Erosion Concern: Very Steep Section
The area just shoreward of the 18th hole tee boxes, extending ~60 ft long and ~20–25 ft high above a wave-cut platform, is a very steep section of bluff that is near-vertical towards the top of the bluff face (see ‘Very Steep Section’ in Figure 2-11 panel C, Figure 2-13). Despite significant erosion at Three Rocks Beach Point, there has been very little change in the bluff-top location in this stretch from 1931/2 to 2022. This location may be protected due to the offshore rock, a more protected shore orientation, and a wider beach than the area to the immediate south. Despite this, the area may be at increased vulnerability to erosion as sea levels rise and wave attack of soft bluff accelerates.
56 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 20 Normal
Figure 2-13. Very steep section near the 18th hole tee boxes. Source: Google Earth, 2022 57 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 21 Normal

2.6.2 Section 2. Three Rocks Beach to Miramontes Point
Section 2 extends from the creek at the 18th fairway to Miramontes Point and the Ritz-Carlton Hotel (Figure 2-14). Historically, a parking lot and vehicle turnaround terminated at Miramontes Point and are visible in historical aerials between the early 1960s to the 1980s. Due to the threat of coastal erosion, the golf course was redesigned and in 2006 changes to the approach to the green, the green itself, and two sand traps that were close to the bluff-top edge were replaced with a single trap further from the bluff-top edge2. Due to continued erosion, the Miramontes Point overlook lawn has been moved inland about 15 ft. The previous layout of both the golf course and the overlook lawn can be seen in Figure 2-18.

This section is concave alongshore to Miramontes Point in the southern portion of the section, where the orientation takes a sharp turn to orient north–northwest. The average elevation of the bluffs in Section 2 is 52 ft but there is a significant increase from north to south, with the lowest bluff elevation in the study area of ~30 ft where a small drainage exists in the 18th fairway. In the southern portion of Section 2, the bluffs increase to more than 75 ft in elevation at Miramontes Point. A rock outcrop, known as Three Rocks, is located in the nearshore.

The thickness of the Purisima Formation is also quite variable in Section 2, increasing from ~10 ft in the north to a maximum of 36 ft in thickness at Miramontes Point. The marine terrace deposits also thicken from north to south contributing to the overall increase in bluff height to the south. The average cliff face in Section 2 is also steeper than in Section 1.

Figure 2-14. Section 2: Three Rocks Beach to Miramontes Point. Source: Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, 2019
2 Planning began in 2000 and was implemented by 2006. A detailed list of golf course improvements can be found in the description of Erosion Hot Spot #3 below. 58 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 22 Normal
Figure 2-15. Miramontes Point before the development of Ocean Colony. Source: Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, 1972
59 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 23 Normal
Figure 2-16. Historical and modern aerial photographs from 1931 (A), 1965 (B), and 2022 (C) of Section 2, the portion of the study area that includes Miramontes Point and the Ritz-Carlton. 60 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 24 Normal
Erosion Hot Spot #3—Near the Old Course 18th Green and Hotel Ocean Lawn The Bay Area Geotechnical Group led a study in 2002 focused on the area fronting the Old Course 18th Green (Erosion Hot Spot #3 on the maps, and the blue circle in Figure 2-17), and it noted 30 ft of erosion between 1963 and 1973 with a dramatic erosion event in the winter of 1972–1973, where ~15 ft of the bluff was lost. It also noted that between 1973-1998, approximately 10-15 ft of erosion occurred, for total erosion of ~45ft between 1963 and 1998 (CCC 2005). This corresponds to our analysis, albeit at a slightly higher rate, where we found ~10 ft between 1931/2 and 1956, ~15 ft between 1956 and 1965, and ~15 ft between 1965 and 2020, for total erosion of ~40 ft between 1931/2 and 2022.

Ocean Colony Partners, the managers of the Golf Course, have monitored the bluff top erosion adjacent to the 18th hole green (just north of Hot Spot 3) on a regular semi-annual basis. They have observed that between 2006 to 2022, the bluff top at the 18th hole green area has eroded approximately 5-6 inches (OPC 2022). This is a slower rate than the long-term-historical average, and also corresponds with our analysis of this area.

Just south of the 18th hole green there is a fence that is currently overhanging the bluff by up to three feet and is indicative of more recent erosion, likely following the winter of 2017–2018. The Coastal Trail is now located within ~18 ft of the top edge of the bluff near this location (Figure 2-17).

Figure 2-17. Left: Blue circle – Location of Bay Area Geotechnical Study. Red circle – Location of erosion near the Ocean Lawn of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel. Right: A fence was erected, which has been subsequently undermined. Source: Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman 2006 & Integral Consulting, 2022.

Armoring, in the form of riprap, was in place here from 1998 to 2006. Ocean Colony Partners observed that the armoring led to redirected wave energy and significant sand displacement leading the bluff face on each side of the riprap to deteriorate at a more rapid rate and contributed to several episodic incidents of bluff top failure (OPC 2022). At the time of removal in 2006, Ocean Colony Partners implemented the following site improvements:
61 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 25 Normal
1) Removed the original 1973 concrete and metal slab structures under the 18th hole green and tee areas;
2) Relocated the 18th green landward by over 30’ and enlarged it so that it could be reduced if additional bluff erosion occurred and further “retreat” was necessary; 3) Moved the 18th hole tees landward by approximately 25’ to accommodate future bluff erosion;
4) Regraded bluff top areas seaward of the 18th green and tees to create a subtle “berm” to help eliminate direct bluff top irrigation and storm water runoff; 5) Rerouted all surface and underground drainage systems landward from the 18th green and tees and redirected drainage to the 18th hole natural barranca and outfall; 6) Eliminated irrigation lines/sprinkler heads along several portions of the 18th hole bluff top;
7) Retained Go Native, a habitat restoration company, to remove areas of ice plant and plant native vegetation on the top and face of the bluff to the extent possible; and 8) Erected split-rail wood fencing seaward of the 18th hole green and tees as a safety measure and to deter golfers and coastal visitors from entering those bluff top areas.

Erosion Hot Spot #4—Miramontes Point
Although the point is somewhat protected in the nearshore by the Three Rocks outcrop, the rates of erosion at the point are among the highest in the study area. Examination of a series of historical aerial photographs, and confirmed by a site visit, indicates that the Purisima Formation at the point is continually saturated, likely weakening the bedrock material in this isolated zone. The cause of the saturation needs to be investigated to understand the controlling factors; which could be related to lithology, structures such as joints or faults, or focused infiltration of groundwater.
62 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 26 Normal
Figure 2-18 Left - Riprap in place in 2002. Exposed pier foundation structure in the late 2000s. Source:

Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, 2002, VisualHunt.com CC.

Due to concerns about erosion, the Ritz-Carlton Hotel contracted AECOM to study and monitor erosion at Miramontes Point. In its 2018 report, AECOM reported ~45–55 ft of erosion since 1973, just over a foot per year on average (Simpson 2017) (Figure 2-19). From our analysis, we have found a net bluff-top recession of ~ 30–40 ft over a similar period (1964 and 2022), and 50– 70 ft since 1931/2, which corresponds to a slightly lower rate of 0.5–0.9 ft a year.

Figure 2-19. Geologic cross section at the Miramontes Point from the AECOM study, 2017.

2.6.3 Section 3. Miramontes Point to Manhattan Beach North Section 3 extends from Miramontes Point to the fairway of the 18th hole of the Ocean Course.

The section is oriented north–northwest and encompasses an area with a relatively narrow 63 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 27 Normal
stretch of beach. The elevation where the terrace deposits make contact with the Purisima Formation (bluff contact) is around 25 ft, and the bluff top is ~70 ft in elevation. The Coastal Trail runs throughout this section and is as close as 20 ft from the bluff-top edge in some locations.

Figure 2-20. Section 3: Miramontes Point to Manhattan Beach North. Source: Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, 2019
The bluff has small undercuts where the beach is very narrow, and there is less rock in the offshore than in other areas. With little rock to dissipate waves, more wave energy reaches the bluff toe, abrading out small undercuts.

Erosion Hot Spot #5 – Manhattan Beach North
Between 1931/2 and 1956, erosion hot spot #5 shows the loss of approximately 20–25 ft of blufftop in some areas, with very little change since then. In historical images before 1965, there is a small outcrop in the toe at this location, and from 1982 onward, this feature is no longer apparent. The loss of this outcrop and erosion of the toe has not been related to any significant change in the bluff-top edge over this period.
64 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 28 Normal
Figure 2-21. Historical and modern aerial photographs from 1931 (A), 1965 (B), and 2022 (C) of Section 3. 65 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 29 Normal

2.6.4 Section 4. Manhattan Beach North to Cañada Verde Creek Section 4 extends from the 18th hole fairway of the HMB Golf Links Old Course to Cañada Verde Creek, is oriented north–northwest, and encompasses an area with a wider stretch of beach than Section 3. The wider beach provides more protection to the base of the cliff from wave attack. The average elevation of the bluffs is ~32 ft, with the bluff-top approximately 85 ft high in the northern area, then gently sloping downward towards Cañada Verde Creek in the south where it is approximately 50 ft in elevation. The Coastal Trail runs throughout this section and is as little as 20 ft from the bluff-top edge in some areas (Figure 2-20). Historically, a parking lot and vehicle turnaround were located in the lower area near the current beach access stairway and are visible in historical aerials between 1960 and 1980 (Figure 2-22). Before the stairway was built, informal beach access trails were visible.

Figure 2-22. Section 4: Manhattan Beach North to Cañada Verde Creek. Source: Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, 2019
Erosion Hot Spot #6 and #7 – Manhattan Beach
There is little change in the position of the bluff top between 1931/2 and 1956. Between 1956 and 1965, however, ~ 10 ft of bluff-top recession is observed in some places, and between 1965 and 2010, another 10 ft of erosion is observed in the same locations. Currently, the area identified as erosion hot spot #7 is very steep and the concave shape where bluff failures have occurred is indicative of recent, rapid erosion (Figure 2-23). There has been a significant amount of cliff toe erosion in the area stretching between erosion hot spots #6 and #7, as measured between 1965 and 2022 (Figure 2-22).
66 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 30 Normal
Figure 2-23. Steep and concave bluff is indicative of recent, rapid erosion at hot spot #7. Source: Google Earth, 2022
67 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 31 Normal
Figure 2-24. Historical and modern aerial photographs from 1931 (A), 1965 (B), and 2022 (C) of Section 4 68 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 32 Normal

2.6.5 Section 5. Manhattan Beach South
Section 5 is located between Cañada Verde Creek and a small point where there is a change in shore orientation, referred to in this report as Manhattan Beach Point (Figure 2-23). The 17th hole of the Ocean Course is located at the top of the bluff in Section 5. The section is concave and oriented north to north–northeast with the orientation taking a turn in the southern part of the section. The beach is wide to the north and narrows to the south. The basal Purisima Formation is relatively thick in this section accounting for about 70 percent of the total cliff height. The average bluff-top elevation is 50 ft, and the elevation of the marine terrace deposit contact is around 36 ft. The section is characterized by numerous gullies cutting down through the marine terrace deposits and into the Purisima Formation in some locations. Gullying is indicative of overland flow cutting channels into the surficial material, although an investigation of specific processes is beyond the scope of this study.

Figure 2-25. Section 5: Manhattan Beach North to Cañada Verde Creek. Source Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, 2019
The historical rates of cliff toe erosion are relatively low compared to the more northern sections (Figure 2-23), and most erosion of the bluff top is in the southern portion of Section 5 and appears to have occurred primarily between 1931/2 and 1965, with little additional retreat in the period from 1965 to 2002.

The beach north of Manhattan Beach Point is wide compared to the beach south of the point. A linear outcrop of the Purisima Formation that extends from the base of the cliff, as well as outcrops in the surf zone likely reduce sand from moving south along the coast, acting somewhat like a natural groin that impounds sand and helps maintain a wider beach. In addition, Cañada Verde Creek supplies some sediment to the system in the area north of Manhattan Beach Point. If the linear outcrop erodes in the future, the protective wide beach may experience increased erosion.
69 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 33 Normal
Figure 2-26. Historical and modern aerial photographs from 1931 (A), 1965 (B), and 2022 (C) of Section 5. 70 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 34 Normal

2.6.6 Section 6. Manhattan Beach South to HMB City Line Section 6 extends from Manhattan Beach Point to the HMB City line (Figure 2-27). The Coastal Trail is as close as 10 ft from the bluff-top edge in some areas of this section. There is a small drainage at the northern end of the section between the 17th hole tee boxes where there is a small bridge for the Coastal Trail.

The section is oriented north–northwest and gradually increases in elevation from approximately 50 ft in the south to just over 100 ft in the southern portion of the section. As the height of the bluff increases, the slope of the bluff face of the terrace deposits decreases. The beach is very narrow in this section and there are numerous undercuts at the base of the cliff.

Waves frequently impact the base of the bluff due to the narrow beach, as is evidenced in Figure 2-28, where waves reach the base of the bluff and the wave splash has created a wetted surface on the lower portion of the cliff. However, the area is protected by offshore rock that dissipates wave energy, so that the waves reaching the base of the cliff are fairly low in energy.

The Purisima Formation is fairly thick in this section (~30 ft) and as such, the elevation of the contact between the marine terrace deposits and the Purisima Formation is relatively high, especially on the southern end.
.

Figure 2-27. Section 6: Manhattan Beach South to HMB City Line. Source: Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, 2019
Figure 2-28. Waves crashing along the cliff of Section 6 near the 17th tee boxes. Source: Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, 2002
Sea cave
71 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 35 Normal
Erosion rates overall are low throughout this section based on the historical imagery (Figure 2- 27). The rates of bluff retreat in Section 6 are so low that they are within the range of positional uncertainty of our ability to delineate bluff features. The greatest toe recession in this section has occurred in the northern area in proximity of a sea cave and undercut #2. The sea cave is visible in Figure 2-28 below the southern tee box for the 17th hole. 72 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 36 Normal
Figure 2-29. Historical and modern aerial photographs from 1931 (A), 1965 (B), and 2022 (C) of Section 6. 73 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 37 Normal

2.7 Coastal Armoring and Anthropogenic Terrace Changes
In the early 1970s, a developer erected a 7,300 sq ft concrete and steel foundation structure at Miramontes Point. Over the years the pier and grade structure became exposed due to erosion and collapsed on the beach, and ~160 linear feet of concrete and steel piers fronting the RitzCarlton were removed in 2018 (Simpson 2017) (Figure 2-30, Figure 2-31). The original 1973 hotel foundation may have included upwards of 20 piers with connecting grade beams and/or slab, and many piers, grade beams and slab foundation elements are still unexposed and underground beneath the seaward hotel landscaping, coastal trail, and hotel improvements.

In addition to the pier structure, ~200 ft of riprap fronting the Ritz-Carlton Hotel and the 18th hole of the HMB Golf Links Old Course was added without a permit in 1998. This structure was removed in 2006 (CCC 2005, Ocean Colony Partners 2022) (Figure 2-30).

Figure 2-30. Left: Riprap structure and foundation piers in place, 2004. Right: Riprap is no longer present and some of the foundation piers were removed in 2019. Source: Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman 2004 & 2019
Figure 2-31. Remnants of the foundation piers that remain, 2022. These piers were not fully exposed from the bluff in the 2004 image. Source: Integral Consulting, 2022 74 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 38 Normal
Figure 2-32. Toe protection of beach access stairway. Source: Integral Consulting, 2022 Toe protection in the form of engineered riprap is located at the base of the beach access stairway at Cañada Verde Creek (Figure 2-32). This stairway is vulnerable to erosion from both coastal storm wave events and overland flow, and the toe protection riprap may become increasingly vulnerable to scouring and structural failure in the future. 3 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH
This section describes the methods used to determine historical erosion rates and forecast future bluff positions.

3.1 Shore Sections and Subsection Block Delineation
The one-mile study area is divided into six sections (Figure 1-1). The sections were delineated based on coastal orientation, geology, and beach width. Sections were then split into smaller subsection blocks by grouping transects with similar characteristics. The blocks are typically 50– 150 ft alongshore and contain between three and six transects.

3.2 Beach and Cliff Feature Delineation
Topographic features were generated from historical data sets for seven years: 1931/2, 1956, 1965, 2009/10, 2014, 2017, and 2022 (Table 3-1).
75 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 39 Normal
Table 3-1. Data Sets Used in Cliff Feature Delineation
Year Type Source
Elevation
Data
Resolution
Flight
Resolution QA Source
Image
Resolution (ft)
Positional Certainty
for Cliff Feature
Delineation
1931 Aerial Western Gulf
Oil Company
(now Chevron)
N/A 1:18,000 USGS Digitized Cliffs
1931/2

2.5 Low
1956 Aerial USDA N/A 1:20,000 none 3 Medium-Low
1965 Aerial California
Division of
Highways (now
Caltrans)
N/A 1:12,000 none 1.5 Medium
2009/10 Lidar DEM NOAA 3.3 ft N/A USDA Aerial 2009 2 Medium-High 2014 Lidar DEM USACE 3.3 ft N/A USDA Aerial 2014 2 Medium-High 2017 Lidar DEM SM County 3.3 ft N/A USDA and SM County
Aerials 2018
2 High
2022 SFM DEM Integral 0.2 ft N/A Integral Drone Flight
2022

0.05 Very High
76 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 40 Normal
Beach and cliff profiles were analyzed to identify topographic features that were pertinent to the coastal erosion analysis, including the bluff-top edge, contact between the Purisima Formation and the marine terrace deposits, cliff toe location, and beach width and slope.

Representative transects spaced 10 meters (33 ft) alongshore were generated using the DSAS Tool for ArcGIS (Himmelstoss et. al. 2018).

Bluff-Top Features and Elevations
Bluff-top edge features were delineated using a combination of both historic aerial photos as well as historic elevation data. The historic aerials required manual photo interpretation and the historic elevation data allowed for automated extraction techniques.

For the years when no digital elevation data were available (1931/2, 1956, and 1965), edge features were digitized manually based on aerial photograph interpretation. The quality of the 1931 aerial photographs was quite poor, so USGS-digitized cliff edges from the National Assessment of Shoreline Change for the years 1931/2 (Hapke and Reid 2007) were used as a feature reference.

For years with digital elevation data (1998, 2004, 2017, and 2022), cliff feature delineation was automated using the USGS Cliff Feature Delineation Tool performed at each cross-shore transect (Seymour et. al. 2016). All geomorphic feature locations were then mapped over highresolution aerial imagery with multi-directional hillshade to manually correct and verify automated feature interpretation.

Terrace Deposit Contact Elevations
The terrace deposit contact location was determined using an interpretation of the 2022 highresolution drone-based imagery and multi-directional hillshade, and contact elevations were taken as a weighted average of the high-resolution 2016 USGS DEM.

Cliff-Toe Features and Elevations
Only two reference years were developed for this study: 1965 and 2022. Aerial images before 1965 had insufficient image quality for manual determination of toe locations, and DEM resolution needed to be very high resolution for accurate feature toe detection. Cliff-toe features for 2022 were delineated using automated extraction techniques and manually corrected based on aerial photo interpretation.

Backshore Beach Width and Slope
For this study, beach width and slope were derived from the distance between the mean high water (MHW) line to the cliff toe (dry beach). Where offshore rocks interrupted the MHW line, the foreshore line was drawn on the shoreward side of the rock. To better simulate winter conditions (when most erosion occurs), a composite elevation surface was generated taking the 77 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 41 Normal
lowest elevation from the three most recent high-resolution DEMs (2014, 2016, and 2017).

Backshore beach slope was determined by taking the average slope for each study area section.

Uncertainty
The location of cliff feature positions includes a degree of uncertainty related to manual digitizing error, which is dependent on image quality and tonal contrast, error related to the spatial resolution of the DEMs, and for the aerial photographs, positional error related to georeferencing of the historical aerial as well as distortions and displacement related to camera altitude, orientation, tilt, lens properties, the film printing process, and the terrain relief itself, which can significantly affect interpretations of feature locations (Hapke 2004). These factors combined yield an uncertainty value that is incorporated into the historical erosion analysis and is calculated in a quadrature method (Hapke and Reid 2007).

3.3 Rate of Sea Level Rise
The rate of sea level rise used is based on OPC (2018) guidance and the select scenarios were confirmed with the City of HMB. For more information see Section 2.3.

3.4 Nearshore Wave, Total Water Levels, and Exceedance Curve Calculations Wave properties, including wave height, period, and direction, were derived from unpublished data as part of the USGS nearshore waves for the central California data set (Hegermiller et al. 2017). This data set was part of a larger model that was incorporated into CoSMoS. The time series of nearshore waves along the central California coast, including hindcasted for 1980–2010 and projected to 2010–2100, was done using global climate model forcing for 1975–2005 and 2012–2100. Each section in the study area was linked to the nearest nearshore station location, with a total of five stations matched. Due to the large variation in beach width, Section 1 was split out into two subsections (a and b) for the analysis, but they are not shown separately in the results. The Stockdon wave runup equation was then used to determine TWLs along each study area section (Stockdon et al. 2006) (Figure 3-1).

These TWL elevations were turned into exceedance curves for each section. These exceedance curves show how frequently wave run up elevations are reached over time (Figure 3-2). For example, a 1% exceedance would be the equivalent of a 100-year storm wave run up elevation.

Once these curves are generated for existing conditions, then the curves are elevated with the projected sea level rise for each decade (Figure 3-3). The difference in the area below the decadal sea level rise adjusted exceedance curves represents an increase in the cumulative hours of wave attack and is used to accelerate erosion rates in the modeling effort (see Section 3-5). 78 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 42 Normal
Figure 3-1. Example of wave parameters including significant wave height, peak period, as well as total water level for the nearshore at Station 2 (corresponding to Section 2). 79 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 43 Normal
Figure 3-2. Total water level exceedance curve for each section (station) for 1995 to 2100 along with toe and bluff contact elevations for each section.
80 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 44 Normal
Figure 3-3. Total water level exceedance curves for each section (station) for each period of time. 81 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 45 Normal

3.5 Erosion Rate Calculations
The erosion rate calculation used for this study is based on methods published by ESA (2016) and adapted from work by Revell et al. (2011). Rates relied on using the relative exceedance of the TWL above the cliff toe and bluff contact elevation to drive the acceleration of historical erosion. The most important variables for predicting future cliff retreat using this model are historical erosion rates, beach slope, wave data, and the rate of sea level rise. In this model, wave data and sea level rise are incorporated into a single statistic called total water level (TWL).

Erosion rates are calculated at both the toe of the cliff and at the top of the bluff, with the erosion of the toe only driving erosion at the bluff when the slope of the cliff face exceeds 90 degrees.

Long-term Erosion Equation:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑓𝑓𝑢𝑢𝑡𝑡 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡( ) = 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅ℎ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ∗ � 𝐴𝐴 ( ) 𝐴𝐴 (ℎ 𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖)
�
𝑚𝑚
Where A is the area below the total water level exceedance curve and above the existing erosion feature elevation (either the toe or terrace deposit contact), and can be seen as representative of the intensity of wave impact (Figure 3-4 at right). The period of time is represented as t, which is variable every 10 years from 2020 to 2100. Finally, an exponent is included, m, which is set to

0.5. The value of m was derived in a study by Ashton et al. in 2011, who investigated this value using various data sets for calibration and confirmed that m = 0.5 applies to cliffs/bluffs dominated by wave-driven erosion. Erosion rates were calculated for each of the 34 subsection blocks in the study area.

Figure 3-4. Left: Example of a DSAS linear regression rate statistic represented as a best-fit regression line (dotted line) among the bluff-top locations (colored points). The yellow shaded line represents the 95 percent confidence band for the position of the regression line. This band was used to determine the factor of safety. Right: Example of the area represented under both the existing (red) and future (shades of blue) exceedance curve and above the toe elevation (green line).
82 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 46 Normal
Erosion Factor of Safety
To account for the risk of localized block failures that could not be captured by the long-term average erosion rate, an additional factor of safety was included in the erosion calculation (see the yellow band in Figure 3-4 at left). Two different factors of safety were used for the study area. For areas with a higher degree of certainty and where more historical erosion has been observed, the study utilized one standard deviation of the historical erosion rate times the planning horizon. For areas with less certainty and where very little historical erosion has been observed, the study used two standard deviations of the historical erosion rate. This was done to minimize bias in areas where erosion is not well documented over the 90-year historical timeframe, as well as to account for the potential for localized near-term failures.

Caveats/Disclaimer
Some subsection blocks had much wider beach widths, and as a result, total water level elevation predations were significantly reduced. As a result, these subsection blocks did not experience a significant exceedance of the bluff contact elevation, thus, the erosion equation did not substantially accelerate bluff erosion from historical rates.

The erosion model does not account for the evolution of nearshore slopes over time, including the beach and shore platform, which is likely to evolve as sea levels rise and erosion forcing conditions change.

