Half Moon Bay City Council
January 30, 2025

150
A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 2

151
A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 2

152
A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 2

153
A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 2

154
A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 2

155
A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 3

156
A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 3

157
A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 3

158
A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 4

159
A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 4

160
STATE OF CALIFORNIA -- THE RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

NORTH CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
45 FREMONT STREET, SUITE 2000
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219
VOICE (415) 904-5260
FAX (415) 904-5400
TDD (415) 597-5885

APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT Please Review Attached Appeal Information Sheet Prior To Completing This Form.

SECTION I. Appellant(s)
Name:

Mailing Address:

City: Zip Code: Phone:

SECTION II. Decision Being Appealed

1. Name of local/port government:

2. Brief description of development being appealed:

3. Development's location (street address, assessor's parcel no., cross street, etc.):

4. Description of decision being appealed (check one.):

Approval; no special conditions
Approval with special conditions:

Denial
Note: For jurisdictions with a total LCP, denial decisions by a local government cannot be appealed unless the development is a major energy or public works project. Denial decisions by port governments are not appealable.

TO BE COMPLETED BY COMMISSION:

APPEAL NO:

DATE FILED:

DISTRICT:

A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 5

161
APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Page 2)

5. Decision being appealed was made by (check one):

Planning Director/Zoning Administrator
City Council/Board of Supervisors
Planning Commission
Other

6. Date of local government's decision:

7. Local government’s file number (if any):

SECTION III. Identification of Other Interested Persons Give the names and addresses of the following parties. (Use additional paper as necessary.) a. Name and mailing address of permit applicant:
b. Names and mailing addresses as available of those who testified (either verbally or in writing) at the city/county/port hearing(s). Include other parties which you know to be interested and should receive notice of this appeal.

A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 5

162
APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Page 3) SECTION IV. Reasons Supporting This Appeal
PLEASE NOTE:
• Appeals of local government coastal permit decisions are limited by a variety of factors and requirements of the Coastal Act. Please review the appeal information sheet for assistance in completing this section. • State briefly your reasons for this appeal. Include a summary description of Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, or Port Master Plan policies and requirements in which you believe the project is inconsistent and the reasons the decision warrants a new hearing. (Use additional paper as necessary.) • This need not be a complete or exhaustive statement of your reasons of appeal; however, there must be sufficient discussion for staff to determine that the appeal is allowed by law. The appellant, subsequent to filing the appeal, may submit additional information to the staff and/or Commission to support the appeal request.

A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 5

163
A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 5

164
Appeal Attachment
The proposed project is not consistent with numerous provisions and policies of Half Moon Bay’s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP), as detailed below. It is the clear intent of the City’s LCP to protect scenic views of the eastern hills which are described as “a major attribute of the City’s setting.” The issues raised in this appeal are substantial because the City contends that the LCP provisions and policies cited below do not apply to this project. The issues raised in this appeal extend beyond the current project. If the City’s interpretation of the LCP goes unchallenged, it will set a bad precedent for future projects that have potential to permanently degrade scenic views of the City’s eastern hills as seen from Highway 1.

After a local appeal, the City Council approved a 45 foot fire training tower---5 feet lower than the original 50 foot design submitted by the applicant. In requesting the height reduction, the City Council acknowledged the need to protect scenic resources. However, the 45 foot tower would still project above the ridge line skyline as seen from Highway 1, thus violating Zoning Code section 18.37.035(C), which states “Structures shall be sited so as to not intrude or project above the ridge line skyline as seen from Highways 1 and 92.”

Figure 1 shows a photo taken from the western shoulder of Highway 1 in January 2016. The photo shows the 50 foot story poles erected by the applicant for the original design tower. From the photo, it is clear that a further height reduction to approximately 35 feet is needed to comply with Zoning Code section

18.37.035(C). An even larger height reduction would be needed if the proposed tower were viewed from the middle of Highway 1 or from the eastern shoulder of Highway 1.

Figure 2 shows a rendering of the 45 foot redesigned tower. This rendering was prepared by the applicant (source: Half Moon Bay City staff report dated May 3, 2016). Unlike Figure 1, there are no height reference points (e.g., story poles) to verify the accuracy of the applicant’s rendering. In fact, the rendering presents a misleading depiction of the tower’s true height in relation to the ridge line skyline when seen from this and other parts of Highway 1. The story poles shown in Figure 1 indicate that the 45 foot tower would continue to project above the ridge line skyline by about 10 feet when viewed from the western shoulder of Highway 1.

The project is not consistent with the following additional provisions and policies of the City’s certified LCP:

Land Use Plan (LUP) Chapter 7 states: “The hillside along the City's eastern boundary is a major attribute of the City's setting. Coordinated County and City measures to protect the scenic quality of these hillsides are necessary.”
LUP policy 7-10.states ”Structures shall be subordinate in appearance to the natural landform, shall be designed to follow the natural contours of the landscape, and shall be sited so as not to intrude into the skyline as seen from public viewing places.”
Zoning Code Section 18.01.010(G) states “Conserve and enhance important visual resources within the city, including...views of the inland hillsides at the eastern edge of the city.” Zoning Code section 18.37.010(E) states “Allow development only when it is visually compatible with the character of the surrounding areas.”
Zoning Code section 18.37.010(A) and Coastal Act section 30251 state “The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance.” A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 5