Small variations in initial parameter values can lead to significant variations in model predictions as they are multiplied over long time scales. As a result, the uncertainty in erosion rate predictions generally increases over time and may vary between subsection blocks.

Finally, the future holds many uncertainties that may influence erosion, ranging from potential changes in precipitation, temperature, wave climate, frequency and magnitude of precipitating storm events, and anthropogenic responses to erosion. Due to the highly uncertain nature of these processes, caution should be used with all erosion prediction results.

Given these disclaimers, however, all efforts have been made to utilize the best available science and methods and carefully document uncertainties. These results represent the state of the practice in coastal cliff erosion projections.

3.6 Erosion Rate Results
This study found bluff-toe recession to be more significant in the observed historical period than bluff-top edge recession, indicating a steepening of the cliffs. The average net movement of the cliff toe for the entire study is 20.8 ft between 1965 and 2022, and the average net movement in the bluff top is 1.6 ft between 1965 and 2022. Over the longer period from 1931/2 to 2022, bluff top net movement is 8.7 ft, still significantly less than net toe movement. Note that since there 83 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 47 Normal
are only two data points for toe erosion, rates may represent an overestimate due to an amplification of positional errors between the 1965 and 2022 aerial imagery.

Average end point erosion rates at the bluff top are around 0.1 to 0.2 ft/yr. The average rate obscures the fact that erosion has been primarily concentrated in approximately half a dozen areas, or erosion hot spots, where historical rates are often higher than 0.5 ft a year along a single transect.

The areas of greatest cliff-toe recession are consistently focused at headlands and along the northwest-oriented cliffs between Cañada Verde Creek and Miramontes Point, which include Sections 3–4. The focusing of wave energy, combined with the relatively narrow beaches in the areas immediately south of Miramontes Point and Three Rocks Beach Point, is likely driving these high rates, and underscores the importance of geology, beach width and slope, wave energy, and water level on processes of coastal cliff retreat. For Section 6, with its narrow beach width and high cliffs, very small amounts of historical erosion have been observed; however, the stretch contains the largest concentration of sea caves and undercuts making it a location of future erosion concern.
84 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 48 Normal
Table 3-2. Bluff Top and Cliff Toe Erosion Result
Section Description
Bluff-top (1931/2–2022) Cliff-toe (1965–2022)
Net Movement
(ft)
Linear
Recession
Rate (ft/yr)
Net Movement
(ft)
End Point
Rate (ft/yr)
1 Three Rocks Beach 15.6 0.1 26.5 0.5
2 Miramontes Point North 15.5 0.2 15.4 0.3
3 Miramontes Point South 9.9 0.1 34.1 0.6
4 Manhattan Beach North 9.3 0.1 32.4 0.6
5 Manhattan Beach South 7.4 <0.1 5.7 0.1
6 Manhattan Beach to City Line 0.1 <0.1 12.8 0.2
Grand
Total
Three Rocks Beach to HMB/SM
County City Line

8.5 0.1 20.8 0.4
Comparison to the USGS Statewide Assessment
Hapke and Reid’s National Assessment of Shoreline Change (2007) found that along California’s sea cliffs, for ~75% of the coastline, erosion rates averaged ~10 inches a year over the observed historical period (0.83 ft). For this stretch of coast, they found rates of seven inches (0.58 ft) a year. This rate is higher than the average rate seen throughout much of this study area. These differences are likely because the National Assessment of Shoreline Change study relied on fewer reference years and had lower transect coverage. Note that corresponding blufftop recession rates of half a foot a year to up to two feet a year were seen in individual transects in the study area, notably the areas around Three Rocks Point, Miramontes Point, and areas of Section 3-4 near erosion hot spots 5-7.
85 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 49 Normal
4 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Erosion rates throughout the study area generally accelerate in the future with a more notable acceleration in erosion rates beyond 2070. This corresponds to both the accelerating nature of long-term sea level rise, as well the cliff erosion model predicting a gradual steepening of the cliff face, with increased wave attack at the toe of the cliff driving long-term erosion rates at numerous locations. Erosion rates are highest at the two coastal promontories, Miramontes Point and Three Rocks Beach Point, as well as in Sections 3 and 4 around erosion hot spots (Figure 4-2).

Figure 4-1. Acceleration of erosion rates. The blue shaded area represents the range of erosion rates among all subsection blocks.

Caveats
In some places of the study area, especially in the southern end, there have been no major blufftop recession events in the 90-year study timeframe, and as a result, future predicted erosion is quite low. These areas are not well captured in the cliff erosion models. From experience, areas that have not eroded much are found adjacent to areas that have eroded and are usually more likely to fail. On the maps, the areas that have been undercut or have sea caves, but have experienced low erosion rates in the past are shown on the maps with a ⚠ symbol to indicate areas of erosion concern where past observations may not be signs of future performance. 86 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 50 Normal
Figure 4-2. Erosion rates by study area subsection blocks. Not particularly in Sections 2 and 4 that sea level rise tends to accelerate the projected erosion distances more rapidly.
87 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 51 Normal

4.1 Vulnerabilities
This vulnerability section summarizes the key assets and infrastructure at risk by 2100 followed by study area maps in Section 4.2 that further identify specific areas of concern, and when areas become vulnerable to bluff erosion.

Vulnerability Snapshot by 2100
What Is at Risk?
What Is Vulnerable by the
Long-term Sea Level Rise
Horizon? Potential Impacts and Consequences
HMB Golf Links • 14.2 acres of grounds
• 3 sets of tee boxes
• 2 fairways
• 3 greens
• Conflicts between the coastal trail
alignment and golf course features
• Potential reconfiguration of golf course
features
HMB Golf Links Old
Course
• 2.7 acres of grounds
• 490 sq ft of tee boxes at the
18th hole
• 6,460 sq ft of the fairway at the
18th hole
• 1,000 sq ft of rough near the
18th green
HMB Golf Links
Ocean Course
• 11.5 acres of grounds
• 11,000 sq ft of rough near the
18th fairway
• 170 sq ft of rough near the 18th
green
• <20 sq ft of tee boxes at the
17th and 18th hole
• <20 sq ft of green at the 17th
hole
Coastal Trail • 1,444 ft (0.27 mi) of trail
between the Ritz-Carlton and the
Cañada Verde Creek Stairway
• 7 areas of erosion concern
• Beach access stairway at
Cañada Verde Creek
• 2 ocean overlook locations
• Rerouting of trails
• Reconstruction or relocation of the beach
access stairway
Ritz-Carlton Half
Moon Bay
• 1,500 sq ft of the Miramontes
Terrace
• 1,500 sq ft of the Hotel
Structure
• Relocation of the vulnerable terrace lawn
• Reconstruction or relocation of the
western wing of the hotel
Key Areas of Concern and Trigger Points
The list below outlines some of the key areas that are vulnerable to coastal erosion, and the time period they are likely to become exposed.
88 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 52 Normal
Near Term (2020 – 2040)
• The Coastal Trail near the Ocean Course 18th green and 18th fairway. Near erosion hot spot #6, adjacent to the Ocean Course 18th hole fairway, the trail is only eight ft from the bluff-top edge. There are six areas of erosion concern in the southern section of the study area near the Ocean Course 16th hole fairway that have sea caves or are undercut at the base that may signify higher future erosion probabilities. • The stairway at Cañada Verde Creek is currently vulnerable and, with additional cliff recession or toe erosion, may require relocation.
• Scenic overlook locations at Miramontes Point and the at Cañada Verde Creek are vulnerable.

Near-Term Consequences
• Safety considerations for pedestrians where trail sections are close to the bluff top edge.

If the trail is rerouted inland, consideration must be given to protect pedestrians from golf balls.

Mid Term (2040 – 2070)
• The Coastal Trail in front of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel is vulnerable. An increasing area of the trail near the Ocean Course 18th hole is vulnerable. • The golf course features become vulnerable, with the furthest tee box at Old Course’s 18th hole and areas of rough on this hole potentially vulnerable.

Mid-Term Consequences
• Potential conflict between the current location of the Coastal Trail and the Ritz-Carlton Hotel and Terrace. The distance between the current bluff-top edge and hotel’s Ocean and Miramontes terraces can be as narrow as 40 ft, leaving limited space for inland realignment.
• Tee boxes at the Old Course 18th hole may need to be moved inland for safety purposes. • Fairway and approach at the 18th hole may need to be reconfigured.

Long Term (2070 – 2100)
• The Ritz-Carlton Hotel structure and the Hotel’s Miramontes Terrace are potentially vulnerable.
• Increasing areas of both golf courses are potentially vulnerable, including the Old Course 18th Green, Ocean Course 18th Tee Box, and Ocean Course 17th Green. • The entire section of the Coastal Trail in front of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel is potentially vulnerable.
89 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 53 Normal
Long-term consequences
• With increasing sea levels and accelerating rates of erosion, the hotel building may become vulnerable.
• The realignment of the Coastal Trail is increasingly in conflict with the Ritz-Carlton Hotel and the golf course.

4.2 Vulnerability Maps
How to interpret the vulnerability maps
Each vulnerability map illustrates at what sea level rise elevation/year various study area assets are likely to become exposed to coastal cliff erosion. The cliff erosion hazard areas are colorcoded at three sea level rise scenarios (and are represented on a scale from yellow to blue).

Exposure of various assets is also color-coded based on the elevation of sea level rise that first leads to potential impacts. The timing of vulnerability to these assets is indicated with a marker nearest to the locations of impact (and sometimes offset to not conflict with the erosion hazard area) and is color-coded based on timing from red to yellow. All of these projected hazard extents assume that no adaptation has been implemented—in other words, a worst-case scenario if nothing is done to plan or adapt to sea level rise in the future. 90 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 54 Normal
Figure 4-3. Future bluff position envelope for near-, mid-, and long-term within the northern portion of Section 1 (Section 1a).
91 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 55 Normal
Figure 4-4. Future bluff position envelope for near-, mid-, and long-term within the southern portion of Section 1 (Section 1b).
92 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 56 Normal
Figure 4-5. Future bluff position envelope for near-, mid-, and long-term within the northern portion of Section 2 (Section 2a).
93 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 57 Normal
Figure 4-6. Future bluff position envelope for near-, mid-, and long-term within the southern portion of Section 2 (Section 2b).
94 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 58 Normal
Figure 4-7. Future bluff position envelope for near-, mid-, and long-term within the northern portion of Section 3 (Section 3a).
95 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 59 Normal
Figure 4-8. Future bluff position envelope for near-, mid-, and long-term bluff position envelope within the southern portion of Section 3 (Section 3b) and the northern portion of Section 4 (Section 4a).
96 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 60 Normal
Figure 4-9. Future bluff position envelope for near-, mid-, and long-term within the southern portion of Section 4 (Section 4b).
97 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 61 Normal
Figure 4-10. Future bluff position envelope for near-, mid-, and long-term within Section 5. 98 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 62 Normal
Figure 4-11. Future bluff position envelope for near-, mid-, and long-term within Section 6. 99 Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 63 Normal
5 ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
This section reports on four components of the economic and fiscal values of the study area:

1. Asset values (hotel structure, golf course parcels)

2. Economic values generated within the study area (hotel revenue, golf course green fees, non-market recreational values of beach access and trail use)

3. Fiscal benefits to the City and other entities, including transient occupancy tax (TOT), property taxes, Business Improvement District (BID) fees, golf course fees, and broader economic benefits

4. Impacts on each of components 1–3 due to coastal erosion over time.

Figures are estimated from publicly available data and published studies, with the inclusion of operational information provided by the City of Half Moon Bay, Ritz-Carlton Hotel, and golf course operators, where available.

Impacts in this section are presented in terms of their present value, and no attempt has been made to adjust for the expected increases in the value of built structures or land parcels over time, changes in expenditure or fiscal revenues due to inflation, or for increases in construction or replacement costs. There has also been no attempt to consider the impact of discounting future costs associated with erosion impacts on present-day values, as without a realistic estimate of future asset values this would be a fruitless exercise.

5.1 Asset Values
Table 5-1 presents the assessed values of the four parcels in the study area that are affected by coastal cliff erosion. One of these parcels is the Three Rocks City Beach parcel, which is almost entirely seaward of the cliffs. The other parcels have a component that is located seaward of the cliff boundary. It is assumed that the assessed value of the parcels is applied only to the component that is landward of the cliff (i.e., that the tax assessor has already adjusted for the area that is seaward of the cliff).

Table 5-1 shows the asset values by parcel for the period 2018–2021, for those parcels affected by cliff erosion by 2100. The Three Rocks City Beach parcel is included for completeness but does not have a tax-assessed value.
100
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 64 Normal
Table 5-1. Parcel Value Averages for 2018–2022 by APN
APN
66092530: City
Beach Three
Rocks
APN
66092720:

HMB Golf
Links Old
Course
APN
66092770:

Ritz-Carlton
Hotel
APN
66580010:

HMB Golf
Links Ocean
Course
Year
Assessed value
($)
Assessed
value($)
Assessed
value ($)
Assessed
value ($)
Total Assessed
Value ($)
2018–19 0 4,912,263 188,533,406 14,780,859 208,226,528
2019–20 0 5,010,508 191,699,996 15,076,475 211,786,979
2020–21 0 4,055,349 195,607,200 12,234,827 211,897,376
2021–22 0 2,740,889 197,138,538 12,149,349 212,028,776
Four-yr average 4,179,752 193,244,785 13,560,378 210,984,915 A four-year average of asset values is provided, to account for volatility in values caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which greatly reduced occupancy within the hotel, and the use of the golf course facilities.3 Hotel occupancy in 2020 was approximately half of the long-term average, at 35 percent of available rooms. As commercial property values are a function of their annual income, this slowed the growth rate of the hotel property value and reduced the assessed value of the golf course parcels.

It was not possible to calculate a reliable annual growth rate, due to this volatility in assessed values.

The figures presented in Table 5-1 for the Ritz-Carlton are combined values for the land and all improvements and built assets on the property. Table 5-2 separates these elements into three categories; land, improvements (the hotel structures), and “other” values. Other values are fixtures and personal property.
3 Although a 5-year average is typically preferred, there was a very large increase in assessed values for the Ritz-Carlton property between 2017 and 2018, so inclusion of the earlier values would result in an unrealistically low average for the current assets.
101
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 65 Normal
Table 5-2. Average Values by Category for 2018–2022
Year
Hotel Land
($)
Hotel Improvements
($)
Hotel Other Values
($)
Hotel Total Value
($)
2018–19 44,880,000 138,720,000 4,933,406 188,533,406
2019–20 45,777,600 141,494,400 4,427,996 191,699,996
2020–21 46,693,152 144,324,288 4,589,760 195,607,200
2021–22 47,176,893 145,819,487 4,142,158 197,138,538
Four-yr average 46,131,911 142,589,544 4,523,330 193,244,785 Table 5-2 shows that approximately three-quarters of the value of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel parcel is due to the hotel structure. This is important when it comes to consideration of the value of erosion, as different property values must be applied to the parcel as a whole and to the building footprint.

5.2 Economic Values
This analysis considers both fixed asset values (using tax-assessed values as a proxy for true market values), and the income streams, and uses values of the various facilities and natural amenities.

5.2.1 Ritz-Carlton Hotel
The Ritz-Carlton at Half Moon Bay is a significant contributor to the local economy. As of the 2021 fiscal year, the hotel employed approximately 550 full-time staff, which was 15.6 percent of employment within the City.4
Room Revenue
There are 261 rooms available, including 22 suites and 239 standard rooms. As a luxury hotel, room rates for the Ritz-Carlton are higher than other accommodation providers in the region.

Average room rates for private bookings range from $779 to $1,225 per night, based on a twonight booking for a hotel room. Depending on the package purchased, this may not include additional fees for breakfast, resort fees, or golf course green fees.

The long-term occupancy rate can be estimated from the payments made by the Ritz-Carlton into the BID fund. Participating hotels pay a rate of $1 per room night into this fund, so annual payments equal the number of room night bookings. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the longterm average occupancy rate was slightly more than 70 percent, based on BID receipts. The 4 City of Half Moon Bay, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2020-2021, p 121. 102
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 66 Normal
COVID-19 pandemic reduced occupancy to approximately 35 percent in 2020, based on BID receipts and the number of available room nights.5 Using a conservative figure of $800 per night (to account for suite bookings at higher rates, and group bookings at lower rates), and an occupancy rate of 70 percent, annual room revenue for the Ritz-Carlton is estimated at around $53.3 million per year.6
This should be considered an upper-bound estimate, as staff from Ritz-Carlton have reported in local news articles that up to 65 percent of hotel bookings are based on group business which are price sensitive.7 These group bookings likely pay a reduced rate. Using a room rate of $500 per night, the average revenue would be approximately $33.3 million. Likely, true revenue lies somewhere within this range ($33.3 million–53.3 million per year), and secondary evidence suggests that it must be towards the lower bound. The City of Half Moon Bay Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2021 provides a breakdown of TOT payments by lodging type. Using occupancy rate information, if the average room was $500 per night, then TOT receipts from the Ritz-Carlton would represent between 50 and 65 percent of receipts from the hotel/motel sector. Using a room rate of $800 results in estimated Ritz-Carlton TOT payments that are higher than the total receipts from this sector.8 For this analysis, the lower bound is used for further calculations.

Events
The hotel hosts many functions, corporate events, and weddings. No information was available on the aggregate value or specific attendance of these functions. A summary of estimates provided by the Ritz-Carlton is provided in Table 5-3.

Table 5-3. Events by Type at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel
Event Type Timing/Frequency Attendees
Average Cost per
Event
Wedding Weekends, 35–45
weddings per year
25–300 per event $30,000–$50,000
Corporate Events Weekdays, 40–75 per
month
Variable $1,000–$50,000
Based on a minimum estimate for the number of events and cost per event, hotel events would contribute an additional $1.05 million per year for weddings and $480,000 for corporate events. 5 Visit Half Moon Bay Coastside California, Business Improvement District 2020 Annual Report, p 2; Visit Half Moon Bay Coastside California, Business Improvement District 2019 Annual Report, p 2 6 This represents the product of $800 per room night x 70% occupancy x 261 rooms x 365 days per year. 7 Half Moon Bay Review, HMB voters to decide on ‘tiered’ hotel tax increase, 23 July 2020. https://www.hmbreview.com/news/hmb-voters-to-decide-on-tiered-hotel-tax-increase/article_162af0f2- ccfa-11ea-89e1-a766da45a8f6.html
8 Integral calculations from TOT and BID data.
103
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 67 Normal
Using midpoints for frequency, a central estimate of $40,000 per wedding, and $10,000 per corporate event results in an estimated value of $1.6 million for weddings, and $6.9 million for corporate events.

5.2.2 Golf Courses
Half Moon Bay Golf Links employs 49 people, which is 1.4 percent of the local workforce and makes them the 7th largest employer in the City. 9 On average, there are a total of between 68,000 and 75,000 rounds of golf played on the Ocean Course and Old Course each year, not including events and tournaments. Pricing per round is dynamic, with course fees determined by demand in a range between $145 and $275 per round.10 A search of online golf forums, and use of the online tee time booking system, suggests that rates of $140–$180 per round are more typical of those paid by casual golfers (i.e., those not participating in tournaments or events), with twilight fees of between $60 and $100. Using a conservative estimate of $150 per round, and 70,000 rounds played per year, this represents revenues of $10.5 million per year.

Golf course staff advised that there are approximately 75–100 golf tournaments per year, with participation ranging from 30 to 288 golfers per event. These visitor numbers are assumed to be part of the estimate of the number of golf rounds played per year. In addition to tournaments, the golf courses host approximately 25–40 banquets or events each year, with an attendance of 40−400 persons. The golf courses also host 10–20 weddings per year, with an attendance of 30– 200 persons.11
No information is available about the expenditure associated with these events.

5.3 Recreational Non-market Value
In addition to the monetary values identified above, the Coastal Trail and beach access points provide recreational values and other environmental services that are not captured in existing market transactions. This section does not attempt to estimate the total economic value of services provided by the natural and built features but does provide an estimate of the recreational use values associated with the trail and beach amenities.

There are no existing records of the number of recreational uses in the study area, so usage has been based on accessibility, with basic assumptions about recreational participation. The value of beach and trail use has been estimated using previously published studies.

There are three key sources of recreation participants:
• Hotel guests
9 City of Half Moon Bay, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2020-2021, p 121. 10 Personal communication, Ritz-Carlton.
11 Personal communication, Kenmark, 2 May 2022.
104
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 68 Normal
• Local residents
• Visitors, including golfers, using parking spaces.

5.3.1 Hotel Guest Visits
The Ritz-Carlton advised that the average room occupancy was 1.5 persons per room.

Multiplying this figure by average room bookings results in an estimated 100,028 hotel guests per year. There is likely a substantial overlap with the number of golfers (68,000–75,000 per year). It is assumed that 10 percent of hotel guests visit the beach during their stay, and 50 percent take a walk along at least part of the coastal trail during their visit or use part of the trail while playing a round of golf. This results in approximately 10,000 beach visits and approximately 50,000 trail uses per year.

5.3.2 Local Residents
The number of local residents was estimated through counts of local houses, trailers, and RV park spaces. The estimated number of housing units is:
• 302 houses in Ocean Colony
• 160 housing units in MidPen at Moonridge
• 234 trailers at Cañada Cove
• 75 RV parking spaces at Pelican Point.

Beach attendance rates by local residents are a subject of some debate, with estimates ranging from 10 to more than 100 per person per year (King and McGregor 2012). For this assessment, it is assumed that residents take around 20 beach visits per year. It is assumed that houses, housing units, and residential units have 2.67 residents, based on Census data. For RV parking spaces, a figure of two residents was applied. This results in a total estimate of 2,008 residents within walking or cycling distance. Multiplying by 20 visits per year gives an estimate of 40,166 beach trips, which is approximated as 40,000 beach trips by local residents.

Estimating trail usage by local residents is more challenging, as there is little public information about the frequency of use of scenic trails in residential locations. The Outdoor Recreation Foundation estimated in 2018 that hikers took an average of 14 trips per year, while runners and joggers took an average of 76 outings per year. According to research by Veterinarians.org, dogs in California are walked approximately seven times per week or 365 times per year.12 For this assessment, a conservative figure of 40 trips per year is assumed, resulting in 80,000 trail uses by local residents.
12 Dog Walking Survey: Which States Walk Their Dog the Most?, April 20, 2022. 105
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 69 Normal

5.3.3 Visitors Using Parking Lots
Visitors were estimated based on parking records provided by the Ritz-Carlton for the 25 parking spaces provided within the parking garage structure, as a condition of the coastal development permit for the property and reinforced by enforcement action undertaken by the CCC in 2019. Ritz-Carlton staff estimate that the parking spaces were used approximately 2,500–3,000 times in a six-month period, which translates to approximately 240 visits per parking space per year. Based on 6,000 visits per year, and a vehicle occupancy of two people, this represents 12,000 visitors per year.

City of Half Moon Bay staff provided information that Poplar Beach Parking Lot fees for 2020– 21 totaled $351,000.13 Daily parking fees are $10 per day. There are also annual permits available for $165 per year, and alternative passes that can further reduce the fees payable. In the absence of detailed payment information, it is estimated that there were at least 35,100 vehicle visits to Poplar Beach in 2020–21. There are 93 parking spaces in this lot, which results in an annual use rate of approximately 377 visits per parking space per year. This estimate is used to calculate the minimum number of visits from the parking lot on Miramontes Point Road (15 spaces) and Redondo Beach (approximately 30 parking spaces). Based on the free parking available in these locations, parking utilization is likely to be higher. For this assessment, a figure of 400 annual visits per parking space. This results in an estimated 6,000 and 12,000 vehicle visits per year, respectively. Using an occupancy of two persons per vehicle, these parking lots contribute 12,000 and 24,000 visitors, respectively. The majority of visitors to Redondo Beach are likely to be from those accessing the shoreline, rather than the Coastal Trail. It is assumed that 25 percent of the visitors from the Redondo Beach lot access the study area, either via the Coastal Trail or along the beach. Thus, the total figure from these lots is 18,000 visitors to the study area.

Total visitation to the study area from non-residents is estimated at 30,000 per year. It is assumed that approximately 20 percent of visitors descend the stairs to the beach, with the remainder using the Coastal Trail. This gives an estimate of 6,000 beach visits, and 24,000 trail uses.

5.3.4 Total Beach and Trail Uses
Based on the figures presented above for each user category, this study estimates a total of:
• 56,000 beach visits with sand contact (i.e. descending the stairs to Manhattan Beach or along the shoreline at the north of the study area)
• 154,000 coastal trail uses, including all recreational users and golf cart usage. 13 City of Half Moon Bay staff, via email, April 19, 2022. 106
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 70 Normal

5.3.5 Value of Recreational Activity
For beach recreation, a figure of $40 per beach visit is applied. This figure represents an average value for California and is derived from work by Pendleton and Kildow (2006).

For trail use, a generic hiking figure is applied. This is likely slightly high for daily use by walkers and cyclists, but may be low for golf cart usage in shared path areas. Walking use is valued at $20 per trip. This is close to the lower bound of the value of trips to the Virginia Creeper Trail, which provides a reasonable analog for the Coastal Trail (Bowker et al. 2007).

Applying these figures results in estimated non-market values within the study area of:
• $2.24 million for beach users
• $3.08 million per year for users of the Coastal Trail.

5.4 Fiscal Benefits
Fiscal impacts estimate the streams of revenue that flow directly to the City of Half Moon Bay, meaning that they appear as revenue items in the budget. The largest sources of general revenue for the city are the TOT, sales tax, and property tax. The Ritz-Carlton and golf course properties are substantial direct contributors to TOT and property tax receipts and a driver of sales tax receipts at the city and county levels.

5.4.1 Property Tax
Analysis of property tax revenue indicates that the hotel and golf courses are likely responsible for approximately 70 percent of annual property tax receipts for the city.

Table 5-4. Property Tax Revenue by Property and Year
Year
Old Course
Property Tax ($)
Ritz Hotel
Property Tax ($)
Ocean Course
Property Tax ($) Total
2018–19 56,652 2,261,448 161,619 2,479,719
2019–20 60,415 2,415,390 173,084 2,648,888
2020–21 48,275 2,355,871 136,802 2,540,949
2021–22 35,037 2,312,656 134,467 2,482,160
Four-yr average 50,095 2,336,341 151,493 2,537,929
These figures do not include property taxes paid by the Ocean Colony residents, which derive part of their economic value from the presence and popularity of the golf courses, particularly the Old Course.
107
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 71 Normal

5.4.2 Business Improvement District
Analysis of revenue from the BID annual reports shows that in pre-COVID years the RitzCarlton Hotel accounted for approximately 37 percent of visitor room nights.14 Table 5-5. Business Improvement District Revenue (2018–2020) Year
Ritz Carlton BID
Payments ($)
Total HMB BID
Receipts ($)
Ritz-Carlton as
Proportion of HMB BID
Receipts
2018 69,287 182,870 37.9%
2019 69,923 189,361 36.9%
2020 33,504 107,806 31.1%
Given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on tourism during 2020, it is assumed that average BID payments by the Ritz-Carlton are approximately $70,000 per year.

5.4.3 Transient Occupancy Tax
The amount of TOT paid by the Ritz-Carlton is confidential. Some estimates can be drawn from the estimated revenue from room charges, although it is difficult to estimate the average prices paid per room night, due to the prevalence of group rates.

Using the estimated room revenue of $33.3 million from Section 5.2.1, and the new higher TOT rate of 15 percent as of July 2022, estimated TOT receipts from the Ritz-Carlton would be approximately $5.0 million per year. This represents approximately 57.1 percent of forecast TOT revenue of $8.752 million for 2022–23. This value is likely a lower bound.

Golf course fees are paid to the City and represent a substantial additional revenue stream (Table 5-6).

Table 5-6. Golf Course Fees
Budget Year
Golf Fees ($) per Fiscal
Year, Actual
2017–18 440,459
2018–19 441,494
2019–20 328,864
14 Visit Half Moon Bay Coastside California, Business Improvement District 2020 Annual Report, p 2; Visit Half Moon Bay Coastside California, Business Improvement District 2019 Annual Report, p 2. 108
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 72 Normal
2020–21 546,415
Four-year average 439,308

5.4.4 Total Tax and Fee Revenue
The total estimated value of fees and taxes paid by the combined hotel and golf course properties is estimated to be in the order of $8 million per year.

5.4.5 Economic Multiplier Effect
The 2019 BID Annual Report provides an estimate of the number of additional rooms booked, room revenue, and economic impact associated with the activities of Visit Half Moon Bay Coastside California.15 From these figures, it is possible to estimate a multiplier for the room revenues generated by the Ritz-Carlton. From that report, booked revenue was $1,382,300, and the estimated economic impact was $3,338,550. This suggests a multiplier of 2.42 for expenditures on accommodation. It is not possible to estimate the broader economic impact of expenditures from golf course fees from day visitors, although the multiplier is likely to be similar in magnitude.16
Using the room revenue figure of $33.3 million, the estimated broader economic impact of this expenditure is $80.6 million. Adding estimated event spending at the Ritz-Carlton, and golf course fees, the included expenditure estimate is $52.3 million, with an estimated broader economic impact of $126.6 million. This estimate is relatively limited in scope and excludes event expenditure associated with events held at the golf courses, purchases in the golf pro shop, and sundry items.

5.5 Impacts of Cliff Erosion
The estimates in this section are based on the assumption that it is possible to mitigate or adapt to cliff erosion through the realignment of the Coastal Trail and golf course parcels. It does not attempt to estimate the costs of realignment of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel structure, so the estimates included for building damage should not be interpreted as a full range of potential economic impacts.

5.5.1 Impact of Cliff Erosion on Parcel Values
For this analysis, it is assumed that the unit value of the parcels is distributed evenly. This may not accurately reflect the use of the parcels, for example, the tee box and greens have higher 15 Visit Half Moon Bay Coastside California, Business Improvement District 2019 Annual Report, p 2. 16 It is not appropriate to apply the multiplier to the tax and fee income streams identified in this section. 109
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 73 Normal
importance than sections of rough. It is assumed that the course could be reconfigured to accommodate the lost area, which would thereby relocate the most valuable areas.

If 10 percent of a parcel is eroded, it is assumed that 10 percent of the assessed value is lost.

With course reconfiguration, it may be possible to retain all of the existing value of the affected parcels, so the figures presented in this section should be considered upper-bound estimates of the potential economic damage.

Table 5-7 summarizes the estimated economic impact of erosion on the value of land parcels in the study area by time horizon. Note that for the Ritz-Carlton parcel, the area eroded is multiplied by the value of the land only, as erosion damage to the built structure is treated separately in the next section. Recall that the damage estimated in each time horizon is calculated as a proportion of the landward section of each parcel, and does not include any area seaward of the bluff. The City Beach parcel has been excluded from these calculations as there is no tax assessed value for the parcel, and more than 96% of this parcel is located seaward of the cliff.

Table 5-7. Estimated Economic Impact of Erosion
Year Old Course ($)
Ritz-Carlton Hotel
(Land Value only)
($)
Ocean Course
Value Loss ($)
Total Parcel Value
Loss ($)
2030 7,330 100,696 32,415 140,441
2040 8,669 120,346 33,428 162,443
2050 10,790 130,805 34,186 175,781
2060 12,709 140,755 34,735 188,199
2070 14,583 148,483 43,093 206,159
2080 16,909 211,415 73,700 302,024
2090 21,403 359,167 101,141 481,712
2100 24,742 391,290 128,195 544,226

5.5.2 Impact of Cliff Erosion on Hotel Structure
For the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, it is difficult to determine the extent to which erosion will impact the operations of the building, or the economic and fiscal value streams they generate. Based on the layout of the hotel, the majority of the lobby floor space in the west/east wing, which is the wing that will be affected by erosion in 2090–2100, is used for meeting rooms (Figure 5-1). The Miramontes Room is also used for smaller wedding receptions. 110
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 74 Normal
Figure 5-1. The layout of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel West / East Wing Source: https://www.ritzcarlton.com/en/hotels/california/half-moon-bay/meetings/meeting-room-details ; https://s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/ritzcarlton/HMB%20Lobby%20Level%20Floor%20Plan_v3-2pdf For this assessment, the damage to hotel values is estimated as a proportion of the building footprint. Meeting and function rooms have a lower value per square foot than guest rooms, but are also responsible for the generation of substantial income for the property. There are also 111
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 75 Normal
guest rooms located in this wing, so it is assumed that the per-area value of the property is relatively consistent. Damage to the building itself is not projected to occur until 2090. Table 5-8 shows the estimated value of direct damage to the Ritz-Carlton hotel structure.

Table 5-8. Estimated Value of Potential Direct Damage to Ritz-Carlton Hotel Year
Percentage of
Building Footprint
Directly Impacted Estimated Value ($)
2090 0.05% 69,284
2100 0.15% 213,236
The values in Table 5-8 should be considered the absolute lower bound of potential damage. It would not be prudent, or legal, to continue to use part of the hotel that was located at the edge of the blufftop.

Use of this wing of the hotel would likely need to be curtailed prior to 2090. The entire western portion of the west/east wing will likely need to be relocated at some point within the study period to avoid serious risk or actual physical impacts. For insurance and safety reasons, and to avoid damage to the public coastal amenities, it is also likely that structural modifications would be required earlier than the occurrence of direct impacts identified in this assessment. It is not possible to estimate the costs associated with this reconfiguration, but these costs would likely be in the tens of millions of dollars.

5.5.3 Impact of Cliff Erosion on Recreational Use
The Coastal Trail is used by golfers on the final holes of both golf courses, which are considered to be the showpiece holes of each course. Thus, there is an economic incentive to ensure that access is maintained and the analysis takes the assumption that the recreational values supported by the trail and beach access will be retained through the relocation of the combined Coastal Trail/cart path to a more landward location. This could include reconfiguration of the 1st and 18th holes of this course. Due to the extensive design and engineering work involved in the siting and construction of a relocated Coastal Trail, it is not possible to estimate the costs associated with this adaptation action without a specifically chosen alignment.

On the northern side of the hotel, on the 18th hole of the Old Course, there is a pinch point between the bluff and the hotel, specifically in the area of Miramontes Point where the Ocean Lawn and Miramontes Terrace extend shoreward from the hotel structure. At some point, path access from the northern side of the hotel property will be restricted on the seaward side, either due to safety considerations or because the trail is no longer present. Currently, this path is part of the Coastal Trail. This section of trail will likely need to be relocated to the landward side of 112
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 76 Normal
the hotel structure and parking garage, and rejoin a relocated section of trail on the southern side of the hotel.

No attempt has been made to estimate the costs of the relocated trail on the north side of the hotel, as this would likely be able to follow the existing roads from Ocean Colony (Fairway Drive, Ashdown Place, and Miramontes Point Road), rejoining the existing coastal trail access path on the southern side of the hotel.

5.5.4 Impact of Erosion on Trail Infrastructure
Having assumed that the trail can be reconfigured to preserve recreational use, the primary cost associated with erosion damage to the trail is the replacement of the trail sections affected by erosion in each time horizon. Due to safety requirements, the trail will likely need to be relocated before physical damage is experienced.

Table 5-9 shows the number of linear feet of trail affected by cliff erosion by time period. The cart path is approximately 10 ft wide, and it is assumed that the entire width would be replaced, even if only a smaller section is damaged. Promatcher17 provides an estimate for concrete paths in California of $8.29 per square foot. Given the site location, golf course operations and recreational use, and the need to remove the existing materials, a figure of $15 per square foot is considered conservative.

Table 5-9. Length of Trail Affected by Cliff Erosion by Time Period and Estimated Cost Year
Erosion Damage
(linear feet)
Cumulative Damage
(linear feet)
Estimated Cost of
Replacement,
Cumulative ($)
2060 46.0 46.0 6,907
2070 68.2 114.3 17,144
2080 409.5 523.8 78,568
2090 615.7 1139.5 170,920
2100 304.5 1444.0 216,598
Grand
Total
1444.0 1444.0 216,598
The relocation of the trail would also require the resumption of part of the golf course. It is assumed that this does not reduce the value of the remaining golf course parcel, so there is no 17 California Concrete Costs & Prices - ProMatcher Cost Report, accessed 19 July 2022. https://concrete.promatcher.com/cost/california.aspx
113
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 77 Normal
economic loss. This section also does not include an estimate of the costs to relocate or replace the Manhattan Beach access stairs at Cañada Verde Creek. 114
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 78 Normal
6 ADAPTATION PLANNING
Adaptation planning occurs over multiple time scales and requires a comprehensive approach to implement. Adaptation can be implemented through projects, changes to policy, and in most cases, simply moving back away from the ocean. Various adaptation approaches include protecting, accommodating, and relocating; each with its own set of secondary consequences that need to be considered. From the City and public perspective, the Coastal Trail, beach access, and golf courses are of primary focus. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, golf facilities, and tax revenues are of secondary focus and will need additional consultation between the City and private entities, including the golf courses and the hotel. This section describes some of the most common adaptation strategies considered for bluff-backed shorelines, summarizing the tradeoffs and identifying the most feasible (economic and regulatory) strategies through time to maintain the upland development, infrastructure and coastal resources.

Adaptation strategies fall into three main categories—protection approaches that attempt to stop erosion, accommodation approaches that allow for erosion and flooding while minimizing damages, and managed retreat or hazard avoidance, which would relocate golf or resort features and/or realign the Coastal Trail.

No one category or specific adaptation strategy is considered the “best” option forever. The effectiveness of different adaptation strategies varies across space and time, with different strategies able to accommodate various coastal hazards and elevations of sea level rise. Some adaptation measures may present secondary consequences, such as negative impacts on beaches, wetlands, habitats, and access which are protected by law for future generations under the California Coastal Act. The City’s Local Coastal Program implements the Coastal Act at the local level and grants the City much of the permitting authority to protect the coastal resources.

Over time, the City and private interests are likely to use several of the approaches discussed in this section as long-term hybrid strategies evolve based on observed environmental or economic changes. Changes, or “triggers,” such as cliff erosion within a certain distance of the Coastal Trail, tee boxes, greens, or the Ritz-Carlton Hotel should catalyze a change from one type of approach to another to maintain function, connectivity, and revenues. These triggers can be easily monitored to identify when it makes sense to shift from one adaptation approach to another.

One key trigger to monitor will be the distance from the Coastal Trail to the cliff edge. When the distance between the cliff edge and the Coastal Trail is near say 10 ft, then preparation for a realignment of the Coastal Trail, including discussions and planning with the golf course and the Ritz-Carlton Hotel should occur.
115
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 79 Normal

6.1 Protect
Protection strategies attempt to “hold the shoreline in place” by employing some sort of engineered structure or another measure to defend development or infrastructure in its current location without changes to the development itself. Protection strategies can be divided into “gray” and “green” defensive measures. A “gray,” or “hard,” approach is usually an engineered structure that can be positioned either alongshore (such as a seawall, revetment, or offshore breakwater) or cross-shore (such as a groin or harbor jetty). Green defensive strategies include beach nourishment or cobble berms that widen beaches or absorb wave energy to buffer storm erosion. Some protection structures are cross-shore structures intended to trap sand and widen the beach upcoast of the structure, starving downcoast beaches of sand and accelerating erosion.

Figure 6-1. A range of green to gray adaptation strategies intended to mitigate erosion, flooding, or both Source: www.habitatblueprint.noaa.gov/living-shorelines.

Protection strategies usually attempt to stop erosion by holding the shoreline in place using revetments, seawalls, or soil nail walls. The presence of coastal armoring structures can have negative environmental and social consequences when a structural footprint buries beaches or impedes beach access and recreation. As sea levels rise, passive erosion or coastal squeeze occurs as this “holding the shoreline in place” strategy results in a slow drowning of beaches and nearshore habitats. These impacts raise serious concerns about consistency with the public access, habitat, and recreation preservation policies of the California Coastal Act. 116
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 80 Normal
Offshore breakwaters and artificial reefs are constructed to reduce erosion by reflecting, breaking, and dissipating wave energy before waves impact the shoreline. These are similar to some of the offshore rocks and rock reefs that currently exist offshore of the project site. The difference between these two types of structures is the elevation relative to the water level; breakwaters are visible through all tides and stop wave energy whereas artificial reefs tend to be submerged during most of the tidal cycle and cause waves to break offshore and dissipate the wave energy before it reaches shore. These types of structures are unlikely to be viable in the current regulatory environment given that the nearshore and offshore environment is part of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

Nature-based protection approaches attempt to decrease erosion using natural physical processes and native materials rather than trying to stop them. The types of projects that fall into this category include sand and cobble nourishment programs, where sand is added to the beach system, widening the beach and providing additional natural protection. In cliff-backed systems like this area, larger sediments such as cobbles could be placed at the toe of the cliffs to improve resistance to erosion. However, cobbles placed along the back of the narrow beaches in the study area are more likely to cause abrasion at the toe of the cliffs and accelerate erosion.

Again, the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary’s current regulations forbid beach nourishment from occurring. In addition to regulatory concerns, both of these nourishment approaches to enhance natural beach protection in front of the study area would likely need to be done every few years at great cost.

Sand retention structures such as groins are oriented perpendicular to the coast in a cross-shore direction and are designed to trap and retain sediment to widen the beach and allow the beach to naturally reduce wave energy and reduce erosion. However, obstructing the naturally occurring transport of sediment along the shore can deplete downcoast beaches of their sediment supply and shift erosion to those areas. In some reaches of Sections 1, 2, and 6, offshore rocks currently serve as natural sediment retention; however, as erosion of the offshore rocks continues and sea levels rise, this area may reduce its retention capacity, narrowing the beach with erosion escalating in the future.

Previous gray protection strategies included revetments built by The Ritz-Carlton Hotel that were required to be removed by the CCC. Most of the protection options described above are unlikely to be approved by the CCC or the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary in the future.

6.2 Accommodate
Accommodation strategies refer to the range of adaptation strategies that employ methods to modify existing development or infrastructure or place development in areas that decrease hazard risks and increase resiliency. Some of these strategies include policy approaches such as setbacks or project approaches such as elevating structures. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel opened in 2001 and incorporated development setbacks, but as erosion continues, the setback distance 117
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 81 Normal
narrows. The other accommodation strategy is to elevate structures using piles. This elevation approach also has been applied previously at the hotel with the remnant piles now eroded onto the bluff face illustrating that this is not a feasible long-term adaptation strategy (Figure 2-18).

6.3 Managed Retreat/Realignment/Relocation
Managed relocation and realignments are adaptation approaches that acknowledge natural cliff erosion hazards and avoid the projected long-term changes and future impacts by incrementally relocating, realigning, or removing at-risk infrastructure and development.

Managed relocation is not done quickly; rather, it is a comprehensively planned approach, phased over time and implemented by the gradual realignment, relocation, and eventual removal of structures and infrastructure from risk-prone areas. Two important steps in implementing a policy approach to managed retreat include requiring real estate disclosures for coastal hazards and sea level rise during property transactions and indemnifying the City by limiting the liability over time for land-use decisions.

Over longer periods and higher sea levels, this “stepping back” strategy becomes the most costeffective measure in comparison to adaptation approaches that require construction, maintenance, and potential removal of erosion control structures, and are also associated with lost revenues associated with secondary impacts to coastal resources such as the loss of beach recreation revenue. Taking a long-term view, all assets subject to erosion will be subject to some form of retreat in the future. The primary issue is whether it is a controlled process that is optimized to maximize public and private benefits in the interim or whether it is a rapid response to extreme weather events. This is particularly true for properties in this area exposed to cliff erosion hazards, as cliff collapses occur in an episodic and often unpredictable fashion.

The goal of managed relocation approaches is to preserve the public interest and access to the coast while providing an equitable solution for private property owners. When and where to move tends to be highly dependent on local economics and legal and property rights, and must balance public and private interests.

The realignment of the Coastal Trail will require early planning, as well as continuous engagement with the community and private sector to maintain beach access as well as coastal views. If planned in advance and identified in various planning documents such as the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) as the long-term plan for the Coastal Trail, it is possible that the cost of realigning and reconstructing the Coastal Trail could be funded by public entities such as the California Coastal Conservancy (SCC).

The relocation of the golf courses and Ritz-Carlton Hotel will require reimagining and reconfiguring existing holes and structures; but because both properties have plenty of space, these should be possible without losing complete use of the facilities and properties. This would likely fall on the private property owners. Most resort facilities complete remodels on an 118
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 82 Normal
approximate 10-year cycle. This timing should be considered in the phasing of any relocation strategy.

6.4 Most Feasible Adaptation Approaches
The City’s primary adaptation goals are to:
• Minimize impacts on the public
• Maintain public access to the beach and along the Coastal Trail • Minimize changes to the visual character of the site
Based on the team’s knowledge of the current regulatory environment, as well as the history of site development, Table 6-1 summarizes the feasibility of some of the most common adaptation strategies.

Table 6-1. Feasibility of Adaptation Solutions
Strategy Feasibility Rationale
Riprap Revetments Unlikely Previously removed
Seawalls No Regulatory constraints
Soil Nail Tie-back Walls Unlikely High cost and regulatory constraints Artificial Reefs No High cost and regulatory constraints Groins No High cost and regulatory constraints
Offshore Breakwaters No High cost and regulatory constraints Sand Nourishment Unlikely Effectiveness and regulatory constraints Cobble Berms Perhaps Effectiveness and high cost
Relocation of Vulnerable Section
of the Hotel
Yes Plenty of space
Realignment of Coastal Trail Yes Plenty of space
Realignment of Golf Course Yes Plenty of space
Ocean Colony Partners Future Golf Course Design Considerations Ocean Colony Partners has investigated golf course design and reconfiguration changes that may become necessary in response to sea level rise and potential future bluff erosion (Ocean Colony Partners 2022). The potentially impacted areas primarily involve the Old Course 18th hole, and Ocean Course 16th, 17th, and 18th holes.

Old Course 18th hole
1) The green is large enough to be reduced on its seaward side by upwards of 25’ and the right greenside bunker eliminated;
119
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 83 Normal
2) The tees can easily be moved landward by up to 40’ and the adjacent cart path relocated; and
3) Future fairway erosion at Hot Spot #1 would not significantly affect golf play off the tee, but Hot Spot #2 could, with substantial future erosion, require narrowing of the fairway or a redesign landward.

Ocean Course 16th and 18th holes
1) The green, tees and fairways could be redesigned and relocated (or the 18th hole shortened or the tee moved to the north of Canada Verde Creek) if necessary, but only minor coastal trail relocations would be possible in several areas (Hot Spots # 5-7; and Undercut #2 and 3) without significant impacts to the golf course.

Ocean Course 17th
2) Ocean Course's 17th hole presents the most difficulty at the green and some of the tee areas if there was future major bluff erosion in those areas. While some landward relocation is possible, any significant bluff erosion would likely require eliminating the hole and rebuilding another hole in an alternative location on the golf course. The existing coastal trail would also be threatened.

6.5 Adaptation Pathway
An adaptation pathway helps visualize some of the sequences of possible adaptation responses through time in a stepwise manner. Every alternative is designed to meet a certain performance level over a period of time, and once it reaches a tipping point where potential damages are no longer acceptable, a transition to another strategy is required. Each strategy requires lead times associated with the planning, outreach, permitting, design, and construction before it can be effective. Thus, before a tipping point of damages is realized, planners should identify possible triggers and anticipate the lead times necessary to implement a new strategy before potential damages occur. Due to the uncertainty over future physical conditions, natural variability, regulatory changes, and changing societal values, these pathways should remain flexible.

Through this adaptation pathway approach, the team identified several short-term (0–10 year) approaches to reduce erosion and buy some time; mid-term (10–30 year) planning such as redevelopment standards and improvements, realignment of pedestrian path, viewing platforms; and long-term (30+ year) relocation and realignment, particularly along the southwestern, ocean-facing wing of hotel and reconfiguration of the golf courses. Long-term adaptation approaches will require careful thought and planning to maximize effectiveness and minimize cost. This longer-term approach may also include envisioning alternative uses and locations in the adaptive reconfigurations of assets in vulnerable areas (Figure 6-2). 120
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 84 Normal
Figure 6-2. Potential adaptation pathway timeline.
121
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 85 Normal
Part of this adaptation pathway will require routine monitoring. It is suggested that a simple survey of the distance between the Coastal Trail and the bluff edge be completed at least once a year, and following major storm events. Another aspect of this monitoring would be site investigations of the sea caves that may pose a risk from below.

6.5.1 Short Term (0 to 10 years)
Over the short term, the priority should be reducing the factors that can accelerate erosion rates of the cliffs. As noted in Section 2.5, the high groundwater seepage can weaken the bedrock geology and increase pore pressure, which can result in accelerated erosion rates. This can be alleviated by carefully managing the groundwater and vegetation on site. Ocean Colony Partners have already reduced golf course irrigation scope, timing, and locations for a 40% reduction in irrigation water use between 2008 and 2022 (Ocean Colony Partners 2022). Some recommendations include continuing these efforts to minimize irrigation at the golf course, assess how the hotel can reduce landscape irrigation, and planting native vegetation along the bluffs, hotel landscaped areas, and golf course to the maximum extent feasible. Signage and fencing to reduce pedestrian-caused erosion and vegetation trampling near the bluff edge is also encouraged.

6.5.2 Medium Term (10 to 30 years)
Over the medium term out to about 2050, most of the erosion can be addressed through small to moderate realignment of the Coastal Trail and golf course features. This will be a crucial time to continue monitoring and begin planning for more major relocations and realignments.