165
A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 5

166
A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 5

167
RESOLUTION NO. C-2016-34
PDP-15-046

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

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A PREFABRICATED FIRE TRAINING TOWER OF APPROXIMATELY 45 FEET IN HEIGHT AND 4,497 SQUARE FEET IN FLOOR AREA, ON A 86,463 SQUARE-FOOT LOT DEVELOPED WITH AN EXISTING FIRE STATION AND FIRE TRAINING YARD LOCATED AT 1191 MAIN STREET IN THE PS, PUBLIC SERVICE ZONING DISTRICT (APN 064-370-050) WHEREAS, an application was submitted requesting approval of a Coastal Development Permit and Architectural Review for construction of a prefabricated fire training tower of approximately 45 feet in height and 4,497 square feet in floor area, on an 86,463 square-foot lot developed with an existing fire station and fire training yard in the PS, Public Service Zoning District (APN 064-370-050);
WHEREAS, the procedures for processing the application have been followed as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City of Half Moon Bay Planning Commission, as the Advisory Body to the City Council, conducted duly noticed public hearings on December 8, 2015 and January 26, 2016, at which time all those in attendance desiring to be heard on the matter were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, following the close of the public hearing on January 26, 2016, the Planning Commission voted to approve the project; and
WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission approval was filed on February 9, 2016;and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly-noticed public hearing on March 1, 2016 at which time all those desiring to be heard on the matter were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council voted unanimously to continue the item to allow the applicant to consider aesthetic modifications; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reopened the duly-noticed hearing on May 3, 2016 to consider the redesign of the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered all written and oral testimony presented for consideration; and
WHEREAS, the Coastside Fire Protection District adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study adopted by the Coastside Fire Protection District for the Coastside A-2-HMB-16-0058
1 EXHIBIT 6

168
Fire Protection District Fire Training Prop, in conformance with Section 15050(b) of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has made the required findings for approval of the project, set forth in Exhibit A to this resolution;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based upon the Findings in Exhibits A and B, and subject to the Amended Conditions of Approval in Exhibit C, the City Council approves application No. PDP-15-046.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Half Moon Bay City Council at a duly noticed public hearing held May 3, 2016.

AYES, Councilmembers: Fraser, Kowalczyk, Muller, Penrose, and Ruddock NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

ATIEST:
2 A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 6

169

EXHIBIT A

RESPONSE TO APPEAL
City Council Resolution C-2016-
PDP-15-046
Coastal Development Permit and Architectural Review for construction of a prefabricated fire training tower of approximately 45 feet in height and 4,497 square feet in floor area on a 86A63 square-foot Jot developed with an existing fire station and fire training yard located at 1191 Main Street in the PS, Public Service Zoning District (APN 064-370-050) GroundsforAppeal1
The project does not conform to visual resource standards protecting views of the eastern hills from Highway one. Specifically, the project violates an objective standard in the LCP/IP §18.37 et seq "Visual Resources Protection Standards" by projecting above the ridgeline into the skyline when viewed from Highway One.

Response
The referenced visuat resource standards (Zoning Code Section 18.37.035, Upland slope standards) apply to development in or adjacent to upland slopes. Zoning Code Section

18.37.020 identifies upland slopes as scenic hillsides visible from Highway 1 and 92, which are hillside areas above the 160-foot elevation contour line. The subject site is not located on or adjacent to an upland slope or to a hillside of any sort; therefore, it is not subject to the upland slope standards. Consistent with this conclusion, the existing Fire Station 40 was previously found to be in conformance with the Zoning Code despite the fact that it extends above the ridgeline as viewed from Highway 1. The fact that the Fire Training site is located across the street from a PUD (and thus could be considered adjacent to a visual resource area}, does not mean that the project is subject to the development standards identified for -other visual resource areas, such as upland slopes, the Old Downtown, or beach viewshed standards.

GroundsforAppeal2
The proposed tower violates Municipal Code §18.01.010(6), which states "Conserve and enhance important visual resources within the city, including views of Highway 1 of the Pacific Ocean and coastal beaches and bluffs, the visual character of the old downtown area, and views of inland hillsides at the eastern edge of the city."
Response
The revised training tower reduces the height of the proposed facility to 45 feet and increases transparency at the top of the structure by replacing the parapet with an open railing, such that the solid, enclosed portion of the structure is 40.5 feet in height, just 5.1 feet above the height of the existing Fire Station 40. The training structure will be visible from Highway 1, but is not expected to be visually intrusive or significantly obstruct views of the hillsides due to the structure's relatively small size, its distance from the Highway, the lot's remaining open area, the screening provided by existing street trees on either A-2-HMB-16-0058
3 EXHIBIT 6

170
side of Main Street, and the effective use of materials and color which blends with the background.

GroundsforAppeal3
The project is not consistent with Municipal Code §18.37.010 (E) which states "Allow development only when it is visually compatible with the character of the surrounding areas" or with Municipal Code §14.37.035{6} which states "The proposed developed shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures and environment in the area". The proposed tower would clash sharply with the surrounding buildings that include: the existing fire station, 2} the community theatre~ 3} the houses of Main Street Park, 4} the Ford dealership~ 5} a working farm house, and 6} the nearby historic Johnston House.

Response
Buildings of varying architectural styles inform the existing visual character of the vicinity of the project site. Fire Station 40, located on the same parcel as the proposed training facility, is a single-story building 35.4 feet in height with a sloped standing-seam metal roof with large eaves and five fire engine bays with roll-up doors. The Coastal Repertory Theater is an industrial building with a domed roof, and residential development located further north consists of two-story buildings with pitched roofs. Single-story buildings and surface parking are located along Main Street to the northwest. The historic Johnston House is located on the south side of Higgins Canyon Road, approximately one-third mile from the site, and a farmhouse and agricultural operation are located on the north side of Higgins Canyon Road approximately onequarter mile from the site.

The revised training structure reduces the height of the proposed facility to 45 feet and increases transparency at the top of the structure by replacing the parapet with an open railing, such that the solid, enclosed portion of the structure is 40.5 feet in height, just 5.1 feet above the height of the existing Fire Station 40. The proposed structure is considerably smaller, but taller than the adjacent buildings. The structure's lot coverage, at approximately 1,875 square feet, is less than 6% of the total area of the site. The visual effect of the additional height is moderated by the building's small size; its greater massing at the ground level; by the building location, which is set back 138 feet from Main Street, 135 feet from the theater, and 130 feet from Fire Station 40; and by the effective use of materials and color which blends with the background.

The height and design of the proposed training facility is intrinsic to its use. The Fire District has indicated that the facility is intended to simulate building types and occupancies existing in the District's service area- with operable doors, windows, stairwells, balconies, roof areas, fire hose connections, burn rooms, rappelling anchors, moveable interior wall partitions, and operable shutters. As result, the building is somewhat utilitarian and industrial in appearance. This look is not an abrupt contrast with that of the existing fire station with its standing seam metal roof and large fire engine bays, or with the industrial style and chain link fencing of the adjacent theater building. The training facility's small size and location at the back of the site minimizes the visual effect from Main Street. The Conditions of Approval in Exhibit C require that the 4 A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 6

171
building be maintained in good condition at all times and that it be cleaned as necessary after use to ensure the outer surface is free of burn marks or other blemishes.