6.5.3 Long Term (30 + years)
Long-term adaptation will require major realignment of the Coastal Trail, the coastal wing of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, and the lawns and patios around the hotel. Priorities should be stated in updated planning documents such as the Local Coastal Program about the preferred location and alignment of the Coastal Trail considering setback distances and alignment on the ocean side of the resort if desired and feasible.

The golf courses will require some redesign and reconfiguration to move both the Old Course’s 18th hole tee boxes and greens and Ocean Course’s 17th hole further inland, while maintaining public access and safety along the Coastal Trail. This may require additional fencing for pedestrian safety.
7 KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• The City should engage with the Ritz-Carlton Hotel and Half Moon Bay Golf Links to annually monitor the distance between the Coastal Trail and the bluff edge as well as the condition of the sea caves.
• The City should identify triggers and further refine the City’s vision for the Coastal Trail.
122
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 86 Normal
References
Ashton, A., M. Walkden, and M. Dickson. 2011. Equilibrium responses of cliffed coasts to changes in the rate of sea level rise. Marine Geology 284:217–229. 10.1016/j.margeo.2011.01.007.

Bowker, J.M., J.C. Bergstrom, and J. Gill. 2007. Estimating the economic value and impacts of recreational trails: a case study of the Virginia creeper rail trail. Tourism Economics 13(2):241–260.

CCC. 2005. Coastal Development Permit Application. Application Number 2-02-028, Half Moon Bay Golf Links Seawall. TH 11a. California Coastal Commission.

City of Half Moon Bay. 2020. City of Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Land Use Plan, Comprehensive Update, 2020.

ESA. 2016. Santa Barbara County Coastal Resiliency, Phase 2 Technical Methods Report.

Prepared for the County of Santa Barbara. July 1, 2016.

Griggs, G., and K. Patsch. 2018. Natural changes and human impacts on the sand budgets and beach widths of the Zuma and Santa Monica littoral cells, Southern California. Shore and Beach

86. Hapke, C. 2004. The Measurement and Interpretation of Coastal Cliff and Bluff Retreat. Marine Science Faculty Publications. 2485. https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/msc_facpub/2485.

Hapke, C.J., and D. Reid. 2007. Open-File Report Vol. 2007 (2007-1133), National assessment of shoreline change part 4: historical coastal cliff retreat along the California coast. U.S. Geological Survey doi:10.3133/ofr20071133.

Hegermiller, C.A., A. Rueda, L.H. Erikson, P.L. Barnard, J.A.A. Antolinez, and F.J. Mendez. 2017. Controls of multimodal wave conditions in a complex coastal setting. Geophysical Research Letters 44:(24).

Himmelstoss, E.A., Henderson, R.E., Kratzmann, M.G., and Farris, A.S.. 2018, Digital Shoreline Analysis System (DSAS) version 5.0 user guide: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2018– 1179, 110 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20181179.

King, P., and A. McGregor. 2012. Who's counting: An analysis of beach attendance estimates and methodologies in southern California. Ocean and Coastal Management 58:17–25. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0964569111001955 NOAA. 2022. Tide gauges for Pillar Pt. Harbor and San Francisco. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. Available at: www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov 123
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 87 Normal
Ocean Colony Partners, LLC. 2022. OCP Comments on Integral Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment. September 8, 2022.

OPC. 2018. State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance 2018 Update. Ocean Protection Council.

Orme, A.R., G., Griggs, D.L. Revell, J.G. Zoulas, C.C. Grandy, and J. Koo. 2011. Beach changes along the southern California coast during the 20th century: A comparison of natural and human forcing factors. Shore and Beach 79:38–50.

Pendleton, L., and J. Kildow. 2006. The non-market value of California beaches. Shore & Beach 74:34–37.

Point Blue and USGS. 2021. Science and Modeling, Our Coast Our Future. July, 2022. https://ourcoastourfuture.org/science-and-modeling/.

Revell, D.L., R. Battalio, B. Spear, P. Ruggiero, and J. Vandever. 2011. A methodology for predicting future coastal hazards due to sea-level rise on the California coast. Climatic Change 109:S251-S276 doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0315-2.

Russell, N., and G. Griggs. 2012. Adapting to Sea Level Rise: A Guide for California’s Coastal Communities, 2012.

Schnayerson, B. 2021. The Ritz-Carlton Opens in Half Moon Bay. Half Moon Bay Review, March 28, 2021. Available at: https://www.hmbreview.com/the-ritz-carlton-opens-in-half-moonbay/article_47157cfa-5c63-5c66-8a53-d6a72a083f76.html Seymour, A.C., Hapke, C., and Warrick, J.. 2016, Cliff Feature Delineation Tool (CFDT) and Baseline Builder, Version 1.0 User Guide: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2020-1070. 2020–1070, 54 p. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20201070.

Simpson, D. 2017. Memo to Scott Phillips, City of Half Moon Bay Planning Department, Half Moon Bay, CA. Summary of Measures Taken to Address Safety Hazard on Coastal Bluff, RitzCarlton Hotel Half Moon Bay, 1 Miramontes Point Road. May 16, 2017.

Stockdon, H.F., R.A. Holman, P.A. Howd, and A.H. Sallenger, Jr. 2006. Empirical parameterization of setup, swash, and runup. Coastal Engineering 53:573–588.

Storlazzi, C., and G. Griggs. 2000. Influence of El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events on the evolution of central California's shoreline. GSA Bulletin 2000; 112 (2): 236–249. doi: https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(2000)112<236:IOENOE>2.0.CO;2.

Storlazzi, C., and D. Wingfield. 2005. Spatial and Temporal Variations in Oceanographic and Meteorologic Forcing Along the Central California Coast, 1980-2002. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5085. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20055085. 124
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 88 Normal
125
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 89 Normal
Appendix A.

Modern Timeline of Coastal Development and Major Erosion Events Year
1971 Development of the Ocean Colony Neighborhood and Golf Course, known as the Half Moon Bay Country Club at the time, begins.
1972 A drilled pier-and-grade-beam foundation structure is constructed in anticipation of future hotel development at Miramontes Point. 1972–73 A major El Niño winter causes significant erosion, with evidence of bluff loss around Miramontes Point and Manhattan Beach.
1973 The Half Moon Bay Golf Links (formerly known as the Half Moon Bay Country Club / Ocean Colony Golf Course), opens the Old Course (formerly known as the Links Course).
1973 A retaining wall and 12 by a 24 ft slab of concrete are constructed to support the inland edge of the 18th green at the Old Course.

Late 1970s The original developer abandons hotel construction plans at Miramontes Point. 1982–83 A major El Niño winter causes significant erosion around Miramontes Point. 1991 Half Moon Bay City Council and the California Coastal Commission (CCC) approve the development of a new hotel.
1995–96 The retaining wall and concrete slab at the 18th green of the Old Course is undermined by erosion and breaks apart.
1996 A CDP (08-96) is issued for repairs along the 18th green of the Old Course.

Authorizing repair of the concrete slab as originally constructed. 1997–98 A major El Niño winter causes significant erosion around Miramontes Point. 1997 Half Moon Bay Golf Links’ Ocean Course opens.
1998 CDP granted and construction of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel begins. 1998 Riprap is added to the 18th green of the Old Course without a permit. 2000 Half Moon Bay Golf Links is redesigned with some changes to the layout of the 18th green including the removal of a sand trap.
2001 Ritz-Carlton Hotel opens.
2002 CCC issues cease and desist order for the riprap revetment at the 18th green. 126
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 90 Normal
2006 Riprap revetment is removed.
2016–17 An historically wet winter causes erosion that severely undermines the pier-andgrade-beam foundation structure at Miramontes Point and leads to partial collapse.
2018 Partially collapsed foundation piers are removed from Miramontes Point.

Note: Bluff-top or cliff-toe recession is not an inevitable consequence of every El Niño year or high precipitation anomaly winter. Cliff failure dynamics are far more complex and a section of cliff needs to be in a state where it is susceptible to erosion. 127
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 91 Normal
Appendix B.

Digital Elevation Transect Model Comparison
128
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 92 Normal
129
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 93 Normal
130
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 94 Normal
131
Miramontes Point
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment August 2022 Integral Consulting Inc. 95 Normal
132
Resolution No. C-2023-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

ACCEPTING THE MIRAMONTES POINT SEA LEVEL RISE VULNERABILITY AND FISCAL IMPACT

ASSESSMENT
WHEREAS, in April 2016, the City Council adopted a Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment that addressed flooding, tsunami, and erosion risks exacerbated by sea level rise from the north end of the City limits to the north end of the Ocean Colony Golf Courses; and WHEREAS, in 2019, the City initiated work on its Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP). The plan is comprised of two components: 1) climate action (strategies to reduce the City’s greenhouse gas emissions/carbon footprint); and 2) adaptation strategies in light of climate change and sea level rise; and
WHEREAS, in April 2020, the City’s comprehensive update to the Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) was certified by the Coastal Commission; and WHEREAS, the updated LUP incorporates policies about climate change and sea level rise, such as Policy 7-11 that calls for the City to use best available sea level rise science to periodically assess vulnerable assets and develop adaptation strategies; and WHEREAS, the City’s 2016 SLR assessment was limited in geographic scope due to a lack of available USGS data. Since its completion, additional data for the area of Miramontes Point in southern Half Moon Bay to the south end of the city limits has become available; and WHEREAS, the City entered into an agreement with Integral Consulting, Inc. (Integral) in November 2021 under the City Manager’s authority to perform an expanded vulnerability and economic impact assessment for the Ocean Colony area; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2022, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Contract with Integral for Phase 2 of the Miramontes Point Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Impact Assessment to include topographic and image data collection, adaptation planning and outreach; and
WHEREAS, the bluff retreat projections identified in the Miramontes Point Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Impact Assessment will provide managers and decision makers with the tools needed to understand what will likely need to be relocated, realigned, or removed, and what time horizons these actions will need to begin planning and implemented by to avoid these future erosion hazards.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay accepts the Miramontes Point Sea Level Vulnerability and Fiscal Impact Assessment. 133
*************************************************************** I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted on the 21st day of March 2023 by the City Council of Half Moon Bay by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
___________________________ _____________________________ Jessica Blair, City Clerk Deborah Penrose, Mayor
134

BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
FOR MEETING OF: April 4, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
FROM: Lisa Lopez Rossi, Interim Assistant City Manager
TITLE: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE CITY MANAGER, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR,

AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, BY TITLE, AS APPLICANT'S AGENT

FOR NON-STATE AGENCIES FOR THE CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF EMERGENCY

SERVICES (CALOES) PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAM & HAZARD MITIGATION

GRANT PROGRAM
______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution entitled, “Designation of Applicant’s Agent Resolution for Non-State Agencies” designating the City Manager, Public Works Director and the Administrative Services Director, by title, as Applicant's Agent for Non-State Agencies for the California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) Public Assistance Program & Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No financial impact is anticipated from the adoption of the attached resolution. Adoption of the resolution is a requirement by CalOES for the City to be eligible for Public Assistance Program funds.

STRATEGIC ELEMENT:

This recommendation supports the Fiscal Sustainability and Inclusive Government Elements of the Strategic Plan.

BACKGROUND:

Half Moon Bay Municipal Code Section 2.25.060.A.1 empowers the City Manager, as the Director of Emergency Services, to proclaim (subject to ratification by the City Council within seven days) the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency. During recent months, the City Manager, acting as the Director of Emergency Services, in accordance with the California Government Code and Half Moon Bay Municipal Code, proclaimed the existence of local emergencies within the City of Half Moon Bay due to various emergency events including flooding, power outage events and citizen evacuation. The City can request funding assistance from CalOES for costs incurred during local emergency or disaster events.

DISCUSSION
135
In time of natural disasters, the Governor requests the Federal Government for the Declaration of Federal Emergency. If a Federal Emergency is declared, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) distributes funds to the California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) for the Public Assistance Program. The Public Assistance Program allows affected jurisdictions to recover up to 93.75% (75% FEMA, 18.75% CalOES) of eligible disaster related costs incurred during the disaster period. CalOES requires the City to designate an "Applicant's Agent" through a City Council Resolution. This designation is required in order for the City to receive reimbursement. The attached resolution is in strict format of CalOES and its adoption is required prior to the City receiving any reimbursement from CalOES related to expenses incurred responding to local emergency events. The Resolution is effective for all open and future disasters up to three (3) years following the date of approval.

ATTACHMENTS
CalOES Form 130 Resolution - Designation of Applicant’s Agent Resolution for Non-State Agencies
136

DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AGENT RESOLUTION FOR NON-STATE AGENCIES

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE OF THE
(Governing Body) (Name of Applicant)

THAT , OR
(Title of Authorized Agent)
, OR
(Title of Authorized Agent)
(Title of Authorized Agent)
is hereby authorized to execute for and on behalf of the , (Name of Applicant)
a public entity established under the laws of the State of California, this application and to file it with the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services for the purpose of obtaining federal financial assistance for any existing or future grant program, including, but not limited to any of the following:
- Federally declared Disaster (DR), Fire Mitigation Assistance Grant (FMAG), California State Only Disaster (CDAA), Immediate Services Program (ISP), Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC), Legislative Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (LPDM), under - Public Law 93-288 as amended by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988, and/or state financial assistance under the California Disaster Assistance Act.
- Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA), under Section 1366 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968.
- National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) 42 U.S. Code 7704 (b) ((2) (A) (ix) and 42 U.S. Code 7704 (b) (2) (B) National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, and also The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Div. F, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-141 - California Early Earthquake Warning (CEEW) under CA Gov Code – Gov, Title 2, Div. 1, Chapter 7, Article 5, Sections 8587.8, 8587.11, 8587.12 That the , a public entity established under the
(Name of Applicant)
laws of the State of California, hereby authorizes its agent(s) to provide to the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services for all matters pertaining to such state disaster assistance the assurances and agreements required.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES

DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AGENT RESOLUTION

NON-STATE AGENCIES
OES-FPD-130 (Rev. 10-2022)

RECOVERY DIRECTORATE

FINANCIAL PROCESSING DIVISION
Cal OES ID No: _____________
Rev. 10-2022 Page 1 of 4 OES-FPD-130137
Please check the appropriate box below
This is a universal resolution and is effective for all open and future disasters/grants declared up to three (3) years following the date of approval.

This is a disaster/grant specific resolution and is effective for only disaster/grant number(s):

Passed and approved this __day of , 20
(Name and Title of Governing Body Representative)

CERTIFICATION
I, , duly appointed and of
(Name) (Title)
, do hereby certify that the above is a true and
(Name of Applicant)
correct copy of a resolution passed and approved by the (Governing Body)
of the on the day of , 20 .
(Name of Applicant)
(Signature) (Title)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES

DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AGENT RESOLUTION

NON-STATE AGENCIES
OES-FPD-130 (Rev. 10-2022)

RECOVERY DIRECTORATE

FINANCIAL PROCESSING DIVISION
Rev. 10-2022 Page 2 of 4 OES-FPD-130138
Cal OES Form 130 Instructions
A Designation of Applicant’s Agent Resolution for Non-State Agencies is required of all Applicants to be eligible to receive funding. A new resolution must be submitted if a previously submitted resolution is older than three (3) years from the last date of approval, is invalid, or has not been submitted.

When completing the Cal OES Form 130, Applicants should fill in the blanks on pages 1 and 2. The blanks are to be filled in as follows:

Resolution Section:

Governing Body: This is the group responsible for appointing and approving the Authorized Agents.

Examples include: Board of Directors, City Council, Board of Supervisors, Board of Education, etc.

Name of Applicant: The public entity established under the laws of the State of California.

Examples include: School District, Office of Education, City, County or Non-profit agency that has applied for the grant, such as: City of San Diego, Sacramento County, Burbank Unified School District, Napa County Office of Education, University Southern California.

Authorized Agent: These are the individuals that are authorized by the Governing Body to engage with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services regarding grants for which they have applied.

There are two ways of completing this section:

1. Titles Only: The titles of the Authorized Agents should be entered here, not their names. This allows the document to remain valid if an Authorized Agent leaves the position and is replaced by another individual. If “Titles Only” is the chosen method, this document must be accompanied by either a cover letter naming the Authorized Agents by name and title, or the Cal OES AA Names document. The supporting document can be completed by any authorized person within the Agency (e.g., administrative assistant, the Authorized Agent, secretary to the Director). It does not require the Governing Body’s signature.

2. Names and Titles: If the Governing Body so chooses, the names and titles of the Authorized Agents would be listed. A new Cal OES Form 130 will be required if any of the Authorized Agents are replaced, leave the position listed on the document, or their title changes.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES

DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AGENT RESOLUTION

NON-STATE AGENCIES
OES-FPD-130 (Rev. 10-2022)

RECOVERY DIRECTORATE

FINANCIAL PROCESSING DIVISION
Rev. 10-2022 OES-FPD-130 Page 3 of 4 139
Checking Universal or Disaster-Specific Box: A Universal resolution is effective for all past disasters and for those declared up to three (3) years following the date of approval. Upon expiration it is no longer effective for new disasters, but it remains in effect for disasters declared prior to expiration. It remains effective until the disaster goes through closeout unless it is superseded by a newer resolution.

Governing Body Representative: These are the names and titles of the approving Board Members.

Examples include: Chairman of the Board, Director, Superintendent, etc. The names and titles cannot be one of the designated Authorized Agents. A minimum of three (3) approving board members must be listed. If less than three are present, meeting minutes must be attached in order to verify a quorum was met.

Certification Section:

Name and Title: This is the individual in attendance who recorded the creation and approval of this resolution.

Examples include: City Clerk, Secretary to the Board of Directors, County Clerk, etc. This person cannot be one of the designated Authorized Agents or Approving Board Member. If a person holds two positions (such as City Manager and Secretary to the Board) and the City Manager is to be listed as an Authorized Agent, then that person could sign the document as Secretary to the Board (not City Manager) to eliminate “Self-Certification.”

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES

DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AGENT RESOLUTION

NON-STATE AGENCIES
OES-FPD-130 (Rev. 10-2022)

RECOVERY DIRECTORATE

FINANCIAL PROCESSING DIVISION
Rev. 10-2022 Page 4 of 4 OES-FPD-130 140

BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: April 4, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
FROM: Maz Bozorginia, Public Work Director/City Engineer Jonathan Woo, Assistant Engineer

TITLE: ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF A 3-FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT AT 419 GARCIA AVENUE
______________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution accepting dedication of a 3-foot Public Utility and Pedestrian Access Easement from Babak and Katja Kamangar, owners of 419 Garcia Avenue, APN: 056-118-190, and authorizing the City Manager to sign the certificate of acceptance for said easement.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. The staff time associated with review and acceptance of the easement dedication are covered by permit fees paid by the project applicant.

STRATEGIC PLAN
This recommendation supports the Infrastructure and Environment and the Healthy Communities and Public Safety Elements of the Strategic Plan.

BACKGROUND
On February 22, 2023, the City approved an Administrative Coastal Development Permit to allow the construction of a new two-story single-family residence at 419 Garcia Avenue (CDD Resolution No. P-23-05). The subject site can be seen on Figure 1 of the staff report as outlined.

The property has an existing 6” curb and gutter along the property frontage. The adjacent property (415 Garcia Avenue) has complete sidewalk, curb and gutter improvements.

For a new concrete driveway approach, the developer is required to construct a driveway in conformance with City Standards. In this location, in order to comply with ADA Standards, a wider sidewalk width was required. Since relocation of the gutter is not feasible for this infill project, the developer will meander the sidewalk into the private property and therefore will be granting an easement to the City for the public sidewalk improvement (Pedestrian Access Easement), see Figure 2.
141
Figure 1. Site Location
Figure 2. Proposed Sidewalk Improvements at 419 Garcia
Additionally, existing utility infrastructure (PG&E and CCWD) is within the private property, according to the records. Based on CCWD’s requirements and the presence of utilities, a 3’ public utility easement is also being dedicated to the public.

ANALYSIS
The proposed new 3’ Public Utility and Pedestrian Access Easement is a rectangular shape, as shown in Figure 3, below, with a length of 44.80 feet, across the entire frontage of the subjected parcel. The configuration is shown in the legal description and plat (Attachment 2, 419
142
Exhibits A and B) and has been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director/City Engineer. The Easement Deed (Attachment 2) has been signed by the owner and will be ready to be recorded once all of the signatures are in place. The City of Half Moon Bay will receive a copy of the recorded Easement document for the City’s records.

Figure 3. Lot Line Adjustment Plat
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Resolution

2. Easement Deed with Legal Description (Exhibit A) and Plat (Exhibit B) 143
Resolution No. C-2023-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF A 3-FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT AT 419

GARCIA AVENUE AND AUTHORING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE CERTIFICATE OF

ACCEPTANCE FOR SAID EASEMENT
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2023, the City approved PDP-22-044, by Community Development Director Resolution No. P-23-05, for construction of a new two-story single-family residence at 419 Garcia Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the dedicated pedestrian access easement is required to allow ADA compliant pedestrian access behind the proposed driveway apron; and WHEREAS, the dedicated public utility easement is required to access existing and proposed utility infrastructure (PG&E and CCWD); and
WHEREAS, the owners of 419 Garcia Avenue are granting to the public a perpetual 3- foot Public Utility and Pedestrian Access Easement along the southern 3-feet of said parcel.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay hereby:
1) Accepts the dedication of a 3-foot Public Utility and Pedestrian Access Easement, from Babak and Katja Kamangar, of 419 Garcia Avenue, APN: 056-118-190; and 2) Authorizes the City Manager to sign the certificate of acceptance for said easements. ********************************************************************** I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the forgoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted on the 4th day of April 2023 by the City Council of Half Moon Bay by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
____________________________ ______________________________ Jessica Blair, City Clerk Deborah Penrose, Mayor
144

RECORDED AT THE REQUEST OF
And
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
C/O City Clerk
501 Main Street
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
(Space above for Recorder’s use only)
THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(S) DECLARE(S):

DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS $0
computed on the full value of the property conveyed, or computed on the full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at the time of sale, or this is a conveyance of an easement and the consideration and value is less than $100, R & T 11911. unincorporated area City of Half Moon Bay
Realty not sold

EASEMENT DEED
BABAK AND KATJA KAMANGAR, GRANTOR, does hereby grant to the CITY OF HALF MOON BAY, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, a perpetual Public Utility Easement and Pedestrian Access Easement for utilities and pedestrian access including, but not limited to, the construction, maintenance, repair, protection, operation, and replacement of infrastructure, together with appurtenances thereof, across, and in lands commonly known as 419 Garcia Avenue, Half Moon Bay, County of San Mateo, California, designated in the records of the County Assessor as APN 056-118-190 and more particularly described in Exhibit A and shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto, and by this reference incorporated herein (“Easement Area”).

The CITY OF HALF MOON BAY and its employees and agents shall have the right to enter upon the Easement Area at any and all times with such tools and equipment as may be necessary or convenient for the exercise of the rights herein granted to said CITY OF HALF MOON BAY.

No building or structure of any kind shall be constructed upon the Easement Area, and should a building or structure be erected in violation of this provision, the CITY OF HALF MOON BAY, its successors, and assigns may still exercise all rights herein granted and shall have the right to remove, or cause grantor to remove, at grantor’s expense, any building or structure that may be erected upon or over the Easement Area.

The CITY OF HALF MOON BAY shall not be held liable in any manner whatsoever for any damages thereby incurred, nor shall the CITY OF HALF MOON BAY have any obligation to replace any structure that may be removed from Easement Area.

This grant of easement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the respective administrators, executors, personal representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto.

Date: ___________________ Grantor_________________________________________

BABAK KAMANGAR
Grantor_________________________________________

KATJA KAMANGAR
145

RECORDED AT THE REQUEST OF
And
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
C/O City Clerk
501 Main Street
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
(Space above for Recorder’s use only)

CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed for Public Utility Easement and Pedestrian Access Easement Purposes, more particularly described in Exhibit A and shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto and by reference made a part thereof, from Babak and Katja Kamangar is hereby accepted by the City Manager of the City of Half Moon Bay, pursuant to Resolution No. C-2023-XX, and the grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer.

CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
____________________________ ______________________________ By: Matthew Chidester, City Manager Date
Attest:

__________________________ ______________________________ Jessica Blair, City Clerk Date
146
EXHIBIT “A”
PUBLIC UTILITY and PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT

KAMANGAR
to the

CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
SITUATE in the City of Half Moon Bay, County of San Mateo, State of California; and BEING a portion of the lands of BABAK KAMANGAR and KATJA KAMANGAR, Co-Trustees of the KAMANGAR LIVING TRUST dated August 21, 2013, as said lands are described in that certain Grant Deed recorded March 31, 2021 as Document No. 2021-051283, Official Records, in the office of the County Recorder of the County of San Mateo; said lands being Lot 20, in Block 4, as delineated on that certain map entitled “MIRAMONTES TRACT NO. 3” filed for record on April 15, 1907, in Book 4 of Maps, at Page 65, In the office of the County recorder of the County of San Mateo, California; and
BEING an easement for Public Utilities and Pedestrian Access, three (3) feet in width, the Southerly line of which is the Southerly boundary of said lands of KAMANGAR, also being the Northerly sideline of Garcia Avenue, a City street, and being more particularly described as follows:

BEGINNING at the Southwesterly corner of said Lot 20; thence along the Westerly boundary of said Lot 20

1. North 06° 47’ 25” East, a distance of 3.00 feet; thence leaving said Westerly boundary and running parallel to the Southerly boundary of said Lot 20

2. South 83° 13’ 00” East, a distance of 44.80 feet, to the Easterly boundary of said Lot 20; thence along said Easterly boundary

3. South 06° 47’ 31” West, a distance of 3.00 feet; to the Southeasterly corner of said Lot 20; thence along the Southerly boundary of said Lot 20

4. North 83° 13’ 00” West, a distance of 44.80 feet, to the Point of Beginning.

CONTAINS 134 square feet, a little more or less.

APN 056-118-190 (Portion)
Description prepared from field survey and official records by Hogan Land Services, Inc., in Soquel, California.

By: March 14, 2023
147
148
5231-Lands of Kamangar
3’ Public Utility and Pedestrian Access Easement Closure Calcs Segment #1 : Line
Course: N6.4725E (dms) Length: 3.00'
North: 550.343122' East: 1088.217514'
Segment #2 : Line
Course: S83.1300E (dms) Length: 44.80'
North: 545.051565' East: 1132.703910'
Segment #3 : Line
Course: S6.4731W (dms) Length: 3.00'
North: 542.072618' East: 1132.349117'
Segment #4 : Line
Course: N83.1300W (dms) Length: 44.80'
North: 547.364176' East: 1087.862721'
Perimeter: 95.61' Area: 134.41 Sq. Ft.

Error Closure: 0.000087 Course: N83.1232W (dms)
Error North: 0.0000103 East: -0.0000867
Precision 1: 1098850.57
P.O.B. @ SW COR. LOT 20:

North: 1087.862808 East: 547.364166 N 06° 47' 25" E S 83° 13' 00" E S 06° 47' 31" W N 83° 13' 00" W 2/15/2023 North: 547.364166 East: 1087.862808 149

BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: April 4, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
FROM: Jessica Blair, Communications Director / City Clerk TITLE: ADOPTION OF THE 2023 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution establishing a Legislative Platform for 2023.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.

STRATEGIC ELEMENT:

This action supports the Inclusive Governance element of the Strategic Plan.

DISCUSSION:

The City has contracted with Townsend Public Affairs for the past five years for legislative advocacy and grant services. In collaboration with Townsend, the City Council Legislative Subcommittee, and staff, a proactive Legislative Platform has been developed to enable Townsend and staff to advocate on the City’s behalf with legislators and regulatory agencies.

The 2023 Legislative Platform highlights the position of the City Council on important issues that align with community goals and policy documents. City staff currently monitors bills introduced into California Legislature and U.S. Congress. This platform provides staff direction and allows the City, on the Council’s behalf, to respond in support of or opposition to bills and other legislative and administrative actions.

The draft of the 2023 Legislative Platform represents the City’s values and interests in areas such as Quality of Life, Environmental Protection, Economic Development, Public Safety, and Affordable Housing. These priority areas, among others listed in the draft, have been identified as fundamental legislative issues deemed critical to the City. Upon City Council approval, the legislative platform will allow staff to respond to the rapidly changing nature of legislative items.
150

The platform was developed using legislative positions taken by the City Council, a review of legislative priorities from the League of California Cities, input from the City Council and staff, research into current law and pending legislation, and discussion with Townsend. The Legislative Subcommittee has reviewed and approved the platform. The City Council would delegate its authority to the Mayor and / or City Manager to sign position letters consistent with the legislative platform. The platform is adopted annually by the City Council, updated accordingly to reflect legislative changes and positions taken in the prior year.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution approving the 2023 City of Half Moon Bay Legislative Platform

2. Legislative Matrix
151
Resolution No. C-2023-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY ADOPTING THE 2023 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND / OR CITY MANAGER TO SIGN POSITION LETTERS ON THE CITY COUNCIL’S BEHALF THAT REPRESENT THE

POSITIONS CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT
WHEREAS, the City has contracted with Townsend Public Affairs for the past five years for legislative advocacy and grant writing services; and WHEREAS, Townsend, in conjunction with the City Council Legislative Subcommittee and staff, has prepared the 2023 Legislative Platform which represents the City’s position on legislative issues; and
WHEREAS, the platform was developed using legislative positions taken by the City Council, a review of legislative priorities from the League of California Cities, input from the City Council and staff, research into current law and pending legislation, and discussion with Townsend; and
WHEREAS, adoption of the platform would allow staff to respond more efficiently and effectively to the rapidly changing nature of legislative items.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay hereby approves the 2023 Legislative Platform (Exhibit A) and authorizes the Mayor and / or the City Manager to sign position letters on the City Council’s behalf that represent the positions contained in this document.
***************************************************************** I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted on the 4th day of April, 2023 by the City Council of Half Moon Bay by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
___________________________ ______________________________ Jessica Blair, City Clerk Deborah Penrose, Mayor
152

M E M O R A N D U M
To: Th e Hon o ra b le Deborah Penrose, Mayor
Honorable Half Moon Bay City Council Members
Matthew Chidester, City Manager
Jessica Blair, Communications Director/City Clerk
From: Townsend Public Affairs, Inc.

Christopher Townsend, President
Andres Ramirez, Senior Associate
Ben Goldeen, Federal Advocacy Manager
Date: April 4, 2023
Subject: 2023 State and Federal Legislative Platform
Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. (TPA) has prepared this report for the City of Half Moon Bay following the end of the 2022 legislative year and has drafted a recommended 2023 State and Federal Legislative platform for discussion and adoption by the full City Council. 2023 is the first year of a new 2-year State legislative cycle that will conclude in the Fall of 2024.

It is also the first year of a new Congress in Washington, DC – with a new Republican majority in the US House of Representatives. As such, there are several bill ideas that are expected to be reintroduced in a new form from past cycles, as well as completely new bill ideas that were introduced on December 5, 2022 during the swearing in on new State Legislators, as well as in January of 2023 when the Legislature return from Interim Recess. There is an added layer of complexity in 2023, as new Congressional, State Senate, and State Assembly districts are being implemented. Additionally, the State Legislature and Congress have dozens of new Senators, Assembly Members, and Members of Congress and staff that will be serving for the first time in the State and Nation’s Capitol. This is expected to result in a number of new assignments on policy committees, new committee chairs, and overall new political dynamics with leadership changes.

TPA has been closely monitoring the redistricting process and various changes and stands ready to engage in policy discussions on behalf of the City of Half Moon Bay immediately upon finalization and adoption of this legislative platform. Additionally, since the end of the 2022 State Legislative Session in August and as the current Congress concludes its work, TPA has maintained frequent lines of communication with the President’s Administration, Governor’s 153
Climate Resiliency
1) Support legislative efforts to protect against sea level rise and other threats to coastal communities
2) Support legislation that promotes sustainability locally, regionally, and statewide 3) Support legislation that preserves open space and endangered species 4) Support efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions statewide 5) Support legislation that bolsters clean-tech businesses and the clean-tech economy in California
6) Advocate for legislation that bolsters de-carbonization efforts including tax credits for green development and an overall increased focus on electrification of critical infrastructure
7) Support the efforts of the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District
8) Support legislation that bolsters agricultural vitality. 9) Support legislation related to wildfire suppression and preemptive mitigation.

Administration, Key Legislators – including Half Moon Bay’s legislative delegation, capitol staff, and relevant stakeholders to help inform this document.

City of Half Moon Bay 2023 Legislative Priorities
The City of Half Moon Bay’s legislative platform for 2023 reflects the priorities of the Mayor and the City Council. The strategic platform has and will continue to include advocating for legislation, regulations, and funding that is consistent with the City’s goals.

In 2023, the Administration and Legislature are looking to focus on the following priority topics:
o Climate Resiliency
o Affordable Housing
o Homelessness
o Behavioral Health
o Fiscal Sustainability/Economic Development
The following policy areas are being recommended for close monitoring, analysis, and potential action. The City Council may choose to take a position on a piece of legislation, continue to monitor without a position, or determine if any further response is required.

TPA maintains a constantly updated matrix of state legislation during the legislative session and can provide recommendations when bills are introduced, as well as rolling updates and suggestions as legislation moves along. TPA will monitor bills in numerous policy areas, and will closely track legislative activity in the following policy areas:
154
Housing/Affordable Housing
1) Support legislative efforts to protect tenants and small property owners impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic
2) Support legislation that advances the creation or funding of appropriately scaled affordable housing, with sensitivities to the uniqueness and character of a small coastal community
3) Funding for innovative programs to prevent displacement and address hazardous housing conditions
4) Funding for the production of affordable housing, including farmworker housing Economic Development
1) Support legislation the preserves vital local funding streams 2) Support legislation that relives local governments of additional administrative burdens, especially as staff are taking on increased responsibilities during COVID-19 and the subsequent local recovery efforts
3) Support efforts to address the digital divide, including increasing access to broadband and high-speed internet
4) Monitor measures providing for new tax increment financing Homelessness
1) Prevent displacement of tenants and property owner residents 2) Support legislative efforts that will require counties to partner with cities relating to unspent Prop 63 mental health funds
3) Support legislative efforts that seek to ensure the compassionate treatment of homeless individuals
155
Infrastructure
1) Support legislation that works to bridge the digital divide and fosters broadband connectivity to vulnerable populations as well as the development of microgrids 2) Coordinate with the San Mateo County Transit District, regional transit operators, and other transit advocates and stakeholders to monitor and support legislative efforts that would enhance transit reliability and access for residents 3) Support legislation that will help reduce vehicle congestion 4) Support legislation that helps accelerate the development of Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
5) Support increased funding for traffic and pedestrian safety improvements 6) Advocate for programs and funds that will help bolster the development of key water infrastructure
7) Advocate for increased funding for transportation and active transportation projects 8) Oppose budget cuts to transportation and active transportation funding streams 9) Monitor legislation and regulations related to wind energy Elections
1) Support legislation that encourages and expands civic engagement and voter participation in elections
2) Monitor legislation that affects municipal elections 3) Monitor legislation that affects the California Voting Rights Acts and by-district elections
4) Support legislation that lowers the voting requirements for passage of local special purpose agency funding propositions
156
Public Safety
1) Support legislation related to disaster preparedness, training, response, and resilience efforts
2) Monitor and choose where to engage as it relates to criminal justice and police reform legislation
3) Support state funding to municipalities to establish community response programs for non-violent emergency calls
Government Transparency
1) Monitor legislation that affects the Brown Act
2) Monitor legislation that affects special districts and joint powers authorities and regulations of such
3) Monitor legislation that affects the Public Records Act 4) Monitor legislation that affects the Political Reform Act 5) Monitor legislation that impacts the ability of local governments to utilize digital communication
6) Support legislation that promotes accessibility to public proceedings Health Equity
1) Support legislation that increases health equity across the City, County, and State 2) Support legislation and funding to grow the behavioral health workforce 3) Advocate for funding for mental health treatment facilities 4) Explore and consider working on legislative efforts to create health care services districts
Process for Reporting/Next Steps
In addition to legislative updates and other communications we send to the City Team, TPA suggests verbal reports to the City Council at least once a quarter. 157
Due to the ever-changing nature of legislation in Sacramento, we will update our Legislative Tracking Matrix, tailored specifically for Half Moon Bay, either biweekly or monthly, thereby providing the City Council timely updates with the option to form a new position or change their current position on respective legislative items.
158
City of Half Moon Bay
AB 45 (Boerner Horvath D)   Coastal resources: coastal development permits: blue carbon demonstration projects: new development: greenhouse gas emissions.

Introduced: 12/5/2022
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House
Summary: The California Coastal Act of 1976, among other things, requires anyone wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone, except as specified, in addition to obtaining any other permit required by law from any local government or from any state, regional, or local agency, to obtain a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission, as provided. This bill would authorize the commission to authorize blue carbon demonstration projects, as defined, in order to demonstrate and quantify the carbon sequestration potential of these projects to help inform the state’s natural and working lands and climate resilience strategies. The bill would, among other things, authorize the commission to require an applicant with a project that impacts coastal wetland, subtidal, intertidal, or marine habitats or ecosystems to build or contribute to a blue carbon demonstration project.

AB 52 (Grayson D)   Sales and Use Tax Law: manufacturing equipment: research and development equipment.

Introduced: 12/5/2022
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House
Summary: The Sales and Use Tax Law imposes state taxes on retailers measured by the gross receipts from the sale of tangible personal property sold at retail in this state, or on the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of tangible personal property purchased from a retailer for storage, use, or other consumption in this state. The Sales and Use Tax Law provides various exemptions from those taxes, including an exemption from those taxes, on and after July 1, 2014, and before July 1, 2030, for the gross receipts from the sale of, and the storage, use, or other consumption of, qualified tangible personal property, as defined, that is, among other things, purchased by a qualified person for purchases for use primarily in manufacturing, processing, refining, fabricating, or recycling of tangible personal property, as specified, or purchased for use by a qualified person to be used primarily in research and development. Current law prohibits the exemption described above from applying with respect to any tax levied by a county, city, or district pursuant to, or in accordance with, the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law or the Transactions and Use Tax Law, sales and use taxes imposed pursuant to certain provisions of the Sales and Use Tax Law, and sales and use taxes imposed pursuant to certain provisions of the California Constitution. This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to expand the sales and use tax exemption for manufacturing and research and development equipment to preserve California’s status as a hub of innovation and technology and to encourage greater investment in California.

AB 344 (Wood D)   Electricity: load-serving entities: offshore wind facilities.

Introduced: 1/31/2023
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House
Summary: Would expressly authorize electrical corporations, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to jointly enter into agreements to procure electricity generated from offshore wind facilities.

AB 478 (Connolly D)   Wildfires: insurance.

Introduced: 2/7/2023
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House
Summary: The Insurance Rate Reduction and Reform Act of 1988, an initiative measure enacted by Proposition 103, as approved by the voters at the November 8, 1988, statewide general election, prohibits specified insurance rates from being approved or remaining in effect that are excessive, inadequate, unfairly discriminatory, or otherwise in violation of the act. In considering whether a rate is excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory, current law requires the Insurance Commissioner to consider whether the rate mathematically reflects the insurance company’s investment income. Current law authorizes the provisions of Proposition 103 to be amended by a statute that furthers the purposes of the act and is enacted by the Legislature with a 2/3 vote. For insureds 65 years of age or older, this bill would limit an increase in their yearly premium for a policy of residential property insurance by no more than 25 percent for insured property located in a high or very high fire hazard severity zone, as identified by the State Fire Marshal, as specified, and allow only one premium increase in a 5-year period.

AB 557 (Hart D)   Open meetings: local agencies: teleconferences.

159
Introduced: 2/8/2023
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law, until January 1, 2024, authorizes a local agency to use teleconferencing without complying with specified teleconferencing requirements in specified circumstances when a declared state of emergency is in effect, or in other situations related to public health, as specified. If there is a continuing state of emergency, or if state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, existing law requires a legislative body to make specified findings not later than 30 days after the first teleconferenced meeting, and to make those findings every 30 days thereafter, in order to continue to meet under these abbreviated teleconferencing procedures. Current law requires a legislative body that holds a teleconferenced meeting under these abbreviated teleconferencing procedures to give notice of the meeting and post agendas, as described, to allow members of the public to access the meeting and address the legislative body, to give notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment, including an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option. Current law prohibits a legislative body that holds a teleconferenced meeting under these abbreviated teleconferencing procedures from requiring public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and would specify that the legislative body must provide an opportunity for the public to address the legislative body and offer comment in real time. This bill would extend the above-described abbreviated teleconferencing provisions when a declared state of emergency is in effect, or in other situations related to public health, as specified, indefinitely.

AB 799 (Rivas, Luz D)   Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention program: Homelessness Accountability Act.

Introduced: 2/13/2023
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law establishes the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention program for the purpose of providing jurisdictions with one-time grant funds to support regional coordination and expand or develop local capacity to address their immediate homelessness challenges informed by a best-practices framework focused on moving homeless individuals and families into permanent housing and supporting the efforts of those individuals and families to maintain their permanent housing.

Current law provides for the allocation of funding under the program among continuums of care, cities, and counties in 4 rounds, the first of which is administered by the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency, and the others are administered by the Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council.

This bill, the Homelessness Accountability Act, would instead specify that the purpose of the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention program is to provide ongoing grant funds to support regional coordination and expand or develop local capacity to address their immediate homelessness challenges informed by best-practices and to solve homelessness using evidence-based or, where no evidence exists, a data-informed and promising framework, as provided.

AB 817 (Pacheco D)   Local government: open meetings.

Introduced: 2/13/2023
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, requires each legislative body of a local agency to provide notice of the time and place for its regular meetings and an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted. The act also requires that all meetings of a legislative body be open and public, and that all persons be permitted to attend unless a closed session is authorized.This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to a provision of the Ralph M.

Brown Act.

AB 894 (Friedman D)   Parking requirements: shared parking.

Introduced: 2/14/2023
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House
Summary: The Planning and Zoning Law requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its physical development, and the development of certain lands outside its boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. Current law also authorizes the legislative body of a city or a county to adopt ordinances establishing requirements for parking. This bill would require a public agency, as defined, to allow existing land uses with underutilized parking, as defined, to share the underutilized parking with the public, a private entity, a public agency, or other users. The bill would require a public agency to allow shared parking to be counted toward meeting automobile parking requirements for a new or existing development or use, including underutilized parking spaces, when the parking spaces meet specified conditions regarding the distance of the spaces from the applicable site. The bill would require a public agency to accept a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies developed by a professional planning

160
association, as specified, when determining the number of shared parking spaces that can be reasonably shared between different uses.

AB 930 (Friedman D)   Local government: Reinvestment in Infrastructure for a Sustainable and Equitable California (RISE) districts.

Introduced: 2/14/2023
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House
Summary: Would authorize the legislative bodies of 2 or more local governments, defined to include a city, county, special district, or transit agency, to jointly form a Reinvestment in Infrastructure for a Sustainable and Equitable California district (RISE district) in accordance with specified procedures. The bill would require the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop standards for the formation of RISE districts no later than November 30, 2025. The bill would provide for the establishment of a governing board of a RISE district with representatives of each participating local government.

AB 970 (Rivas, Luz D)   Insurance: Climate and Sustainability Insurance and Risk Reduction Program.

Introduced: 2/14/2023
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House
Summary: Would require the Department of Insurance to establish and administer the Climate and Sustainability Insurance and Risk Reduction Program, to be funded upon appropriation, for the purpose of achieving specified goals, including developing proof of concepts that expand insurance options, especially in vulnerable and disadvantaged communities where climate risks are currently uninsured or underinsured. The bill, upon appropriation, would establish 6 climate insurance pilot projects in specified local jurisdictions to reduce physical risks from flooding and extreme heat and to reduce the protection gap in communities with high risks and low insurance uptake. The local jurisdictions would be required to develop and establish a specific pilot project in consultation with the department to achieve specified objectives, including prioritizing predisaster mitigation activities. The bill would require the department to provide technical support for the pilot projects and to establish a competitive grant solicitation program to support the design and funding of readily implementable and scalable projects that address climate risks and expand insurance options, as specified. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2035. The bill would include a statement of legislative findings and declarations.

AB 976 (Ting D)   Accessory dwelling units: owner-occupancy requirements.

Introduced: 2/14/2023
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House
Summary: The Planning and Zoning Law, among other things, provides for the creation of accessory dwelling units by local ordinance, or, if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, by ministerial approval, in accordance with specified standards and conditions. Current law requires a local ordinance to require an accessory dwelling unit to be either attached to, or located within, the proposed or existing primary dwelling, as specified, or detached from the proposed or existing primary dwelling and located on the same lot as the proposed or existing primary dwelling.This bill would instead prohibit a local agency from imposing an owner-occupancy requirement on any accessory dwelling unit.

AB 1287 (Alvarez D)   Density Bonus Law: additional density bonus and incentives or concessions:

California Coastal Act of 1976.

Introduced: 2/16/2023
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House
Summary: Would require a city, county, or city and county to grant an additional density bonus, calculated as specified, when an applicant proposes to construct a housing development that conforms to specified requirements and provides 24% of the base density units to lower income households, conforms to specified requirements and provides 15% of the base density units to very low income households, or conforms to specified requirements and provides 44% of the total units to moderateincome units. The bill would require a city, county, or city and county to grant additional incentives or concessions for a project that meets any of those categories and also includes certain percentages of units for persons and families of moderate income. By imposing additional duties on local officials in administering the Density Bonus Law, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

AB 1297 (Quirk-Silva D)   Public restrooms.

Introduced: 2/16/2023
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House

161
Summary: Would require each local government, as defined, to complete an inventory of public restrooms owned and maintained by the local government, either directly or by contract, that are available to the general population in its jurisdiction by July 1, 2024. The bill would require local governments to report their findings to the State Department of Public Health, which would be required to compile the information and to make the inventory available in a searchable database on its internet website by March 1, 2025, as specified. The bill would require the database to be updated quarterly. The bill would require the department to conduct educational outreach to the general public and homelessness service providers that the database is available on its internet website.

AB 1308 (Quirk-Silva D)   Planning and Zoning Law: single-family residences: parking requirements.

Introduced: 2/16/2023
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House
Summary: The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes the legislative body of any county or city to adopt ordinances that regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land as between industry, business, residences, open space, and other purposes. This bill would prohibit a public agency, as defined, from imposing a new minimum parking requirement on a project to remodel, renovate, or add to a singlefamily residence, except as specified.

AB 1318 (Rivas, Luz D)   California Environmental Quality Act: exemption: residential projects.

Introduced: 2/16/2023
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House
Summary: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment.This bill would expand the exemption by increasing the size of a residential project that would qualify for the exemption to include a project of not more than 5 acres in total area. The bill would require a lead agency approving an exempt residential project on an urbanized infill site to file a notice of exemption with the Office of Planning and Research, as specified. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

AB 1319 (Wicks D)   Bay Area Housing Finance Authority: housing revenue.

Introduced: 2/16/2023
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House
Summary: (1)Current law, the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Housing Finance Act, establishes the Bay Area Housing Finance Agency to raise, administer, and allocate funding for affordable housing in the San Francisco Bay area, as defined, and provide technical assistance at a regional level for tenant protection, affordable housing preservation, and new affordable housing production.This bill would authorize the authority to issue mortgage revenue bonds, pursuant to provisions described above; acquire, hold, develop, operate, and dispose of real property; and create one or more California limited liability companies of which the authority is the sole member.

AB 1532 (Haney D)   Office conversion projects.

Introduced: 2/17/2023
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House
Summary: The Planning and Zoning Law requires the legislative body of each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. Under that law, supportive housing, as defined, is a use by right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted if the developer provides the planning agency with a plan for providing supportive services and the proposed housing development meets specified criteria. This bill would make an office conversion project, as defined, that meets certain requirements a use by right in all areas regardless of zoning. The bill would define “office conversion project” to mean the conversion of a building used for office purposes or a vacant office building into residential dwelling units. The bill would define “use by right” to mean that the city or county’s review of the office conversion may not require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary city or county review or approval that would constitute a “project” for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, as specified.

AB 1567 (Garcia D)   Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparation, Flood Protection, Extreme Heat Mitigation, and Workforce Development Bond Act of 2023.

162
Introduced: 2/17/2023
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House
Summary: The California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018, approved by the voters as Proposition 68 at the June 5, 2018, statewide primary election, authorizes the issuance of bonds in the amount of $4,100,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance a drought, water, parks, climate, coastal protection, and outdoor access for all program. Article XVI of the California Constitution requires measures authorizing general obligation bonds to specify the single object or work to be funded by the bonds and further requires a bond act to be approved by a 2/3 vote of each house of the Legislature and a majority of the voters.This bill would enact the Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparation, Flood Protection, Extreme Heat Mitigation, and Workforce Development Bond Act of 2023, which, if approved by the voters, would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $15,105,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance projects for safe drinking water, wildfire prevention, drought preparation, flood protection, extreme heat mitigation, and workforce development programs. This bill contains other related provisions.

AB 1598 (Berman D)   Gun violence.

Introduced: 2/17/2023
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House
Summary: Existing law states that the state has a compelling interest in protecting its citizens from gun violence and from intimidation by persons brandishing weapons. Existing law generally regulates the manufacture, distribution, transportation, and importation of specified firearms. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation to prevent gun violence by providing notifications on California gun laws.