Both the existing buildings and the proposed training tower contrast with the Johnston House and the old farmhouse located to the east and southeast if the site. This contrast reflects provisions ofthe City's Land Use Plan, which designates sites fronting on Main Street for urban uses, but designates properties south of Higgins Canyon Road as Open Space Reserve, and establishes a city boundary to the east and south east beyond which rural uses of the County's PAD(CD) Planned Agricultural District apply.

GroundsforAppeal4
Municipal Code §14.37.035(1) states "if the project site is located in an area considered by the committee as having a unified design character or historical character, the design shall be compatible with such character." The nearby Johnston House (which dates to 1855} is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The proposed tower clashes sharply with the rural historical character of the area.

Response
The area surrounding the project site does not have a unified design character or historical character in that the existing buildings located in the vicinity ofthe site (or within one-third mile of the site) vary significantly in age and design.

GroundsforAppeaiS
Municipal Code §14.37.030{8} states "Requirements which are more restrictive than the development standards set forth in the city's zoning code may be imposed on a project when the community development director, planning commission, or city council on appeal concludes such requirements are necessary either to promote the internal integrity of the design of the project or to assure compatibility of the proposed project's design with its site and surroundings." The southern end of Main Street has a quiet, rural feel that will be compromised by this tower and associated training activities. Basic community planning principles tell us that this is the wrong place for an industrial tower that will be buzzing with training activity.

Environmental review of the project should have considered alternative locations for the tower, and denial would motivate such consideration for any resubmitted project.

Response
See response to Grounds for Appeal 3. The California Environmental Quality Act requires an alternatives analysis for projects for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is prepared.

An alternatives analysis is not required for projects for which a Negative Declaration is prepared. The Coastside Fire Protection District, as the lead agency, adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration that indicated, based on mitigation included in the project, that the proposed fire training tower would not result in any significant environmental impact; therefore no alternatives analysis is required as part of the environmental review for the project.

A-2-HMB-16-0058
5 EXHIBIT 6

172
GroundsforAppeal6
Municipal Code §14.37.040(A} states "In approving any project, the director of community development, planning commission, or city council on appeal shall find that such buildings, structures, planting, paving and other improvements shall be so designed and constructed that they will not be of unsightly or obnoxious appearance .... " The proposed tower will be unsightly at all times and will be obnoxious to the public when buzzing with training activities.

Response
See response to Grounds for Appeal 3.

GroundsforAppeal7
Municipal Code §14.37.035{J} and 18.20.070(F) {6) state "The design shall promote harmonious transition in scale and character in areas located between different designated land uses." This is an area where residential housing gives way to agriculture and open space. The proposed 50- foot tower does not promote harmonious transition in scale and character.

Response
The proposed fire training facility is located between two existing public service uses, the Coastal Repertory Theater (housed in a re-purposed industrial building) and the existing Fire Station, both of which currently stand out in contrast with the open agricultural fields located to the east and south. This contrast is by design; the parcels fronting on Main Street are planned for urban uses. The immediately adjacent agricultural fields to the east and southeast are located outside the City under County jurisdiction and are zoned PAD (CD), which allows primarily for agricultural uses. The property to the south is located within the City boundaries, but is zoned OS-R Open Space Reserve District, which allows for agriculture, open space, and limited residential use.

The revised design of the fire training structure improves the appearance of the structure, by reducing its height, increasing the transparency of the top of the structure and providing a more nuanced brick and painted metal treatment that blends with the background.

Nevertheless, the facility remains somewhat utilitarian in appearance. This look is not an abrupt contrast with that of the existing fire station with its standing seam metal roof and large fire engine bays, or with the industrial style building and chain link fencing of the adjacent theater site. Although the total height of the training structure is 9.6 feet taller than the existing fire station and 18 feet taller than the theater, the overall scale of the building is relatively small. The visual effect of the training tower's height is moderated by the building's small size; its concentration of massing at the ground level; by the building location, which is set back 138 feet from Main Street, 135 feet from the theater, and 130 feet from the fire station; and by the effective use of materials and color that blends with the background. With implementation of the training tower, the existing fire station is likely to continue to be the most visually dominant structure as viewed from Highway 1, due to its prominent corner location, large size, and iconic red roof.
6 A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 6

173
Grounds for AppealS
The City's Downtown Specific Plan §4.311 states: "Enhance the visual appeal of the principal gateways into the downtown area." Even when it does not emit smoke, this industrial tower degrades the visual appeal of the City's southern gateway. Therefore the project does not comply with the City's Downtown Specific Plan.

Response
The project site is located at what is generally considered to be the southerly gateway to Downtown Half Moon Bay. Although the subject site is not located within the area of the Downtown Specific Plan, the Plan identifies the intersection of Higgins Canyon Road and Main Street as a gateway intersection. The Specific Plan includes policies promoting gateway signage and beautification and calling for removal of features that detract from the visual appeal of the gateway, such as inoperable vehicles and sign clutter. The gateway policies do not provide guidance for surrounding development. See responses to Grounds for Appeal 3 and 7 in regard to the project's compatibility with this gateway location.

GroundsforAppeal9
The proposed tower violates California Coastal Act §30251, an adopted policy of the City's LCP which states "The scenic visual qualifies of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance", reinforces by Municipal Code §18.37.010{A). For all the previously stated reasons, approval of the fire tower fails to consider or protect the City's visual resources.

Response
As indicated in the response to Grounds for Appeal 1-8, the revised design of the training structure will not negatively impact a visual resource area, will not significantly block views of the hillsides, and is reasonably compatible with adjacent development.

GroundsforAppeallO
The project is appealable to the Coastal Commission in that it meets the definition of a "major public works project". The noticing for the project failed to identify the project as appealable to the Coastal Commission.