AB 1633 (Ting D)   Housing Accountability Act: disapprovals: California Environmental Quality Act.

Introduced: 2/17/2023
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House
Summary: Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, prohibits a local agency from disapproving a housing development project, as described, unless it makes certain written findings based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record. This bill would define “disapprove the housing development project” as also including any instance in which a local agency fails to issue a project an exemption from CEQA for which it is eligible, as described, or fails to adopt a negative declaration or addendum for the project, to certify an environmental impact report for the project, or to approve another comparable environmental document, if certain conditions are satisfied. Among other conditions, the bill would require a housing development project subject to these provisions to be located within an urbanized area, as defined, and meet or exceed 15 dwelling units per acre. By imposing additional duties on local officials, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

ACA 1 (Aguiar-Curry D)   Local government financing: affordable housing and public infrastructure: voter approval.

Introduced: 12/5/2022
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House
Summary: The California Constitution prohibits the ad valorem tax rate on real property from exceeding 1% of the full cash value of the property, subject to certain exceptions. This measure would create an additional exception to the 1% limit that would authorize a city, county, city and county, or special district to levy an ad valorem tax to service bonded indebtedness incurred to fund the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure, affordable housing, or permanent supportive housing, or the acquisition or lease of real property for those purposes, if the proposition proposing that tax is approved by 55% of the voters of the city, county, or city and county, as applicable, and the proposition includes specified accountability requirements. The measure would specify that these provisions apply to any city, county, city and county, or special district measure imposing an ad valorem tax to pay the interest and redemption charges on bonded indebtedness for these purposes that is submitted at the same election as this measure.

SB 4 (Wiener D)   Planning and zoning: housing development: higher education institutions and religious institutions.

Introduced: 12/5/2022
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House
Summary: The Planning and Zoning Law requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive,

163
long-term general plan for its physical development, and the development of certain lands outside its boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. That law allows a development proponent to submit an application for a development that is subject to a specified streamlined, ministerial approval process not subject to a conditional use permit, if the development satisfies certain objective planning standards. The Zenovich-Moscone-Chacon Housing and Home Finance Act, establishes the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee within the Department of Housing and Community Development. Current law requires the committee to allocate state lowincome housing tax credits in conformity with state and federal law that establishes a maximum rent that may be charged to a tenant for a project unit constructed using low-income housing tax credits.

This bill would require that a housing development project be a use by right upon the request of an applicant who submits an application for streamlined approval, on any land owned by an independent institution of higher education or religious institution on or before January 1, 2024, if the development satisfies specified criteria, including that the development is not adjoined to any site where more than one-third of the square footage on the site is dedicated to industrial use. The bill would define various terms for these purposes.

SB 272 (Laird D)   Sea level rise: planning and adaptation.

Introduced: 1/31/2023
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House
Summary: Would require a local government, as defined, lying, in whole or in part, within the coastal zone, as defined, or within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, as defined, to implement sea level rise planning and adaptation through either submitting, and receiving approval for, a local coastal program, as defined, to the California Coastal Commission or submitting, and receiving approval for, a subregional San Francisco Bay shoreline resiliency plan to the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, as applicable, on or before January 1, 2034. By imposing additional requirements on local governments, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require local governments that receive approval for sea level rise planning and adaptation on or before January 1, 2029, to be prioritized for sea level rise funding, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the implementation of projects in the local government’s approved sea level rise adaptation plan. The bill would require, on or before December 31, 2024, the California Coastal Commission and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, in close coordination with the Ocean Protection Council and the California Sea Level Rise State and Regional Support Collaborative, to establish guidelines for the preparation of that planning and adaptation. The bill would make the operation of its provisions contingent upon an appropriation for its purposes by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act or another statute.

SB 361 (Dodd D)   Water resources: stream gages.

Introduced: 2/8/2023
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House
Summary: Would require the Department of Water Resources and the State Water Resources Control Board, upon appropriation of funds by the Legislature, to reactivate, upgrade, and install new stream gages, as provided. The bill would require the department and board to use the recommendations and data provided in the California Stream Gaging Prioritization Plan 2022 to complete specified actions by 2030. The bill would require the data from all stream gages operating with any public money to be published as provisional data within 10 days of collection and made publicly available on the state’s open water data platforms. The bill would require the department and board to develop and adopt a set of standards and processes for assessing, tracking, and reporting the accuracy of stream gages, evapotranspiration data, water meters, and other critical data inputs for water management, as provided. The bill would require the department and the board to consult with interested stakeholders to develop a plan to identify the gaps in the network of automated weather stations and eddy covariance towers to ensure accurate and comprehensive data collection.

SB 378 (Gonzalez D)   State parks: state beaches: expanded polystyrene food container and cooler ban.

Introduced: 2/9/2023
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House
Summary: Would make it an infraction punishable by a fine of up to $25 for a person to bring an expanded polystyrene, as defined, food container or cooler on a state beach, as defined, or in a unit of a state park system, as defined, and for improper disposal, as provided. The bill would establish a state-mandated local program by creating a new crime. The bill would provide that a person who violates this provision for the first time shall be subject to a warning by an officer of the state parks.

SB 405 (Cortese D)   Planning and zoning: housing element: inventory of sites: regional housing need.

Introduced: 2/9/2023

164
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to determine the existing and projected need for housing for each region, as specified. Current law requires the appropriate council of governments, or for cities and counties without a council of governments, to adopt a final regional housing need plan that allocates a share of the regional housing need to each city, county, or city and county, as provided. Current law requires a city or county to determine whether each site in its inventory of land can accommodate the development of some portion of its share of the regional housing need, as provided. This bill, for a housing element or amendment adopted as part of the seventh planning period, would require the planning agency to provide notice to the owner of a site included in the above-described inventory that the site is included in that inventory, if the owner’s identity and contact information is known, as specified. If the site owner notifies the planning agency or the department that the owner does not intend to develop at least 80% of the number of units for the site, determined as described above, during the current planning period, the bill would provide that the site would not be considered a site that can be developed to meet the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need, except as specified. The bill would require the planning agency to make a reasonable effort to identify an owner and the owner’s contact information and to determine the intent of the owner to develop the site. The bill would require that the information be an important factor for the department in determining whether the housing element identifies sufficient sites to meet the jurisdiction share of regional housing. The bill would require the department to amend specified standards, forms, and definitions to implement these provisions.

SB 411 (Portantino D)   Open meetings: teleconferences: bodies with appointed membership.

Introduced: 2/9/2023
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law, until January 1, 2024, authorizes the legislative body of a local agency to use alternate teleconferencing provisions during a proclaimed state of emergency or in other situations related to public health that exempt a legislative body from the general requirements (emergency provisions) and impose different requirements for notice, agenda, and public participation, as prescribed. The emergency provisions specify that they do not require a legislative body to provide a physical location from which the public may attend or comment. Current law, until January 1, 2026, authorizes the legislative body of a local agency to use alternative teleconferencing in certain circumstances related to the particular member if at least a quorum of its members participate from a singular physical location that is open to the public and situated within the agency’s jurisdiction and other requirements are met, including restrictions on remote participation by a member of the legislative body. This bill would authorize a legislative body to use alternate teleconferencing provisions similar to the emergency provisions indefinitely and without regard to a state of emergency.

The bill would alternatively define “legislative body” for this purpose to mean a board, commission, or advisory body of a local agency, the membership of which board, commission, or advisory body is appointed and which board, commission, or advisory body is otherwise subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act.

SB 423 (Wiener D)   Land use: streamlined housing approvals: multifamily housing developments.

Introduced: 2/13/2023
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House
Summary: Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a multifamily housing development that is subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process, as provided, and not subject to a conditional use permit, if the development satisfies specified objective planning standards, including, among others, that the development proponent has committed to record, prior to the issuance of the first building permit, a land use restriction or covenant providing that any lower or moderate-income housing units required, as specified, remain available at affordable housing costs, as defined, or rent to persons and families of lower or moderate-income for no less than specified periods of time. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2026. This bill would authorize the Department of General Services to act in the place of a locality or local government, at the discretion of that department, for purposes of the ministerial, streamlined review for development on property owned by or leased to the state. The bill would delete the January 1, 2026, repeal date, thereby making these provisions operative indefinitely. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

SB 532 (Wiener D)   Ballot measures: local taxes.

Introduced: 2/14/2023
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law requires that the ballots used when voting upon a measure proposed by a local governing body or submitted to the voters as an initiative or referendum measure, including a

165
measure authorizing the issuance of bonds or the incurrence of debt, have printed on them a true and impartial statement describing the purpose of the measure. If the proposed measure imposes a tax or raises the rate of a tax, current law requires the ballot to include in the statement of the measure the amount of money to be raised annually and the rate and duration of the tax to be levied. This bill would exempt from this requirement a measure that imposes or increases a tax with more than one rate or authorizes the issuance of bonds.

SB 555 (Wahab D)   Social Housing Act of 2023.

Introduced: 2/15/2023
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House
Summary: Would establish the California Social Housing Fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to be made available to the Department of Housing and Community Development for the purposes of this act, including promoting the achievement of the aforementioned goals. This bill would require the department, no later than January 1, 2025, to develop, adopt, and submit to the Legislature a California Social Housing Plan for achieving the aforementioned goals, as specified. The bill would make related findings and declarations.

SB 762 (Becker D)   Firearms: Gun violence restraining orders.

Introduced: 2/17/2023
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.

Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered 1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law allows a court to issue a gun violence restraining order prohibiting and enjoining a named person from having custody or control of any firearms or ammunition if the person poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to themselves or another by having custody or control of a firearm or ammunition. Current law establishes a civil restraining order process to accomplish that purpose, including authorizing the issuance of an ex parte order, as specified.This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to further strengthen and expand these provisions.

Total Measures: 31
Total Tracking Forms: 31

166

BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: April 4, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
FROM: Maz Bozorginia, Public Works Director/ City Engineer Matt Nichols, Management Analyst
TITLE: WORK SESSION ON THE OPERATION OF E-BIKES AND OTHER ELECTRIC DEVICES

ON TRAILS AND PATHS
______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:

Conduct a work session and, by motion, direct staff to:

1. Draft an ordinance amending the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code to:
a. Establish a speed limit of 15 miles per hour with 5 miles per hour when passing on all Half Moon Bay trails.
b. Permit Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes as well as electric scooters and electric boards on all Half Moon Bay-owned multi-use paths and trails

2. Create and place "share the trail" signage along Half Moon Bay’s multi-use trails.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this study session. Any subsequent actions regarding the ordinance will require new signage along existing sections of the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail and will be covered by the operating budget.

STRATEGIC ELEMENT:

This action supports the Healthy Communities and Public Safety, and Infrastructure and Environment Elements of the Strategic Plan.

BACKGROUND
Most municipal and park agencies have prohibited motorized vehicles (as defined by the California Vehicle Code) on paths and trails for decades. Municipal Code Chapter 10.48, adopted in 1983, prohibits the use of all vehicles off public highways and streets. It further defines vehicles to include motor vehicles, motorcycles, minibikes, dirt bikes, dune buggies, and any motor-driven cycle or vehicle. These prohibitions were established prior to the advancement in electric technologies.

Over the past decade, the popularity of electric bicycles (e-bikes) and other electric devices 167
has grown substantially. This growth follows marked improvements in battery technology, decreasing cost, decreasing barrier to entry, and an overall transition to electric vehicle (EV) transportation. Motorized wheelchairs, Segways, and similar mobility devices are regulated under a separate section of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and cannot be limited on paved paths and trails.

In recent years, e-bike advocates have worked with manufacturers and government agencies to improve relations and general acceptance of e-bikes. The American e-bike manufacturers led a successful effort to create three categories of e-bikes. This classification system was accepted by all manufacturers and has been adopted by 22 states. In 2016, California incorporated the classification system into the CVC. The e-bike classification system places strict requirements on e-bike design and capabilities along with a distinction between electric bicycles and motorized bicycles/mopeds. The adoption of new CVC provisions prompted many local agencies to revise their policies for e-bike use on bike paths and trails, as they are no longer categorized by the State as motorized vehicles.

Based on feedback from the public, on January 21, 2021, and March 3, 2022, staff provided updates to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) regarding e-bikes and the current regulations. The general sentiment from public comment was that e-bikes and other edevices seem to pose a general benefit by allowing people to enjoy nature and provide increased access while also alleviating traffic and greenhouse gas emissions from cars and that we shouldn’t differentiate them, thus allowing e-bikes, e-scooters, and motorized boards on Half Moon Bay trails. The Committee and public commenters agreed that safety and trail etiquette for all types of users should be considered. Staff recommended drafting an ordinance in line with State Parks policies in an attempt to be consistent. At the time, State Parks allowed class 1 and 2 e-bikes, escooters, and segways while prohibiting class 3 e-bikes and motorized boards on trails. State Parks would later change this policy at the state level to allow class 1 only. The Committee mentioned that a speed limit and better trail etiquette would be more effective than solely regulating the type of electric device, and agreed with allowing class 1 and 2 e-bikes with a 15- mph speed limit. The committee was not in agreement on class 3 e-bikes or motorized boards.

On May 17, 2022, City Council held a study session where staff reported on current e-bike/edevice laws on trails and the past parallel discussions BPAC had surrounding trail etiquette, speed limits, and people's behavior on the trails. Staff also reported on the various agencies that own portions of trails and their policies regarding e-bikes. To be consistent with State Parks and San Mateo County Parks rules at the time, Staff recommended that the City move to permit class 1 and 2 e-bikes on all HMB trails, prohibit class 3 e-bikes on the Coastal Trail but permit class 3 e– bikes on the Naomi Patridge Trail and/or Eastside Parallel Trail. Staff also asked the Council to consider prohibiting e-scooters and motorized boards on different segments of the trails. Public comment mentioned how people use e-bikes for their work commute, to get around town on the weekends, and how speed limits may be beneficial.

City Council directed Staff to seek a recommendation on class 3 e-bikes/electric devices from BPAC, do a public survey, and investigate how other neighboring jurisdictions, such as 168
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), were regulating e-bikes. Council noted that e-bikes are only becoming more popular and that banning them might make the City ineligible for grants and could face possible issues with the Coastal Commission. It was also noted that until the Eastside Parallel Trail is complete, the Coastal Trail is the safest way for people to commute on bike and that some people may enjoy commuting on the coastal trail because of the nice scenery.

At the July 7, 2022, BPAC meeting, City Staff provided an update on the e-bike ordinance following the study session with City Council. Staff presented what other similar jurisdictions are doing regarding speed limits, types of e-devices allowed, and other provisions. At this meeting, BPAC also asked staff to return to co-create "share the trail" signage with the help of the committee members. On November 2, 2022, City Staff gave an update to BPAC on the recent ebike public survey. On January 26, 2023, BPAC provided feedback on the “share the trail” signage and provided a final recommendation on March 2, 2023.

DISCUSSION
BPAC and the community have indicated concern about safety on the Coastal Trail, with some indicating concerns about e-devices mixing with pedestrians and bicycles. The CVC allows the use of Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes on public streets and permits local agencies to decide where, and under what conditions e-bikes are allowed on public paths and trails. The CVC further establishes default rules that apply if the jurisdiction has not taken affirmative action to regulate e-bikes on public paths and trails. This provision generally applies to other powered devices such as motorized boards and scooters as well. The only exception being given to Segways, which the State classifies as an "electric personal assistive mobility device" or "EPAMD," which has the same classification as motorized wheelchairs.

Given that the City has not yet taken specific action regarding e-bikes, the default rules under the CVC apply: Class 1 and 2 e-bikes are permitted on City-owned multi-use trails, and class 3 e-bikes are prohibited from all trails and paths. This work session is driven by the need to formalize the City's position on using Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes and modernizing the Municipal Code to reflect the CVC and other changes in motorized and electric devices.

The BPAC has raised concerns about the speed of bicycles on trails and paths, most notably the Coastal Trail. The advent of electric bikes and devices has only exacerbated concerns on the trail; however, it is noted that human-powered bicycles can exceed the speed of e-bikes. The Coastal Trail can become quite congested by a combination of pedestrians, bicycles, and other devices.

Staff and the BPAC have discussed a number of possible actions to improve function and slow bicycle/device speeds. Widening the current trail is not an option, given permitting requirements and anticipated relocation of the Coastal Trail as part of the climate adaptation strategy.

Suggested options range from posted speed limits to "share the trail" messaging. A draft of this "share the trail" signage, recommended by BPAC at the March 2, 2023 meeting, is included as Attachment 1.
169
Many similar jurisdictions have concluded that the operator’s actions are more important to public safety than the types of devices that are allowed. These agencies have thus focused on regulating speed limits and rider behavior instead of specific types of devices. A table of policies from other local jurisdictions and similar towns with e-bike rules is included in Attachment 2.

MROSD conducted an e-bike pilot project, but its conclusions are not directly applicable to Half Moon Bay due to MROSD’s primary focus on open space preservation, which attracts different types of trail users. This difference is also evident in the type of research MROSD conducted on the topic, with their focus being on the effects of e-bikes on the land and wildlife. That being said, their public survey and staff observations collected similar results to our own, with the percentage of e-bike users being small and safety/speed being a main concern with the majority of public comment being in support of e-bikes. California State Parks currently only allow class 1 e-bikes on their portion of the Coastal Trail. City Staff has been reaching out to nearby local jurisdictions to lay the groundwork for a possible collaborative effort in creating a cohesive policy for the Coastal and Eastside Parallel Trails.

The public survey had great participation, with over 240 responses. The survey ran from August to mid-September 2022 and was advertised through signage placed along the City’s multi-use trails and was also posted in enews and online. In brief, the survey found that 30.7% of users ride an e-bike, and of that group, the majority rode class 1 and 2 e-bikes. Even though only 30.7% of users polled ride e-bikes, 65.1% of those surveyed supported allowing e-bikes and e-devices on all trails. The survey results in their entirety are included in this staff report as Attachment 3.

Staff gave BPAC an updated policy recommendation based on the results. BPAC’s final recommendation was to allow all e-bikes and e-devices on all paths and trails and to establish a 15 mph speed limit on all trails.

Conclusion. Since the City adopted Municipal Code Chapter 10.48 in 1983, there have been significant technological changes for bicycles and other e-devices. E-bike usage is increasing and becoming more attractive for commute and recreational use. E-bike popularity is evident with the State's reclassification of moving it out of the motorized vehicle categories. The proliferation of other e-devices is also changing the recreation landscape. Public sentiment from survey results appears to favor allowing these devices on our paths and trails and implementing a speed limit and public education program for trail etiquette. Staff conversations with other agencies seem to indicate a desire for a collaborative effort to consistently regulate the multi-use trails within the Coastside.

Staff is proposing the development of a new draft Chapter 10.49, which suggests regulations for e-bikes and other electric devices, as well as an amendment to Chapter 10.30 which would set speed limits on all City-owned class one multi-use bike paths.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft "share the trail" signage

2. Matrix of e-bike policies in neighboring jurisdictions

3. E-bike-survey results
170
DRAF
Keep to the right, pass on th
Te left
Do not block the trail
Announce yourself
Look and listen for traffic
Share the Trail
On
your
left!
Pets on leash
6 feet and under
171
172
≈ 6 Feet from
top of sign to
ground
173
174
City/ Agency Specific Trail Speed Limit(s) Prohibitions (E-Bikes) Prohibitions (Other) Other Notable info Coastal Trail None at present Class 3 TBD
Hw1 1 Parallel Trails None at present Class 3 TBD
Coastal Trail 15 MPH (5 at trailhead) None at present None at present Hw1 1 Parallel Trails 15 MPH (5 at trailhead) None at present None at present Half Moon Bay State Park Coastal Trail 15 MPH (10 campground) Class 2 and class 3 e-Scooters and e-boards Princeton Harbor (Harbor District) Coastal Trail None at present None at present None at present Ravenswood Wooden
and paved path 15 MPH (5 MPH passing) Class 3 None
Rancho San Antonio
engineered dirt/ paved 15 MPH (5 MPH passing) Class 3 None Carlsbad All paths and trails None None None No reckless behavior Provisions Folsom All paths and trails 15 MPR (Scooters only) None None No reckless behavior Provisions Bayfront Park 10 MPH No Class 3 None N/A
All paths and trails 15 MPH No Class 3 None N/A
Marin golden Gate nat'l Rec Area All paths and trails 15 MPH (5 MPH passing) None None No use of throttle anywhere in Rec Area Monterey Recreation Trail None None No Scooters No reckless behavior Provisions Scenic Trail 15 MPH None None
boardwalk 8 MPH None No Scooters
Pacific Grove Recreational Trail 12 MPH No Class 3 No Scooters N/A San Clemente Beach Trail 10 MPH None None N/A
Santa Barbra All paths and trails None No Class 3 None N/A Matrix of e-bike policies in neighboring jurisdictions
Half Moon Bay
Other Jurisdictions
E-bikes will continue to be allowed in areas where
bicycles are permitted as an other power-driven
mobility device for visitors with a mobility disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act
Traffic Engineer to add restrictions
San Mateo County Parks
MROSD
Newport Beach
Marin County
175
1 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM
Contents
i. Summary of responses 2
ii. Survey questions 10
iii. Individual responses 12
176
Summary Of Responses
As of September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM, this forum
had:

Topic Start Topic End
Attendees: 332 July 28, 2022, 8:56 AM September 16, 2022, 12:00 AM Responses: 241
Hours of Public Comment: 12.1
QUESTION 1
Are you a resident of the City of Half Moon Bay?
% Count
Yes 62.7% 151
No 37.3% 90
QUESTION 2
If you are a resident of Half Moon Bay, what neighborhood do you live in? % Count
Arleta Park 14.5% 25
Alsace Lorraine 16.8% 29
Frenchman’s Creek 9.8% 17
Highland Park 2.3% 4
Kehoe/Casa Del Mar 5.2% 9
Downtown Half Moon Bay 17.9% 31
2 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 177
% Count
Seahaven 0.6% 1
Miramar 6.9% 12
Ocean Colony 5.2% 9
Other or not sure 20.8% 36
QUESTION 3
If you are NOT a resident of Half Moon Bay, what city or community do you consider “home.” Answered 241
Skipped 0
QUESTION 4
Is your primary place of employment within the City of Half Moon Bay? % Count
Yes 29.5% 71
No 70.5% 170
QUESTION 5
Please number each of these three trails in Half Moon Bay from 1 to 3 (1 being the one you use most and 3 being the one you use least). See introduction for trail locations.

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail

4. I do not use any of these trails
3 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 178
QUESTION 6
How frequently do you use your #1 trail selected above? % Count
Daily 41.5% 100
Weekly 38.2% 92
Monthly 12.4% 30
Other 7.9% 19
QUESTION 7
What is your main purpose for using the trail?
% Count
Recreation 91.3% 220
Commute (work, school) 5.4% 13
Errands (shopping, dining, etc.) 3.3% 8
QUESTION 8
Walk/run
% Count
Daily 36.3% 86
Weekly 32.1% 76
Monthly 17.7% 42
I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails 13.9% 33 4 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 179
QUESTION 9
Bicycle (non-powered)
% Count
Daily 12.4% 29
Weekly 27.5% 64
Monthly 17.6% 41
I don't use this mode of transportation on trails 42.5% 99 QUESTION 10
Electric bicycle (e-bike)
% Count
Daily 6.2% 15
Weekly 19.1% 46
Monthly 5.4% 13
I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails 69.3% 167 QUESTION 11
Skateboard or scooter (non-powered)
% Count
Daily 1.7% 4
Weekly 3.3% 8
Monthly 0.8% 2
5 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 180
% Count
I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails 94.2% 227 QUESTION 12
Electric skateboard/mono-wheel
% Count
Daily 6.6% 16
Weekly 4.1% 10
Monthly 5.0% 12
I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails 84.2% 203 QUESTION 13
Electric scooter
% Count
Daily 0.8% 2
Weekly 1.7% 4
Monthly 2.1% 5
I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails 95.4% 230 QUESTION 14
If you ride an e-bike, what Class of e-bike do you use? 6 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 181
% Count
Class 1 (electric motor provides assistance up to
20 MPH with pedal assist)

37.4% 37
Class 2 (includes a throttle to go up to 20 MPH
without pedal assist)

24.2% 24
Class 3 (electric motor up to 28 MPH with pedal
assist)

19.2% 19
Electric mountain bike (e-mtb) 6.1% 6
Other 13.1% 13
QUESTION 15
Do you feel that speed represents a safety factor on the trails mentioned above? % Count
Yes 74.7% 180
No 25.3% 61
QUESTION 16
Do you feel that it is important for the City to take measures to reduce speeds on the three trails mentioned above?
% Count
Yes 61.0% 147
No 39.0% 94
QUESTION 17
Would you support establishing a posted speed limit on the three trails mentioned above even if only periodic enforcement would occur?
7 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 182
% Count
Yes 76.3% 183
No 23.8% 57
QUESTION 18
The City Council is considering posting a maximum speed limit for City paths and trails - what speed limit would you feel most comfortable with?
% Count
10 MPH 29.9% 72
12 MPH 13.3% 32
15 MPH 33.6% 81
I do not support a speed limit on the trails 23.2% 56
QUESTION 19
Do you believe that the City should consider establishing prohibitions on electric motorized vehicles - including e-bikes? (select all that apply):
(Note: for this survey, “electric motorized vehicles” refers only to e-bikes, electric skateboards, electric monowheels, and electric scooters) % Count
Coastal Trail 33.6% 81
Naomi Patridge Trail 0.8% 2
Eastside Parallel Trail 0.4% 1
None of the above – the City should allow electric
motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed
limits and hazardous operation

65.1% 157
8 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 183
QUESTION 20
Any other comments about the use of electric motorized vehicles on trails? Answered 165
Skipped 76
9 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 184
Survey Questions
QUESTION 1
Are you a resident of the City of Half Moon Bay?
• Yes
• No
QUESTION 2
If you are a resident of Half Moon Bay, what neighborhood do you live in?
• Arleta Park
• Alsace Lorraine
• Frenchman’s Creek
• Highland Park
• Kehoe/Casa Del Mar
• Downtown Half Moon Bay
• Seahaven
• Miramar
• Ocean Colony
• Other or not sure
QUESTION 3
If you are NOT a resident of Half Moon Bay, what city or community do you consider “home.”
QUESTION 4
Is your primary place of employment within the City of Half Moon Bay?
• Yes
• No
QUESTION 5
Please number each of these three trails in Half Moon Bay from 1 to 3 (1 being the one you use most and 3 being the one you use least).