Response
The project meets the definition of a "major public works project" and is appealable to the Coastal Commission. Zoning Code Subsection 18.20.060.A.6 requires that notices for projects located in the Appealable Area of the Coastal Zone state that the project is appealable to the Coastal Commission. The subject project is not located in the Appealable Area of the Coastal Zone; therefore Subsection 18.20.060.A.6 does not apply. Although the project is a major public works project that is appealable to the Coastal Commission, the Zoning Code does not require this to be identified in the public notice.

GroundsforAppealll
There are other compliance issues, such as segmentation of the project (the project was segmented into an after-the-fact permit for a parking lot phase, which was modified after A-2-HMB-16-0058
7 EXHIBIT 6

174
approval to support the impending tower with utilities and cutouts, and a separate CDP for the building, thereby circumventing the requirement that CEQA analysis address the whole of the project).

Response
Pursuant to CEQA, the Coastside Fire Protection District (CFPD) is the lead agency for projects it seeks to implement within the City of Half Moon Bay. CFPD submitted two recent Coastal Development Permit (COP) applications to the City for the subject site. The first application (File No. PDP-066-14), for pavement, lighting, fencing, storm water detention and tree removal, was submitted on September 29, 2014 and was determined to be categorically exempt. The project was approved by the Community Development Director on November 4, 2014 at a noticed public hearing. The subject Coastal Development Permit application (File No. PDP-15-046) for the fire training tower was submitted on June 9, 2015 and was the subject of a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared and adopted by the CFPD.

The CFPD has indicated that funding constraints influenced the order of these applications and that the COP for pavement and other site improvements had utility for the District, independent of the training tower. Although the fire training tower was included as a strategic goal in the District's 2002 Strategic Plan, funding was not identified until FY 2015/16, after the approval of the pavement and site improvements COP. A May 27,2015 CFPD staff report to the Board of Directors identified achievable financing via a lease purchase financing program through Government Capital Corporation. The COP application for the fire training tower was submitted shortly thereafter.

The pavement and site improvements project (File No. PDP-066-14) did not result in any significant environmental impacts; consequently, addressing that application in the environmental review for the training tower would not have changed the conclusions of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
8 A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 6

175
EXHIBIT 8

FINDINGS AND EVIDENCE
City Council Resolution C-2016-
PDP-15-046
Coastal Development Permit and Architectural Review for construction of a prefabricated fire training tower of approximately 45 feet in height and 4,497 square feet in floor area, on a 86,463 square-foot lot developed with an existing fire station and fire training yard located at 1191 Main Street in the PS, Public Service Zoning District (APN 064-370-050) Coastal Development Permit- Findings for Approval
The required Coastal Development Permit for this project may be approved or conditionally approved only after the approving authority has made the following findings per Municipal Code Section 18.20.070:

1. Local Coastal Program - The development as proposed or as modified by conditions, conforms to the Local Coastal Program.

Evidence: The project is consistent with the General Plan/local Coastal Program. The project is located within the Public Facilities and Institutions General Plan designation. This designation is intended to provide for educational, governmental, and institutional uses not normally accommodated in offices located in the general commercial area, such as schools, public works and utility yards, and maintenance buildings and hospitals. The proposed fire training facility is consistent with this designation. The project will not interfere with coastal access and is located on a developed fire station site that is not located in a designated Visual Resource Area or Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area. The Coastside Fire Protection District filed a Coastal Development Permit application for the project in conformance with LCP Policy 10-1 "City LCP Permitting Requirements," and the project, as revised, is consistent with the Zoning Code and LCP, and is in conformance with LCP Policy 10-2 "City LCP Conformance."
Coastal Act 30240(b) and Policy 3-3 (b): Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade such areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of such habitat areas.

Compliance: The project site is not located within or adjacent to an environmentally sensitive habitat area.

Coastal Act 30251: The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, to restore and enhance visual A-2-HMB-16-0058
9 EXHIBIT 6

176
quality of visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.

Compliance: The revised training structure design reduces the height of the structure to 45 feet and increases transparency at the top of the structure by replacing the parapet with an open railing, such that the enclosed portion of the structure is 40.5 feet in height. The proposed structure and additional perimeter trees (recently planted) will partially obstruct current views of the hillsides available from Main Street across the vacant portion of the site; however, the revised design lessens the visual effect, the relatively small building will leave portions of the site open to views, and the proposed development is consistent with the existing pattern along Main Street where buildings are interspersed with open parking areas and street trees block views at regular intervals. The proposed facility will have an incremental effect on views from Higgins Canyon Road, across the open agricultural fields east of the project site.

This effect is expected to be fairly minor in light of the existing pattern of development along Main Street. The proposed facility will be visible from Highway 1, but is not expected to be visually intrusive or significantly obstruct views of the hillsides due to the building's reduce height, relatively small size, its distance from the Highway, and the screening provided by existing trees on both sides of Main Street.

Overall, the revised fire training structure is visually consistent with the pattern of development in the surrounding area. The project is consistent with the height limit of the Zoning Code. It is not located within a designated Visual Resource Area. The relatively small size of the building and its placement on the site mitigate the visual effect of the facility's height in relation to adjacent buildings. The building design is reasonably compatible with the existing fire station and theater buildings, and the project will not significantly affect views from Main Street, Higgins Canyon Road, or Highway 1.

Policy 7-1: The City will establish regulations to protect the scenic corridor of Highway 1, including setbacks for new development, screening of commercial parking and landscaping associated with new development. The minimum standards shall include all areas within 200 yards of State Highway 1, which are visible from the road.

Compliance: The subject site is located within 200 yards of State Highway 1; however Highway 1 is not designated a Scenic Highway within the City limits of Half Moon Bay.

The project is not located within a Visual Resource Area as designated on the Visual Resources Overlay Map.

Policy 7-5: All new development, including additions and remodeling, shall be subject to design review.
10 A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 6

177
Compliance: The proposed project has undergone design review by the City Council and the City Council's findings are included below.

Policy 7-11: New development along primary access routes from Highway 1 to the beach, as designated on the Land Use Map, shall be designed and sited so as to maintain and enhance the scenic quality of such routes, including building setbacks, maintenance of low height of structures, and landscaping which establishes a scenic gateway and corridor.