See introduction for trail locations.
• Coastal Trail
• Naomi Patridge Trail
• Eastside Parallel Trail
• I do not use any of these trails
QUESTION 6
How frequently do you use your #1 trail selected above? • Daily
• Weekly
• Monthly
• Other
QUESTION 7
What is your main purpose for using the trail?
• Recreation
• Commute (work, school)
• Errands (shopping, dining, etc.)
QUESTION 8
Walk/run
• Daily
• Weekly
• Monthly
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
QUESTION 9
Bicycle (non-powered)
• Daily
• Weekly
• Monthly
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
QUESTION 10
Electric bicycle (e-bike)
• Daily
• Weekly
• Monthly
10 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 185
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
QUESTION 11
Skateboard or scooter (non-powered)
• Daily
• Weekly
• Monthly
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
QUESTION 12
Electric skateboard/mono-wheel
• Daily
• Weekly
• Monthly
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
QUESTION 13
Electric scooter
• Daily
• Weekly
• Monthly
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
QUESTION 14
If you ride an e-bike, what Class of e-bike do you use? • Class 1 (electric motor provides assistance up to 20 MPH with pedal assist)
• Class 2 (includes a throttle to go up to 20 MPH without pedal assist) • Class 3 (electric motor up to 28 MPH with pedal assist) • Electric mountain bike (e-mtb)
• Other
QUESTION 15
Do you feel that speed represents a safety factor on the trails mentioned above?
• Yes
• No
QUESTION 16
Do you feel that it is important for the City to take measures to reduce speeds on the three trails mentioned above?
• Yes
• No
QUESTION 17
Would you support establishing a posted speed limit on the three trails mentioned above even if only periodic enforcement would occur?
• Yes
• No
QUESTION 18
The City Council is considering posting a maximum speed limit for City paths and trails - what speed limit would you feel most comfortable with?
• 10 MPH
• 12 MPH
• 15 MPH
• I do not support a speed limit on the trails
QUESTION 19
Do you believe that the City should consider establishing prohibitions on electric motorized vehicles - including e-bikes? (select all that apply):
(Note: for this survey, “electric motorized vehicles” refers only to ebikes, electric skateboards, electric mono-wheels, and electric scooters)
• Coastal Trail
• Naomi Patridge Trail
• Eastside Parallel Trail
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation QUESTION 20
Any other comments about the use of electric motorized vehicles on trails?
11 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 186
Individual Responses
Name not available
July 29, 2022, 10:39 AM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Arleta Park
Question 3
Arleta Park
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• Monthly
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
I find that most ev drivers are very considerate of other trail users, slowing down when passing, etc. Let's not hurt the responsible users in our attempts to deal with the irresponsible users.

Dave Olson
July 29, 2022, 10:41 AM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
12 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 187
• Other or not sure
Question 3
El Granada
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Other - 2-3 times per week
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• Weekly
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 1 (electric motor provides assistance up to 20 MPH with pedal assist)
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
It is the speed of bicycles (and other non-pedestrian uses) that is the issue, not how that speed is achieved, and the respect for others. I've had as many issues with fast non-powered bicyclists and runners as I have with e-bikes, skateboards, etc. Respect for others using the trails is the most important issue (and the most difficult to achieve) Name not available
July 29, 2022, 10:42 AM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Alsace Lorraine
Question 3
Why can't this be blank?
Question 4
13 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 188
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
No response
Name not available
July 29, 2022, 10:47 AM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Highland Park
Question 3
Half Moon Bay
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Naomi Patridge Trail

2. Coastal Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Other - Recreationally - no safe access to trails from Highland Park.

Would use more if safe access was available.
14 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 189
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
No response
Question 9
No response
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
I have experienced speeding on non-electric bikes as well. It comes down to common courtesy and safety for all. Notification that you are approaching (i.e. "passing on your left") which seems none existent these days. Many people walking on the trail seem to be in their own world and also ignore what is around them. There are also foreigners who don't under the language which makes it difficult. A universal ringing of a bell on a bike from some distance away seems to work.

Name not available
July 29, 2022, 10:53 AM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
• Other or not sure
Question 3
Redwood City
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Monthly
15 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 190
Question 9
• Monthly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
Survey needs some work. I am not resident, but survey required an answer to the next question. Speed limit options are too high for many congested, narrow, and/or curving sections of the coastal trail. Survey needs to include a map showing the various trails. What about connections between the trails?.

Name not available
July 29, 2022, 10:55 AM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Other or not sure
Question 3
Canada Cove (which IS in Half Moon Bay)
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Eastside Parallel Trail

3. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
16 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 191
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
Electric vehicles provide fantastic opportunities for less active and elderly users to get out and enjoy the outdoors and get some exercise. For less elderly, infirm users including tourists, they're just terrific fun.

Name not available
July 29, 2022, 10:55 AM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Other or not sure
Question 3
n/a
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Eastside Parallel Trail

3. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Monthly
Question 9
• Monthly
Question 10
• Weekly
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
17 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 192
• Class 3 (electric motor up to 28 MPH with pedal assist) Question 15
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• No
Question 18
• I do not support a speed limit on the trails
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
A trail noted clearly for bicycles vs. peds makes far more sense. Even with a speed limit folks tend to not pay attention.

Name not available
July 29, 2022, 11:02 AM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Miramar
Question 3
Resident
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• Daily
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
18 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 193
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
Class 1 e-bikes should be allowed on these trails. Consider prohibiting other classes of e-bikes as well as equipment capable of higher speeds without the need for human effort.

Name not available
July 29, 2022, 11:56 AM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Arleta Park
Question 3
NA
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Eastside Parallel Trail

3. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• Daily
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 12 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
19 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 194
No response
Name not available
July 29, 2022, 12:39 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Downtown Half Moon Bay
Question 3
HMB resident
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• Weekly
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 2 (includes a throttle to go up to 20 MPH without pedal assist) Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
Any problem is due to the rider, not the vehicle. There are rude, slow, traditional cyclists so evokes are not the problem. Have a look at the Chicago area path along the lake. There are designated walk lanes and ride/ebike/skate/scooter lanes. They distinguish between “wheels, no wheels - excluding wheelchairs)
Name not available
July 29, 2022, 1:20 PM
Question 1
• Yes
20 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 195
Question 2
• Kehoe/Casa Del Mar
Question 3
I AM a resident
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• Monthly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 12 MPH
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
It should be required that they have a bell or other means of warning to alert pedestrians about them being behind and passing pedestrians.

Accidents happen regularly because of too much speed and no warning. E bikes and Scooters are heavy and tourists don’t know the trails but speed like crazy!
Name not available
July 29, 2022, 1:30 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Seahaven
Question 3
Spindrift way
Question 4
• No
21 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 196
Question 5

1. Naomi Patridge Trail

2. Coastal Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 9
• Daily
Question 10
• Daily
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Electric mountain bike (e-mtb)
Question 15
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• No
Question 18
• I do not support a speed limit on the trails
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
educate the tourists to not stand in the middle of the trail and debate lifes deepest secrets. They are the true hazard on the trail.

Name not available
July 29, 2022, 1:43 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Arleta Park
Question 3
HMB
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
22 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 197
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
No response
Name not available
July 29, 2022, 2:00 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Miramar
Question 3
HMB
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• Weekly
23 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 198
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• Monthly
Question 13
• Monthly
Question 14
• Class 3 (electric motor up to 28 MPH with pedal assist) Question 15
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• I do not support a speed limit on the trails
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
Common sense is good enough. No new laws need to be passed.

Name not available
July 29, 2022, 2:20 PM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
• Other or not sure
Question 3
El Granada
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
24 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 199
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 20
No response
Name not available
July 29, 2022, 2:33 PM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
• Other or not sure
Question 3
El Granada
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Eastside Parallel Trail

3. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• Weekly
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 2 (includes a throttle to go up to 20 MPH without pedal assist) Question 15
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
25 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 200
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
No response
Name not available
July 29, 2022, 3:20 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Arleta Park
Question 3
Half Moon Bay (why is this field required if I already stated that I live in HMB?)
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• Monthly
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
The E-bikes arent the only problem. There are people riding way to fast on the Coastal Trail on traditional bikes as well.

Name not available
July 29, 2022, 4:23 PM
26 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 201
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Ocean Colony
Question 3
Resident
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Other - 3 x per week
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• Monthly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• No
Question 18
• I do not support a speed limit on the trails
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
won't let me choose all trails....all trails e-bike should be prohibited.

Ridiculous that this topic is even being considered. Motorized vehicles need to be on the roads, not walking, hiking trails
Name not available
July 29, 2022, 4:47 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Downtown Half Moon Bay
Question 3
Look at questions 1 and 2
Question 4
27 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 202
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail
Question 6
• Monthly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 9
• Monthly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• I do not support a speed limit on the trails
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
The bigger issue is people not knowing trail educate. If the city wants to do something about the safety of the people on the trails they should put up signs instructing people to stay to one side of the trail. This isn't so much an ebike issue, more of a lack of awareness.

Name not available
July 29, 2022, 6:50 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Downtown Half Moon Bay
Question 3
I AM a resident of half moon bay.

Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail
Question 6
• Other - I used to until bikes were too prevalent and bike riders going too fast
Question 7
28 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 203
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
Please do NOT allow them
Name not available
July 29, 2022, 9:20 PM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
• Other or not sure
Question 3
El Granada
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. I do not use any of these trails
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
29 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 204
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 12 MPH
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
As 80+ year olds, we feel threatened by fast moving powered bikes, some as large as small motorcycles. A collision with any of these could be life threatening or result in permanent injuriy/disability. We have stopped using the trail on the weekends, too crowded with them.

Name not available
July 29, 2022, 10:21 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Alsace Lorraine
Question 3
I am a resident of HMB
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
No response
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
30 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 205
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 12 MPH
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
"Tour de France" riders on traditional bikes are as big a problem as eBikes. This is especially true on the coastal trail where riders mix with runners, walkers, families - some with with small children, dogs on leashes, old people, and those with disabilities; because these include visitors as well as locals, many are not aware of the risks or sufficiently cautious.

Name not available
July 30, 2022, 11:39 AM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Frenchman’s Creek
Question 3
Half moon bay
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail
Question 6
• Monthly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Monthly
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
31 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 206
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
Ban electric bikes on trails with pedestrians. The two don’t mix if pedestrians are to be safe.

Name not available
July 31, 2022, 6:53 AM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Downtown Half Moon Bay
Question 3
Half Moon Bay (note, I answered YES to the first question -- a bug in your survey)
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
Anyone on a motorized vehicle should be required to use a bell or equivalent to let pedestrians know they are coming from behind.

Name not available
July 31, 2022, 7:00 AM
Question 1
32 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 207
• Yes
Question 2
• Alsace Lorraine
Question 3
I am a resident.

Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
This survey seems highly flawed. The different trails serve very different purposes. You can ban elec bikes etc. on the coastal trail (or set speed limits) because they are a casual stroll in nature. The other trails serve as ways to move from one point to another (destination, not journey) so ebikes etc should be fine without limits. Again, the trails are very different from one another.

Name not available
July 31, 2022, 12:29 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Arleta Park
Question 3
HMB
33 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 208
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• Monthly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
The City should ban powered operation of e-bikes on informal dirt paths in Wavecrest, West of Railroad and other open spaces.

Name not available
August 1, 2022, 9:01 AM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Downtown Half Moon Bay
Question 3
I am a resident of HMB
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Eastside Parallel Trail

3. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
• Monthly
34 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 209
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Monthly
Question 9
• Monthly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
I think the coastal trail is very different than the naomi patridge and east side parallel trails--so I think the speed limits would be different, with the recreational trail being slower and the commuter trails higher speed limit. . Thanks
Name not available
August 1, 2022, 9:09 AM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Alsace Lorraine
Question 3
N/a
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
35 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 210
• Weekly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 1, 2022, 2:26 PM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
• Other or not sure
Question 3
El Granada
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Eastside Parallel Trail

3. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Monthly
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• Weekly
Question 11
• Weekly
Question 12
• Weekly
Question 13
36 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 211
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 1 (electric motor provides assistance up to 20 MPH with pedal assist)
Question 15
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
I think the practice of regulating/banning certain types of devices (i.e. boards vs bikes vs scooters) is on its face discriminatory. If the concern is, in fact, safety, then the device should be irrelevant. Speed is what could pose a safety risk, and non-powered scooters and bikes are still capable of high speeds. My point being -- if you're trying to improve safety -- regulate the unsafe behavior, such as speed, as opposed to an entire category of device. Post speed limits and enforce those. Now you're not discriminating against a certain class of device or person, but instead regulating what you perceive to be unsafe behavior.

Name not available
August 1, 2022, 2:31 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Kehoe/Casa Del Mar
Question 3
n/a
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• Weekly
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
37 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 212
• Class 3 (electric motor up to 28 MPH with pedal assist) Question 15
• No
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 12 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
When I purchased my e-bike I did not realize it was illegal on the trail.

Given my arthritis I've never gone faster than 10-12 mph. I'm often passed by bicyclists on none e-bikes going much faster. The speed limit makes complete sense. That and also putting a line down the middle of the paths so folks remember it's a two way path.

Name not available
August 1, 2022, 2:41 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Miramar
Question 3
Miramar
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• Weekly
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 1 (electric motor provides assistance up to 20 MPH with pedal assist)
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
38 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 213
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 1, 2022, 2:48 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Alsace Lorraine
Question 3
Alsace Lorraine
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• Monthly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
No response
39 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 214
Name not available
August 1, 2022, 3:15 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Miramar
Question 3
I am a resident of HMB
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 12 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
I think given their popularity, they should be allowed but somehow the safety aspects should be enforced even though that is difficult.

Name not available
August 1, 2022, 5:04 PM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
No response
Question 3
Moss beach
40 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 215
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Monthly
Question 7
• Commute (work, school)
Question 8
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 9
• Monthly
Question 10
• Monthly
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 1 (electric motor provides assistance up to 20 MPH with pedal assist)
Question 15
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• No
Question 18
• I do not support a speed limit on the trails
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
I haven't seen anyone be intentionally unsafe on the trails-especially on e bikes. There are however other people that have felt it ok to verbally attack people that use e bikes on the trail. I don't think anyone wants to be unsafe on an ebike or risk crashing their expensive ebike.

Name not available
August 1, 2022, 5:20 PM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
No response
Question 3
Princeton
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
41 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 216
• Daily
Question 7
• Commute (work, school)
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• Daily
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 1 (electric motor provides assistance up to 20 MPH with pedal assist)
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
The comment box under the Class of Bike question didnt work. I ride Class 1, 2,and 3 ebikes and an analogue bike
Name not shown
August 1, 2022, 5:52 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Ocean Colony
Question 3
Ocean Colony
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Eastside Parallel Trail

3. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 9
42 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 217
• Weekly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 1 (electric motor provides assistance up to 20 MPH with pedal assist)
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 12 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
Trails design features such as chicanes,rolling water dips and improving lines of sight will greatly reduce negative trails user interactions.

Name not available
August 1, 2022, 6:10 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Frenchman’s Creek
Question 3
Frenchmans creek
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
No response
Question 10
• Daily
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
43 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 218
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 1 (electric motor provides assistance up to 20 MPH with pedal assist)
Question 15
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• No
Question 18
• I do not support a speed limit on the trails
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
For class 1 ebikes, they are pedal assist so you need to pedal and this is exercise, also with how bad car traffic is on the coast we are able to use the ebike to run errands
Name not available
August 1, 2022, 6:11 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Arleta Park
Question 3
i am a resident of half moon bay
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• Daily
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• No
Question 16
44 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 219
• No
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
trails are transportation facilities. and they should be used as such. people walking 4 across or just lingering in the middle of the trail who than get startled by bikes seem to think bikes using a transportation facility designed for them are in the wrong. Rather, people can socialize on benches, or walk 4 abreast along the beach or dirt pathways Name not available
August 1, 2022, 6:35 PM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
• Other or not sure
Question 3
El Granada
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail

4. I do not use any of these trails
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• Weekly
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Electric mountain bike (e-mtb)
Question 15
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
45 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 220
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
People have invested a lot of money in the classical to use on these trails it would be sad to say oh now you can’t use them
Name not available
August 1, 2022, 6:43 PM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
No response
Question 3
El Granada
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
I e been almost run over several times . It’s ti dangerous to have walkers and motorized vehicles traveling at high speed relative to walkers .

Name not available
August 1, 2022, 6:53 PM
Question 1
46 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 221
• Yes
Question 2
• Downtown Half Moon Bay
Question 3
NA
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 1, 2022, 7:07 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Ocean Colony
Question 3
half moon bay
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5
47 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 222

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• Monthly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 1, 2022, 7:41 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Other or not sure
Question 3
Resident
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Naomi Patridge Trail

2. Coastal Trail
Question 6
• Other - 3 times a week
Question 7
• Errands (shopping, dining, etc.)
Question 8
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
48 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 223
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• Weekly
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 12 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
on the condition of the trails. Wider, straighter, paved trails could have higher speed limits than narrow dirt trails.

Name not available
August 1, 2022, 8:19 PM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
No response
Question 3
Moss beach
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Monthly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Monthly
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
49 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 224
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
They should only be allowed for people who can’t ride normal bikes due to age/ health issues
Name not available
August 1, 2022, 8:48 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Arleta Park
Question 3
I AM a resident. Fix your survey settings : )
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• No
Question 16
50 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 225
• No
Question 17
• No
Question 18
• I do not support a speed limit on the trails
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
The survey focuses only on speed limits as a method of improving safety (or possibly limiting e-bikes)... all of which is essentially unenforceable since the trail passes through multiple jurisdictions and there is no agency that will realistically be policing such policies. Rather: we must educate users in basis tenets of trail etiquette so that people pass safely, engage respectfully with one another, and keep the good times rolling for everyone. This, not arbitrary, unenforceable rules, should be our focus.

Name not available
August 1, 2022, 10:42 PM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
• Other or not sure
Question 3
El Granada
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Monthly
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
51 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 226
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
Coastal Trail is in need of repair. The surface is cracked and broken.

Before more activity is encouraged,
Name not available
August 1, 2022, 11:21 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Other or not sure
Question 3
My dads house is in Half Moon Bay off of 92 but I also live at my moms house in Montara.

Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Monthly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 9
• Monthly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 12 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
Can you please make “I’m not sure” or “I don’t know” options for future surveys.

Name not available
August 1, 2022, 11:25 PM
52 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 227
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Arleta Park
Question 3
Home
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
Let’s make laws when we need them and not before
Name not available
August 2, 2022, 5:15 AM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
• Other or not sure
Question 3
El Granada highlands
Question 4
• Yes
53 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 228
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 12 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
I’ve ridden my friends e bike and it’s fun. A posted sign speed limit is a smart idea. Even smarter is ticketing people weigh unleashed dogs especially dangerous dogs
Name not available
August 2, 2022, 5:46 AM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Arleta Park
Question 3
Arleta Park
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
54 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 229
• Daily
Question 9
• Monthly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 12 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 2, 2022, 6:27 AM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
No response
Question 3
Montara
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
55 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 230
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• No
Question 18
• I do not support a speed limit on the trails
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
If anything, limit to class 1 e-bikes. Instead of arbitrary speed limit educate people to be aware of others on the trail.

Name not available
August 2, 2022, 7:31 AM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Miramar
Question 3
I live in Half Moon Bay.

Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Eastside Parallel Trail

3. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
56 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 231
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 12 MPH
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 2, 2022, 7:46 AM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Downtown Half Moon Bay
Question 3
Half Moon Bay
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Other - Don’t have one
Question 15
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• No
Question 18
• I do not support a speed limit on the trails
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
57 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 232
Make more bike lanes in the city so the electronic vehicles have more options and people don’t need to use cars to get around Name not available
August 2, 2022, 8:26 AM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
No response
Question 3
El Granada
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• Daily
Question 10
• Daily
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 1 (electric motor provides assistance up to 20 MPH with pedal assist)
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 2, 2022, 8:33 AM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
58 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 233
• Alsace Lorraine
Question 3
half moon bay
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
No response
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 2, 2022, 8:40 AM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
No response
Question 3
Moss Beach
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Eastside Parallel Trail

3. Naomi Patridge Trail
59 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 234
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Monthly
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• Weekly
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 2 (includes a throttle to go up to 20 MPH without pedal assist) Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 12 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
E-bikes make non car transportation accessible to those who may not have the physical ability to use a regular bicycle. I don’t think class 2 ebikes should be prohibited, it’s just the speed that is an issue, not the vehicle, I have seen people on road bikes going faster and more dangerous than e-bikes. Personally I ride a class 2 but rarely go over 10 mph but The ebike makes it possible for me to carry big loads for shopping errands and go up hill I couldn’t do without the extra power. It keeps my car off the road for errands I can do on my bike.

Todd McGee
August 2, 2022, 8:52 AM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
No response
Question 3
Montara
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Eastside Parallel Trail

3. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
60 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 235
• Weekly
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
I understand that some trail users are clamoring to ban electric bikes and scooters. I think this is short-sighted and doomed to ultimate failure.

Banning should be undertaken only when all other reasonable efforts have been tried and have failed to alleviate problems. To put another way, the default action of the City should not be to ban all new forms of recreation.

Daniel Kennedy
August 2, 2022, 9:01 AM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
No response
Question 3
Moss Beach
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Errands (shopping, dining, etc.)
Question 8
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 9
• Monthly
Question 10
• Weekly
61 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 236
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 1 (electric motor provides assistance up to 20 MPH with pedal assist)
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
I ride a class 1 ebike (250w) that helps me pull cargo and climb hills in Moss Beach / bluffs, and my wife joins me with a class 2 750w ebike. The class 2 helps her as she's not as experienced / capable and the throttle helps her from stop signs and around traffic. My ebike can ride just as fast as hers so I don't understand why there's a class 1 allowance but not class 2 allowance. The fastest riders on these trails tend to be eskateboards and road bike (non-electric) cyclists from our experience, but ebikes also speed past us (we average about 10-12 mph). Removing ebikes from the trails would be a massive step backwards. Many older people, slower riders, or less capable people use ebikes for errands in this area and do so safely. Speed is the biggest worry, not how the vehicle gets up to speed.

Banning ebikes would cause a massive drop in the number of people riding on these trails and an increase in automobile traffic along Highway

1. Please build more protected trails and crossings!
Name not available
August 2, 2022, 9:02 AM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Kehoe/Casa Del Mar
Question 3
I am a resident
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
62 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 237
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• No
Question 18
• I do not support a speed limit on the trails
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
Ultimate safety is of utmost concern, however establishing restrictions on a multiuse trail is not the solution to our problem. The problem is, many people do not understand the proper trail etiquette. Regardless of the mode of transportation (on foot, skateboard, scooter, bicycle or any electric powered version of the aforementioned), users of the trail do not properly yield - bikers yield to pedestrians and pedestrians yield to equestrians…etc. I use the trails on a daily bases, either running, waking or mountain biking to Quarry Park. The safety issue I notice most frequently are groups taking up the entire trail and not adhering to the right of way, either on coming traffic or those approaching from the rear.

Name not available
August 2, 2022, 9:04 AM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
No response
Question 3
Moss Beach
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Errands (shopping, dining, etc.)
Question 8
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 9
• Monthly
Question 10
• Weekly
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
63 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 238
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 1 (electric motor provides assistance up to 20 MPH with pedal assist)
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
I ride a class 1 ebike (250w) that helps me pull cargo and climb hills in Moss Beach / bluffs, and my wife joins me with a class 2 750w ebike. The class 2 helps her as she's not as experienced / capable and the throttle helps her from stop signs and around traffic. My ebike can ride just as fast as hers so I don't understand why there's a class 1 allowance but not class 2 allowance. The fastest riders on these trails tend to be eskateboards and road bike (non-electric) cyclists from our experience, but ebikes also speed past us (we average about 10-12 mph) sometimes. Removing ebikes from the trails would be a massive step backwards. Many older people, slower riders, or less capable people use ebikes for errands and recreation in this area, and do so safely. Overall speed and riding near cars is the biggest worry, not how the bicycle gets up to speed. Banning ebikes would cause a massive drop in the number of people riding on these trails and an increase in automobile traffic along Highway 1. Please build more protected trails and crossings!
Name not available
August 2, 2022, 10:06 AM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
• Other or not sure
Question 3
El Granada
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Eastside Parallel Trail

3. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• Weekly
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
64 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 239
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 2 (includes a throttle to go up to 20 MPH without pedal assist) Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
I am a disabled person and would not be able to ride any bike at all without electric assist. At times I am unable to continue pedaling without pain and risk of injury, but the throttle allows me to continue my journey without interruption. I have no desire to ride faster than pedestrian traffic will safely permit, but I do wish to enjoy the trails for recreation and errands. If you ban class 2 e-bikes you are effectively banning me from the trails, as I cannot ride without that level of assistive technology and I cannot walk nearly as far as I can ride.

Name not available
August 2, 2022, 3:59 PM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
No response
Question 3
Moss Beach, CA
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
65 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 240
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• No
Question 18
• I do not support a speed limit on the trails
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
I do not support a speed limit, which is likely to encourage frequent disputes about "how fast you were going" between walkers/joggers and cyclists of any type. A likely more effective approach is to ban all motorized vehicles on the trails, electric or otherwise. Motorized vehicles belong on streets, not on walking/cycling paths.

Name not available
August 2, 2022, 9:35 PM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
No response
Question 3
El Granada
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
66 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 241
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
The trail is too narrow to support anything with wheels. It’s dangerous and a nuisance.

Sue Pemberton
August 3, 2022, 5:58 AM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
No response
Question 3
El Granada
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• Weekly
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 2 (includes a throttle to go up to 20 MPH without pedal assist) Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 12 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
By banning ebikes from local trails, the city would be discriminating against older people like me, who enjoy bikes with assistance for exercise and mental health.

Name not available
67 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 242
August 3, 2022, 12:22 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Downtown Half Moon Bay
Question 3
NA
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Errands (shopping, dining, etc.)
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• Daily
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• Monthly
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
E bikes are a great way to engage in a healthy life style, and provide equal access for people who might not be able to participate and enjoy our trails otherwise. While I don't own an e bike I am a cyclist and agree with the assessment the speed and trail manners are the issue, not the mode of transportation. We don't ban motorcycles or fast cars on our roads we instead educate drivers, enforce the rules, and create roads that encourage safe driving. I think the same mindset should apply to multi use trails.

Name not available
August 3, 2022, 12:58 PM
Question 1
• Yes
68 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 243
Question 2
• Kehoe/Casa Del Mar
Question 3
Half Moon Bay is my primary residence
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
Too bulky, majority go too fast and do not use voice or bell to warn walkers and/or regular bicyclists.... liability waiting to happen.

Name not available
August 3, 2022, 3:23 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Alsace Lorraine
Question 3
HMB
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
69 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 244
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• Daily
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Other - I do not ride an e-bike
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
e-bikes are so fast and usually quiet and most people don't exhibit bike etiquette, so the e-bikes will dangerously wiz past you with no warning.

They should not be allowed on the Coastal Trail.

Name not available
August 3, 2022, 4:58 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Frenchman’s Creek
Question 3
n/a
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Monthly
Question 9
70 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 245
• Weekly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
While it's fine for the city to set speed limits we know these are not going to be enforced in a way that will act as a deterrent. Also most of the Coastal Trail is not owned by the city so there needs to be co-ordination with other agencies for this trail (eg: State Parks). I suggest there needs to be educational outreach to riders of e-bikes that cover safety issues affecting other users (since the trails are multi-use) as well as speeds.

Name not available
August 4, 2022, 11:39 AM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
No response
Question 3
El Granada
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail
Question 6
• Other - Multiple times per week
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• Weekly
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
71 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 246
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Electric mountain bike (e-mtb)
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
E-bikes are an important mode of transportation and recreation and should not be limited on public trails that have been build using our tax dollars for the enjoyment of the local and visiting public.

Name not available
August 4, 2022, 12:01 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Miramar
Question 3
I'm a resident of HMB
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
72 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 247
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
I don't want to ban ebikes or motorized scooters, but people need to slow down. Someone is going to get seriously hurt riding above 10 mph, often with no helmets. The city is going to get sued.

Name not available
August 4, 2022, 1:17 PM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
No response
Question 3
El granada
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Eastside Parallel Trail

3. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Monthly
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• Weekly
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 1 (electric motor provides assistance up to 20 MPH with pedal assist)
Question 15
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• No
Question 18
• I do not support a speed limit on the trails
Question 19
73 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 248
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 4, 2022, 7:15 PM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
No response
Question 3
El Granada
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• Monthly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
signs are needed posting speed limit and etiquette like warning walkers of passing
Name not available
August 4, 2022, 9:19 PM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
74 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 249
• Other or not sure
Question 3
El Granada (former Miramar resident of 5 years up until June 2022) Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• Weekly
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Electric mountain bike (e-mtb)
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• No
Question 18
• I do not support a speed limit on the trails
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
Throttle and motor bikes w/ and w/out peddle assist cause problems.

Professional bikers dangerously wind their way through pedestrians with not much courtesy.

Name not available
August 4, 2022, 9:34 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Ocean Colony
Question 3
HMB
Question 4
• No
Question 5
75 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 250

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Monthly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Monthly
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• Weekly
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 2 (includes a throttle to go up to 20 MPH without pedal assist) Question 15
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 4, 2022, 9:47 PM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
No response
Question 3
El Granada
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
76 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 251
• Monthly
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• Weekly
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 3 (electric motor up to 28 MPH with pedal assist) Question 15
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 12 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
I’m a senior citizen with a class 3 ebike. I never ride fast. The bike allows me to get out and enjoy the a Coastside.

Name not available
August 5, 2022, 11:33 AM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Other or not sure
Question 3
Other: Canada Cove next to Ocean Colony
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Commute (work, school)
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• Weekly
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
77 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 252
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 2 (includes a throttle to go up to 20 MPH without pedal assist) Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
When I am on the coastal trail and there are people walking I turn my peddle assist OFF. It is a 7-speed bike. I can easily ride in first gear to prevent loss of control or excess speed. COMMON SENSE. I support speed limit, not eBike restriction. I don't want to use my car for my commute when I work on weekends.

Name not available
August 5, 2022, 1:36 PM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
• Other or not sure
Question 3
Montara
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• Monthly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
78 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 253
• Yes
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
No response
Jim D
August 5, 2022, 2:01 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Alsace Lorraine
Question 3
N/A. HMB resident.

Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
79 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 254
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
Speed limits should apply to both standard bikes and motorized bikes/scooters when other traffic is present, especially mixed foot traffic with elderly, children and pets. Speed limits do not need to be enforced during times when other bike/pedestrian traffic is low (e.g. early AM bike ride).

Name not available
August 5, 2022, 3:05 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Frenchman’s Creek
Question 3
N/A
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Eastside Parallel Trail

3. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
No response
Question 10
• Daily
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 3 (electric motor up to 28 MPH with pedal assist) Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
Pedestrians need to also do their part and not walk across the width of the trail with total disregard to other pedestrian and bicycle traffic. 80 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 255
Name not available
August 5, 2022, 3:48 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Frenchman’s Creek
Question 3
Half Moon Bay
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• Daily
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 1 (electric motor provides assistance up to 20 MPH with pedal assist)
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 5, 2022, 11:04 PM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
No response
Question 3
El Granada
81 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 256
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• Daily
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• No
Question 18
• I do not support a speed limit on the trails
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
Motorized vehicles of any kind, including ebikes and Segways, should not be permityef
Name not available
August 6, 2022, 12:49 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Downtown Half Moon Bay
Question 3
half moon bay
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
82 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 257
• Recreation
Question 8
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 9
• Daily
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• No
Question 18
• I do not support a speed limit on the trails
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 6, 2022, 1:43 PM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
No response
Question 3
Moss Beach
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Monthly
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
83 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 258
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 6, 2022, 2:38 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Ocean Colony
Question 3
n/a
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
84 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 259
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• No
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
How about make bike lanes safer on the highway 1 instead to encourage bikes there instead of on the trails?
Name not available
August 7, 2022, 10:53 AM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Alsace Lorraine
Question 3
Half Moon Bay
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
85 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 260
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
The Coastal trail is purely recreational so it should ban electric vehicles - it's also flat so not necessary
Name not available
August 7, 2022, 12:07 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Ocean Colony
Question 3
HMB
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• Daily
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 1 (electric motor provides assistance up to 20 MPH with pedal assist)
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 7, 2022, 5:44 PM
Question 1
86 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 261
• Yes
Question 2
• Miramar
Question 3
Resident
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Monthly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Monthly
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 7, 2022, 8:43 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Alsace Lorraine
Question 3
Half MoonBay
Question 4
• Yes
87 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 262
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. I do not use any of these trails
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 12 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
Ask all bikers to use a gentle bell to alert walkers when they are passing.

It really helps to keep everyone safe.

Name not available
August 7, 2022, 10:13 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Alsace Lorraine
Question 3
I am a resident
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
88 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 263
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
Paint a line in the middle of the coastal trail.

Denis Rauchman
August 8, 2022, 12:05 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Downtown Half Moon Bay
Question 3
Resident
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
89 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 264
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
Just like speechless bikes, they are a hazard. If they are for transportation,they don’t belong on pedestrian paths. They are big and bulky. Scary even at slow speeds. How are they considered exercise? Name not available
August 8, 2022, 6:03 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Ocean Colony
Question 3
Ocean colony
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Eastside Parallel Trail

3. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• Weekly
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 2 (includes a throttle to go up to 20 MPH without pedal assist) Question 15
90 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 265
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
People spend lots of money on ebikes. My husband and I bought them to allow us to feel more comfortable going long distance and getting exercise. 99 percent of the time we ride with zero to 1 level pedal assist.

People in regular bikes pass us. It is up to the rider to make smart decisions like it is with most things in life. Taking something away from people who live here and pay taxes but aren’t abusing anything is just wrong. Walkers think they own the trails-bikers think the own the trails! The problem is everyone is just self centered!
Name not available
August 8, 2022, 8:39 PM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
No response
Question 3
El Granada
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• Monthly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
91 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 266
• Yes
Question 18
• 12 MPH
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
We walk the coastal trail every day. The coastal trail is flat: it really shouldn't need ebike propulsion, and ebikers speed by walkers at 20+mph regularly. I don't think most people read signs: I suspect little behavior change would happen with posted speed limit signage.

Name not available
August 8, 2022, 10:09 PM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
No response
Question 3
Montara
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Eastside Parallel Trail

3. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Monthly
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• Weekly
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 1 (electric motor provides assistance up to 20 MPH with pedal assist)
Question 15
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 12 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
92 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 267
I have physical limitations, but still want to get out and ride a bike with friends (and keep my knees going as long as I can). An e-bike has been life-changing for me. It allows me to ride a bike without worrying how I am going to get up the giant hill to get home. It also allows me to ride from my home, instead of putting my bike on the car and driving and parking. I don't need to contribute to the congestion on the roads and parking lots in Half Moon Bay. I don't ride any faster than I would on my analog bike.

I'm polite, and use my bell and voice to let people know I'm coming. The US needs to build more bike infrastructure like the rest of the world - not limit it.

Name not available
August 9, 2022, 10:03 AM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Downtown Half Moon Bay
Question 3
Half Moon Bay
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Eastside Parallel Trail

3. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 10, 2022, 12:00 PM
93 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 268
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Downtown Half Moon Bay
Question 3
na
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Commute (work, school)
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• Weekly
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• Weekly
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 1 (electric motor provides assistance up to 20 MPH with pedal assist)
Question 15
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• No
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 10, 2022, 12:14 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Downtown Half Moon Bay
Question 3
HMB
Question 4
94 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 269
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
no ebikes on the coastal trail!
Name not available
August 10, 2022, 12:58 PM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
No response
Question 3
Lobitos
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. I do not use any of these trails
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
95 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 270
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 10, 2022, 6:23 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Downtown Half Moon Bay
Question 3
I am a resident of HMB
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
96 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 271
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
Was only able to mark one option for the last question, I would say that they should be prohibited on all of trails listed.

Name not available
August 10, 2022, 6:32 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Downtown Half Moon Bay
Question 3
HMB
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• Monthly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
97 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 272
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 12 MPH
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
I would appreciate a speed limit and no electric motorized vehicles on the coastal trail. The speed limit should apply to road bikes as well. On the highway adjacent trail I believe these bikes should be allowed and not have a speed limit since this can be an alternate route for commuters. The coastal trail specifically has more pedestrians, children, dogs, and people stopping to look at scenery. It is also single. All reasons why speed should be limited.

Name not available
August 11, 2022, 7:47 AM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Arleta Park
Question 3
I am a resident of Half Moon Bay....

Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Commute (work, school)
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• Daily
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 1 (electric motor provides assistance up to 20 MPH with pedal assist)
Question 15
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 12 MPH
98 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 273
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
I think basic safety signs could be posted every so often - for instance ring your bell if you're passing. Pass on the left, etc.

Name not available
August 11, 2022, 9:15 AM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
No response
Question 3
El Granada
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Other - I only ride. manual bike
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
Unfortunately, many riders are inconsiderate and rules need to be put in place.

Name not available
August 11, 2022, 6:24 PM
Question 1
• Yes
99 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 274
Question 2
• Frenchman’s Creek
Question 3
N/A
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• Monthly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
The Coastal Trail is extremely crowded on weekends and very narrow.

Motorized vehicle use should be prohibited on this trail on the weekends.

Name not available
August 11, 2022, 7:19 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Downtown Half Moon Bay
Question 3
I AM A RESIDENT OF HMB.

Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail
100 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 275

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Other - Many weekends
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Monthly
Question 9
• Monthly
Question 10
• Weekly
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 2 (includes a throttle to go up to 20 MPH without pedal assist) Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• No
Question 18
• I do not support a speed limit on the trails
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
Many bicyclists ride faster than e-bikes. This seems like a matter of vehicle control rather than speed, which should apply to all vehicles on the trail.

Name not available
August 11, 2022, 7:46 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Other or not sure
Question 3
am a resident
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
101 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 276
• Daily
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• Weekly
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 3 (electric motor up to 28 MPH with pedal assist) Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
They are too dangerous for the variety of humans and animals who currently populate these trails. They should be prohibited. Period.

Name not available
August 11, 2022, 8:17 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Alsace Lorraine
Question 3
N/A
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• Monthly
Question 10
• Monthly
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
102 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 277
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 2 (includes a throttle to go up to 20 MPH without pedal assist) Question 15
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• No
Question 18
• I do not support a speed limit on the trails
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 11, 2022, 8:17 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Alsace Lorraine
Question 3
Na
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• Weekly
Question 11
• Weekly
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 2 (includes a throttle to go up to 20 MPH without pedal assist) Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
103 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 278
• No
Question 17
• No
Question 18
• I do not support a speed limit on the trails
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 12, 2022, 7:45 AM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Alsace Lorraine
Question 3
HMB
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
104 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 279
Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 12, 2022, 1:58 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Miramar
Question 3
Miramar
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• Monthly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 10 MPH
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 12, 2022, 2:56 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Kehoe/Casa Del Mar
Question 3
m
105 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 280
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• Coastal Trail
Question 20
Allow ebikes on Naomi Patridge and Eastside Parallel trails, but not the Coastal Trail with heavier pedestrian traffic and families with children Name not available
August 12, 2022, 3:11 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Alsace Lorraine
Question 3
Resident of Half Moon Bay
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
106 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 281
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• Weekly
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 1 (electric motor provides assistance up to 20 MPH with pedal assist)
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• No
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
We are in our 70’s and enjoy being able to ride our e bikes to the harbor and elsewhere
Name not available
August 12, 2022, 7:18 PM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
• Other or not sure
Question 3
Riverbank
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Eastside Parallel Trail

3. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
• Monthly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Monthly
Question 9
• Monthly
107 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 282
Question 10
• Monthly
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 2 (includes a throttle to go up to 20 MPH without pedal assist) Question 15
• No
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 12, 2022, 8:03 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Arleta Park
Question 3
Half Moon Bay
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• Monthly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
108 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 283
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 12 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
Yes - this should not just be an Ebike or “motorized” consideration. Packs of traditional cyclists coming at (or past) pedestrians at high speeds are a frequent problem on the coastal trail. Please post speed limits and enforce for ALL modes of transport.

Name not available
August 13, 2022, 11:20 AM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Arleta Park
Question 3
Your survey is broken. I live in Arleta Park
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• Weekly
Question 11
• Monthly
Question 12
• Daily
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 1 (electric motor provides assistance up to 20 MPH with pedal assist)
Question 15
• Yes
109 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 284
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• No
Question 18
• I do not support a speed limit on the trails
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 13, 2022, 11:47 AM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Frenchman’s Creek
Question 3
Frenchmens creek
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Eastside Parallel Trail

3. I do not use any of these trails
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• Weekly
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 2 (includes a throttle to go up to 20 MPH without pedal assist) Question 15
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
110 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 285
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
Regular bikes can easily reach over 15 mph. Also class 2 is show to be much safer than class 1 for beginners. People are not used to pedal assist and a throttle is much easier to understand.

Name not available
August 13, 2022, 12:58 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Downtown Half Moon Bay
Question 3
n/a
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Eastside Parallel Trail

3. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• Daily
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• No
Question 18
• I do not support a speed limit on the trails
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
Electric vehicles are an economic mode of self transport and I use mine daily - it's therapeutic. It helps me clear my mind, get fresh air, and makes me happy. Please don't take it away :(
Name not available
August 13, 2022, 1:00 PM
111 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 286
Question 1
• No
Question 2
No response
Question 3
Loveland
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. I do not use any of these trails
Question 6
• Other - N/A
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• Monthly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• Daily
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• No
Question 18
• I do not support a speed limit on the trails
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 13, 2022, 1:14 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Downtown Half Moon Bay
Question 3
I live here
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5
112 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 287

1. Naomi Patridge Trail

2. Coastal Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• Daily
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 1 (electric motor provides assistance up to 20 MPH with pedal assist)
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
I would have the speed limit at 20, but most of these PEVs (personal electric vehicles) wouldn't go this fast on trails tbh. That's street speed.

Name not available
August 13, 2022, 1:29 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Arleta Park
Question 3
NA
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
113 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 288
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• No
Question 18
• I do not support a speed limit on the trails
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
We need signage and education and enforcement of unsafe behavior. A speed limit for when other are present would be good (eg 15 mph around pedestrians). We do need education and tools to help keep the trails safe and established protocol around things like bells and education on that so we can all be on the same page.

Name not available
August 13, 2022, 1:45 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Miramar
Question 3
Miramar
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Naomi Patridge Trail

2. Coastal Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
114 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 289
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• Weekly
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 1 (electric motor provides assistance up to 20 MPH with pedal assist)
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 13, 2022, 2:21 PM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
No response
Question 3
Las vegas
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Eastside Parallel Trail

3. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
• Other - I visit every other month
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• Monthly
Question 13
115 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 290
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• No
Question 18
• I do not support a speed limit on the trails
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
Just like walking, when it comes to enjoying what these trails have to offer to the populous, any mode of personal movement should be allowed Name not available
August 13, 2022, 2:48 PM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
No response
Question 3
San Jose
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Eastside Parallel Trail

3. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
• Monthly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• Monthly
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• Monthly
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Electric mountain bike (e-mtb)
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
116 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 291
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
Speed limits would be fine- other things are hard to enforce and may violate disability laws
Name not available
August 13, 2022, 3:11 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Highland Park
Question 3
N/A
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Eastside Parallel Trail

2. Coastal Trail

3. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Commute (work, school)
Question 8
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• Daily
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Other - Onewheel
Question 15
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• No
Question 18
• I do not support a speed limit on the trails
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation 117 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 292
Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 13, 2022, 4:38 PM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
• Other or not sure
Question 3
Vancouver
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. I do not use any of these trails

2. Coastal Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail

4. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
• Monthly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Monthly
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• Weekly
Question 12
• Daily
Question 13
• Monthly
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• No
Question 18
• I do not support a speed limit on the trails
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 13, 2022, 5:37 PM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
118 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 293
• Other or not sure
Question 3
Santa Cruz
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Monthly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• Monthly
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• No
Question 18
• I do not support a speed limit on the trails
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
No response
Name not shown
August 13, 2022, 6:30 PM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
• Other or not sure
Question 3
Central coast
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail
Question 6
119 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 294
• Other - When I visit
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• Monthly
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Other - Onewheel
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
E bikes are more dangerous on trails than Onewheels.

Name not available
August 13, 2022, 9:40 PM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
No response
Question 3
Sacramento
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• Monthly
120 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 295
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• Weekly
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• No
Question 18
• I do not support a speed limit on the trails
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 13, 2022, 11:32 PM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Downtown Half Moon Bay
Question 3
NA
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Eastside Parallel Trail

3. Naomi Patridge Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Errands (shopping, dining, etc.)
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• Daily
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• Daily
Question 12
• Daily
Question 13
121 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 296
• Daily
Question 14
• Class 2 (includes a throttle to go up to 20 MPH without pedal assist) Question 15
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 14, 2022, 3:33 AM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Downtown Half Moon Bay
Question 3
Hell
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Naomi Patridge Trail

2. Coastal Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Daily
Question 7
• Commute (work, school)
Question 8
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• Daily
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
122 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 297
• No
Question 18
• I do not support a speed limit on the trails
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 14, 2022, 6:34 AM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Downtown Half Moon Bay
Question 3
Here
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. Naomi Patridge Trail

2. Coastal Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• Weekly
Question 10
• Weekly
Question 11
• Weekly
Question 12
• Weekly
Question 13
• Weekly
Question 14
• Class 1 (electric motor provides assistance up to 20 MPH with pedal assist)
Question 15
• No
Question 16
• No
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
No response
123 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 298
Name not available
August 14, 2022, 6:58 AM
Question 1
• No
Question 2
No response
Question 3
Burlington, VT
Question 4
• No
Question 5

1. I do not use any of these trails
Question 6
• Other - N/A
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Weekly
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• Daily
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
No response
Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
No response
Name not available
August 14, 2022, 7:35 AM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Highland Park
Question 3
.

Question 4
124 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 299
• No
Question 5

1. Naomi Patridge Trail

2. Coastal Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
• Weekly
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Monthly
Question 9
• I don't use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 10
• Weekly
Question 11
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 12
• Weekly
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 2 (includes a throttle to go up to 20 MPH without pedal assist) Question 15
• Yes
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
Road bikers on non-electric bikes routinely pass me at high rates of speed when I’m going 15-18mph on my electric bike or one wheeled electric skateboard. Please keep in mind electric vehicles are not the only ones going very fast.

Name not available
August 14, 2022, 8:00 AM
Question 1
• Yes
Question 2
• Kehoe/Casa Del Mar
Question 3
NA
Question 4
• Yes
Question 5

1. Coastal Trail

2. Naomi Patridge Trail

3. Eastside Parallel Trail
Question 6
125 | www.opentownhall.com/12076 Created with OpenGov | September 19, 2022, 9:36 AM ebike Survey
Please provide your feedback on the use of electric motorized vehicles (e.g. e-bikes, scooters, skateboards) on the Coastal Trail, Naomi Patridge Trail, and Eastside Parallel Trail. 300
• Daily
Question 7
• Recreation
Question 8
• Daily
Question 9
• Daily
Question 10
• Daily
Question 11
• Daily
Question 12
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 13
• I don’t use this mode of transportation on trails
Question 14
• Class 1 (electric motor provides assistance up to 20 MPH with pedal assist)
Question 15
• No
Question 16
• Yes
Question 17
• Yes
Question 18
• 15 MPH
Question 19
• None of the above – the City should allow electric motorized vehicles on all trails and focus on speed limits and hazardous operation Question 20
We have 2 kids and we often use e-bike for recreational, transportation, school pickup and drop off using the Coastal Trail.I support 15 MPH speed limit but it makes no sense to prohibit e-bike on these trails.