Compliance: The proposed project is not located along a primary coastal access route from Highway 1 and will not affect coastal access.

Coastal Act 30244: Where development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources as identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer, reasonable mitigation measures shall be required.

Compliance: The prefabricated training facility will be constructed on a paved site previously disturbed by grading, trenching, and other excavation, which did not uncover cultural resources. No structures of historical significance are located on the site.

2. Growth Management System - The development is consistent with the annual population limitation system established in the Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

Evidence: The proposed project does not include new residential development and would not result in any population increase.

3. Zoning Provisions - The development is consistent with the use limitations and property development standards of the base district as well as the other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.

Evidence: The proposed fire training facility, a key element of Fire Station 40's ongoing training program, is an allowed use within the P-S, Public Service Zoning District.

As conditioned, the training facility is consistent with all of the development regulations of the P-S District. The project site is not located within any of the Visual Resource Areas identified in Zoning Code Section 17.37.020 and is not subject to the visual resource protection standards applicable to those areas. The project is not located within, or proximate to an environmentally sensitive habitat area.

4. Adequate Services - The proposed development will be provided with adequate services and infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program.

Evidence: The proposed project is located on a developed site where all public services and utilities are available. The training facility will facilitate the provision of fire services to the community by enhancing training opportunities for firefighters.

A-2-HMB-16-0058
11 EXHIBIT 6

178

5. California Coastal Act - Any development to be located between the sea and the first public road parallel to the sea conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act.

Evidence: The site is located east of Highway 1, and is not located between the sea and the first public road parallel to the sea.

Architectural Site and Design Review - Finding
The required Architectural and/or Site and Design Review for this project may be approved or conditionally approved only after the City Council has made the following findings per Municipal Code Section 14.37.040:

1. That such buildings, structures, planting, paving and other improvements shall be so designed and constructed that they will not be of unsightly or obnoxious appearance to the extent that they will hinder the orderly and harmonious development of the city; In making the above finding, the City Council has reviewed and considered all of the following criteria as identified in Municipal Code Section 14.37.035:
a. Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious. Such features include height, elevations, roofs, material, color and appurtenances.
b. Where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the signs shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be harmonious in appearance.
c. The material, textures, colors and details of construction shall be an appropriate expression of its design concept and function, and shall be compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures and functions. Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natura/landscape and be non-reflective.
d. The design shall be appropriate to the function of the project and express the project's identity. The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site shall create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community.
e. Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile or other materials such as composition as approved by the appropriate design review authority. No mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened. f. The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures and environment in the immediate area. g. The proposed design shall be consistent with the applicable elements of the general plan.
h. If the project site is located in an area considered by the committee as having a unified design character or historical character, the design shall be compatible with such character.
12 A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 6

179
i. The design shall promote harmonious transition in scale and character in areas located between different designated land uses.
j. The design shall be compatible with known and approved improvements and/or future construction, both on and off the site.
k. Sufficient ancillary functions provided to support the main functions of the project shall be compatible with the project's design concept.

I. Access to the property and circulation systems shall be safe and convenient for equestrians, pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.
m. The amount and arrangement of open space and landscaping shall be appropriate to the design and the function of the structures.
n. Where feasible, natural features shall be appropriately preserved and integrated with the project.
o. Landscaping shall be in keeping with the character or design of the building, and preferably clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced. The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors, shall create a desirable and functional environment and the landscape concept shall depict an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site. Plant material shall be suitable and adaptable to the site, shall be capable of being properly maintained on the site, and shall be of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. p. The design shall be energy efficient and incorporate renewable energy design elements including, but not limited to:

1. Exterior energy design elements;

2. Internal lighting service and climatic contra/ systems; and

3. Building siting and landscape elements.

Evidence:

The project proposes the construction of a prefabricated fire training facility that is 45 feet tall and 4,497-square-feet on the almost 2-acre Fire Station 40 site located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Main Street and Higgins Canyon Road, with Highway 1.

Proposed materials include brick and painted metal siding in a clapboard design. The revised exterior building color blends with colors of natural features located east of the site.

No exterior lighting is proposed on the building. Small signs are included on doors and walls for field location purposes. No other new signage is proposed. Improvements were previously approved and constructed on the site (through applications PDP-066-14 and PDP-15-010) that will complement and support the training facility. These include pavement, gated vehicular access from Main Street, tubular steel perimeter fencing, light standards, a bioswale, and 15 additional perimeter trees. A 10,000-gallon, below-grade draughting pit, approved under Coastal Development Permit Exemption PDP-15-010, would retain and recycle water used during routine training.

A-2-HMB-16-0058
13 EXHIBIT 6

180
The project site is located at what is generally considered to be the southerly gateway to Downtown Half Moon Bay. Although the subject site is not located within the area of the Downtown Specific Plan, the Plan identifies the intersection of Higgins Canyon Road and Main Street as a gateway intersection. The Specific Plan includes policies promoting gateway signage and beautification and calling for removal of features that detract from the visual appeal of the gateway, such as inoperable vehicles and sign clutter. The gateway policies do not provide guidance for surrounding development.

Buildings of varying architectural styles inform the existing visual character of the vicinity of the project site. Fire Station 40, located on the same parcel as the proposed training facility, is a single-story building with a sloped standing-seam metal roof with large eaves and five fire engine bays with roll-up doors. The Coastal Repertory Theater is an industrial building with a domed roof, and residential development located further north consists of two-story buildings with pitched roofs. Single-story buildings and surface parking are located along Main Street to the northeast.

The project includes placement of a 4-story, 4,497 square-foot training facility at the north end of the project site, between the existing Coastal Repertory Theater and Fire Station 40. The proposed building has a footprint and massing that is considerably smaller, but somewhat taller than that of the adjacent buildings. The building's lot coverage, at approximately 1,875 square feet, is less than 6% of the total area of the training lot. The building's upper stories step back from a ground floor of 1,604 square feet to a relatively slender top floor of 550 square feet. The overall height is 45 feet, approximately 9.6 feet taller than the adjacent Fire Station 40 and 18 feet taller than the adjacent theater. The height of the enclosed/solid portions of the structure is 40.5 feet. The visual effect of this additional height is moderated by the building's small size; its greater massing at the ground level; the fact the top 4.5 feet consists of open railing; the building location, which is set back 138 feet from Main Street, 135 feet from the theater, and 130 feet from the fire station; and by the effective use of color that blends with the background.

The height and design of the proposed training facility is intrinsic to its use. The Fire District has indicated that the facility is intended to simulate building types and occupancies existing in the District's service area - with operable doors, windows, stairwells, balconies, roof areas, fire hose connections, burn rooms, rappelling anchors, moveable interior wall partitions, and operable shutters. Even considering the revised design with its brick front fa~ade, the building is somewhat utilitarian in appearance.

This look is not an abrupt contrast with that of the existing fire station with its standing seam metal roof and large fire engine bays, or with the industrial style of the adjacent theater building. The training facility's small size and location at the back of the site minimizes the visual effect from Main Street. The Conditions of Approval in Exhibit C require that the building be maintained in good condition at all times and that it be cleaned as necessary after use to ensure the outer surface is free of burn marks or other blemishes.

A-2-HMB-16-0058
14 EXHIBIT 6

181
The proposed building and additional perimeter trees (planted as part of the prior training yard project) will partially obstruct current views of the hillsides available from Main Street across the vacant portion of the site; however, the relatively small building will leave portions of the site open to views, and the development is consistent with the existing pattern along Main Street where buildings are interspersed with open parking areas and street trees block views at regular intervals. The proposed facility will have an incremental effect on views from Higgins Canyon Road, across the open agricultural fields east of the project site. This effect is expected to be fairly minor in light of the existing pattern of development along Main Street. The proposed facility will be visible from Highway 1, but is not expected to be visually intrusive or significantly obstruct views of the hillsides due to the building's relatively small size, its distance from the Highway, the effective use of color to blend with colors of natural features located east of the site, and the screening provided by existing and proposed street trees on both sides of Main Street.

Overall, the proposed fire training facility is visually consistent with the pattern of development in the surrounding area. It is not located within a designated Visual Resource Area. The relatively small size of the building and its placement on the site mitigate the visual effect of the facility's height in relation to adjacent buildings. The building design is reasonably compatible with the existing fire station and theater buildings, and the project will not significantly affect views from Main Street, Higgins Canyon Road, or Highway 1.

2. That such buildings, structures, planting, paving and other improvements will not impair the desirability or opportunity to attain the optimum use and the value of the land and the improvements, or otherwise impair the desirability of living or working conditions in the same or adjacent areas; and
Evidence: The revised design of the fire training facility is compatible with its surroundings so that it will not impair the desirability of living or working in the area, as discussed under Architectural Finding 1. The Conditions of Approval in Exhibit C require that the building be maintained in good condition at all times, that it be cleaned as necessary after use to ensure the outer surface is free of burn marks or other blemishes, and prohibit training activities on holidays. Furthermore, the project will optimize the use and value of the land for the existing fire station use by providing a state of the art fire training facility that enables fire fighters to train under realistic simulated conditions that reflect the building types and uses within the Coastside Fire District's service area.

Environmental Review- Finding
CEQA- The project will not have a significant effect on the environment.

Evidence: The Coastside Fire Protection District, as the lead agency for the project, adopted a Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and A-2-HMB-16-0058
15 EXHIBIT 6

182
Reporting Program (MMP) based on an Initial Study (IS) which identified mitigation to reduce all potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. This mitigation has been included in the Conditions of Approval for the project (Exhibit B).

A-2-HMB-16-0058
16 EXHIBIT 6

183

EXHIBITC

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
City Council Resolution C-2015-
PDP-15-046
Planning Commission decision to approve a Coastal Development Permit and Architectural Review for construction of a prefabricated fire training tower of approximately 45 feet in height and 4,497 square feet in floor area with an unenclosed platform of 550 square feet, on a 86,463 square-foot lot developed with an existing fire station and fire training yard located at 1191 Main Street in the PS, Public Service Zoning District (APN 064-370-050) Authorization: Approval of this permit authorizes a request for a Coastal Development Permit and architectural review to allow installation of a prefabricated fire training facility at the Fire Station 40 site in the P-S, Public Service Zoning District and the Public Facilities and Institutions General Plan designation.

A. The following Conditions shall apply to the subject site:

1. CONFORMANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS. Development of the site shall conform to the approved plans entitled: Proposed Fire Prop, Coastside County Water District and date stamped April 13, 2016, except for any revisions required by this permit. The Community Development Director shall review and may approve any deviation from the approved plans that is deemed to be minor in nature. Any other change shall require the submittal of a major modification application and fees and shall be subject to a public hearing as required by Title 18.

2. CONFORMANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. The permittee shall construct and operate this Project in full conformance with these Conditions of Approval. Any revision of the Conditions of Approval shall require submittal of a major modification subject to a public hearing as required by Title 18.

3. PLAN REVISIONS. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the permittee shall revise the project plans in conformance with the following, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director:
a) Revise the project plans as necessary to reflect the material and color option identified in Condition D.8.

4. CONFORMANCE WITH THE MUNICIPAL CODE. No part of this approval shall be construed to permit a violation of any part of the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code. (Planning)

5. PROJECT OPERATION. Operation of the training facility shall conform to the parameters proposed by the Coastside Fire Protection District, as follows:

A-2-HMB-16-0058
17 EXHIBIT 6

184
a) Hours of Operation. Training activities at the fire training structure shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. daily, with the following exceptions:
• One night per week training may occur between the hours of 7:00 and 9:00 p.m.; and
• No training shall occur on any State of California or federal holiday. b) Live Fire. Live fire training shall be limited to 15 days per year. c) Foam/Hazardous Materials. Neither fire suppression foam nor hazardous materials shall be used in the training operations.
d) Amplified Sound/Sirens. No amplified sound or sirens shall be used in the training operations.
e) Maintenance. The permittee shall maintain the fire training structure in good condition at all times, and shall clean or otherwise repair the structure as necessary after each use to maintain the exterior surface in a clean and unblemished condition.

6. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING. This project shall comply with all of the requirements of the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted by the Coastside Fire Protection District on December 2, 2015 to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The permittee shall designate a construction coordinator to maintain a log documenting compliance with the mitigation measures specified in the MMRP, including coordination with the Coastal Repertory Theater to avoid construction during show times. This log shall be available on the site for inspection by the City. (Planning)
B. The following Conditions shall be fulfilled prior to the issuance of building permits:

1. SIGNED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. The applicant/owner shall submit a signed copy ofthe conditions of approval to the Planning Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. (Planning)

2. CONSTRUCTION PLANS. File Number PDP-15-046 and the Conditions of Approval for this project shall be provided on the cover page of the building permit application plan submittal. All plans, specifications, engineering calculations, diagrams, reports, and other data shall be submitted with the appropriate permit application to the City's Building Division for review and approval. (Planning)

3. LOT GRADING, MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLE STORAGE. No grading, preparation, storage, or placement of construction materials, equipment, or vehicles shall take place A-2-HMB-16-0058
18 EXHIBIT 6

185
prior to issuance of a grading permit. Any earth movement on or off the site in excess of 50 cubic yards shall require the submittal of a grading plan for review by the City Engineer and issuance of a grading permit. Grading includes, but is not limited to, any leveling, scrapin& clearing, or removal of lot surface area. Materials, Equipment, and Vehicles include, but are not limited to:
a. All masonry, wood, and steel construction materials; b. All construction-related equipment and storage containers; c. All construction-related vehicles, including temporary trailers. (Engineering)

4. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL. An erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted that shows effective Best Management Practices (BMP) and erosion and sediment control measures for the site. Construction plans shall also include the "construction best management practices" plan sheet. (Engineering)

5. STREET/PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY CUTS FOR UTILITY CONNECTIONS. Street cuts for utility connections that are less than twenty (20) feet apart shall be repaired with a single patch.

Asphalt repair and overlay shall be in accordance with the City Standard Details. Existing street improvements, if undermined during construction, shall be replaced to match existing (Engineering).

6. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES/SERVICES. Electric, telecommunication, and cable and utility service to the property shall be through underground service connections only. No overhead utilities are allowed. (Engineering)

7. COMPLIANCE WITH CBC. All structures shall be constructed in compliance with the standards of the 2013 California Codes of Regulations Title 24, including Building Code, Residential Code, Administrative Code, Mechanical Code, Plumbing Code, Electrical Code, Energy Code, Fire Code and Green Building Code to the satisfaction of the Building Official. (Building)

8. FIRST FLOOR HEIGHT VERIFICATION. Prior to below floor framing or concrete slab steel reinforcement inspection, a stamped and signed building height verification letter shall be submitted to the City from a licensed land survey certifying that the first floor height as constructed is equal to (or less than) the elevation specified for the first floor height in the approved plans. The building pad shall be at least one-foot above the centerline crown of the roadway or the top of the curb. (Building)

9. OVERALL PROJECT HEIGHT. Maximum overall height of the project, including any grading, foundation, pad, and building elevations shall be calculated using the elevation points indicated on the topographic survey map submitted at the time of application. The approved height of all projects developed in the City will be measured from existing grade as indicated on the submitted topographical survey. (Building) A-2-HMB-16-0058
19 EXHIBIT 6

186

10. COMPLETION OF UTILITIES. Any public utilities requ1nng relocation as a result of the construction of the building(s) or improvements under this permit shall be relocated at the owner's expense. (Building)

11. NOTICE OF DISRUPTION. The permittee shall provide written notice to affected property and business owners and a copy of such notice to the City Engineer a minimum of two business days prior to any planned disruption of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, parking, or public service facilities. (Engineering)

12. CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL STORAGE. Construction material shall not be stored in the street right-of-way without prior approval from the City Engineer. (Engineering)

13. COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT - REGULATIONS. The project shall comply with all applicable regulations and requirements of the Coastside County Water District. Water service shall not be in the same trench as other utilities. (Water District)

14. FIRE CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS. The permittee shall comply with all applicable fire and building codes and standards relating to fire and panic safety as identified by the Coastside Fire Protection District during the building permit process. (Fire) C. The following conditions shall be implemented prior to and during construction:

1. NOISE MITIGATION MEASURE 1. Project construction shall conform to all ofthe following:
a) Construction Hours. Construction work shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00p.m. Monday through Friday; 8:00a.m. to 6:00p.m. Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Sundays and holidays, except as expressly authorized by the City Engineer in conformance with Section 14.40.020 of the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code. (Engineering)
b) Exhaust Mufflers. All internal combustion engine-driven equipment shall be equipped with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
c) Equipment Location. Stationary noise-generating equipment (e.g. generators and compressors) shall be located as far as possible from adjacent residential properties. d) Acoustical Buffers. If stationary noise-generating equipment must be located near existing residential properties, then such equipment shall have temporary acoustical enclosures, blanketing, or barriers to reduce the noise emissions. e) Quiet Technology. The construction shall utilize "quiet" air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
f) Equipment Idling. Non-essential idling of construction equipment shall be limited to five minutes.
g) Construction Plan. The contractor or construction manager shall prepare a construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise-generating construction 20 A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 6

187
activities. The construction plan shall identify a procedure for coordinating with adjacent residential and other land uses so that construction activities can be scheduled to minimize noise disturbance.
h) Construction Sign. The construction contractor shall post a sign, clearly visible from the public sidewalk, with a name and telephone number of the construction coordinator who is responsible for responding to noise or other construction complaints. The construction coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint and implement practical and reasonable measures to correct the problem.

2. NOISE MITIGATION MEASURE 2. The construction manager shall coordinate with the Coastside Repertory Theater regarding show times and shall ensure that no construction activities occur on the project site during a show.

3. CONSTRUCTION TRAILERS. Temporary construction trailers are permitted as accessory uses in conjunction with the pipeline installation, subject to the following conditions:
a) The construction trailer shall be used as a temporary construction office only. b) Neither sanitation facilities nor plumbed water is permitted within the trailer. c) No overnight inhabitance of the construction trailer is permitted. d) No construction trailers are permitted on site prior to building permit issuance. e) The construction trailer shall be removed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. (Planning)

4. AIR QUALITY MITIGATION 1 - BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. The Coastside Fire Protection District shall monitor construction to ensure that the project implements the following Bay Area Air Quality Management District dust control measures during all phases of construction on the project site:
a) Dust Control. Water all active construction areas twice daily or more often if necessary to control dust. Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles-per-hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible.
c) Trucks. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e. the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). d) Site Sweeping. Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) or as often as needed all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the construction site to control dust.

A-2-HMB-16-0058
21 EXHIBIT 6

188
e) Street Sweeping. Sweep public streets daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) in the vicinity of the project site, or as often as needed to keep streets free of visible soil material.
e) Stockpiles. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).
f) Speeds. Limit vehicle traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. g) Visible Dust. Suspend construction activities that cause visible dust plumes to extend beyond the construction site.
h) Maintenance. Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions. j) Construction Sign. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Coastside Fire Protection District and the City of Half Moon Bay regarding dust complaints. These persons shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

5. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Any materials deemed hazardous by the San Mateo County Department of Health that are uncovered or discovered during the course of work under this permit shall be disposed in accordance with regulations of the San Mateo County of Health. (Building)

6. CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL STORAGE. Construction material and equipment shall not be stored in the street right-of-way without prior approval from the City Engineer. (Engineering)

7. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT. No construction activity shall occur and no pedestrian and vehicular traffic control shall be installed within the City right-of-way or affecting the City's improvements prior to obtaining an encroachment permit from the City. All improvements constructed within the City right-of-way shall conform to City standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering)
D. The following conditions shall be implemented prior to issuance of an occupancy permit:

8. EXTERIOR COLORS AND MATERIALS. Exterior building materials and colors shall be as shown on the red brick and painted metal siding option as presented to the City Council on May 3, 2016, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. (Planning) 22 A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 6

189
E. Validity and Expiration of Permits

1. EFFECTIVE DATE. This site is not located within the Coastal Commission Appeals Jurisdiction; however, the project is a major public works project that is appealable to the Coastal Commission. This permit shall take effect after expiration ofthe Coastal Commission appeal period. (Planning)

2. ACCURACY OF APPLICATION MATERIALS. The permittee shall be responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and material submitted for this application. Any errors or discrepancies found therein may be grounds for the revocation or modification of this permit and/or any other City approvals. (Planning)

3. PERMIT EXPIRATION. The Coastal Development Permit (COP) shall expire one year from its date of final approval if development plans for a Building Permit have not been submitted.

Once a Building Permit is issued, the COP shall be deemed in effect. If plans for a Building Permit are submitted within the 1-year expiration period, and a Building Permit is not issued, the expiration of the COP shall coincide and run concurrently with the Building Permit plan submittal/application as long as due diligence is pursued in the opinion of the Building Official in obtaining the Building Permit.

4. PERMIT EXTENSION. The Community Development Director may, at the Director's discretion, approve a single one-year extension of this permit based on a written request and fee submitted to the Director prior to expiration of the permit. Any other extension shall require approval of a Permit Amendment prior to expiration of the permit. Any Amendment Application to extend the permit shall be filed a minimum of ninety (90) days prior to permit expiration to ensure adequate processing time. (Planning)

5. PERMIT RUNS WITH THE LAND. The approval runs with the land and the rights and obligations thereunder, including the responsibility to comply with conditions of approval, shall be binding upon successors in interest in the real property unless or until such permits are expressly abandoned or revoked. (Planning)

6. HOLD HARMLESS. The permittee agrees as a condition of approval of this application to indemnify, protect, defend with counsel selected by the City, and hold harmless, the City, and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents, from and against an and all liabilities, claims, actions, causes of action, proceedings, suits, damages, judgments, liens, levies, costs and expenses of whatever nature, including reasonable attorney's fees and disbursements (collectively, "Claims") arising out of or in any way relating to the approval of this application, any actions taken by the City related. to this entitlement, any review by the California Coastal Commission conducted under the California Coastal Act Public Resources Code Section 30000 et seq., or any environmental review conducted under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 210000 et seq., for this entitlement and related A-2-HMB-16-0058
23 EXHIBIT 6

190
actions. The indemnification shall include any Claims that may be asserted by any person or entity, including the permittee, arising out of or in connection with the approval of this application, whether or not there is concurrent, passive or active negligence on the part of the City, and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents. The permittee's duty to defend the City shall not apply in those instances when the permittee has asserted the Claims, although the permittee shall still have a duty to indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City. (City Attorney).

OWNER'S/PERMITTEE'S CERTIFICATION:

I have read and understand and hereby accept and agree to implement the foregoing conditions of approval of the Coastal Development Permit.

APPLICANT:
·~r
(Date)
A-2-HMB-16-0058
24 EXHIBIT 6

191
A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 7

192
A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 7

193
A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 7

194
A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 7

195
1 COASTSIDE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
1191 MAIN ST. HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019 TELEPHONE (650) 726-5213 FAX (650) 726-0132
June 9, 2016
Stephanie R. Rexing
District Supervisor
North Central Coast District
California Coastal Commission
[email protected]
Re: Coastside Fire Protection District Training Tower Coastal Commission Appeal No. A-2-HMB-16-0058, Local Government Application No. PDP-15-046
Dear Ms. Rexing:

The Coastside Fire Protection District submits this letter and the enclosed materials for your review and consideration prior to making your staff recommendation to the California Coastal Commission on the above referenced matter. We respectfully urge you to recommend to the Commission that the appeal does not raise a Substantial Issue and therefore should not be heard de novo by the Commission for the reasons set forth below.

On June 3, 2016, the City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay (“City”) -- by unanimous 5-0 vote -- upheld the January 26, 2016 Planning Commission approval of the District’s proposed 4,497 sq.ft., graduated width, 45 ft. high fire training tower (the “Project”) on a 86,463 sq.ft. previously developed, relatively flat lot located at 1191 Main Street (APN 06081-064370050) east of Highway 1 (“Project Site”). The Project Site is currently developed with an existing fire station and fire training yard.

Because the Project Site is on the east side of Highway 1 and is not located on tidelands, submerged lands, public trust lands, sensitive coastal resource area, or within 100 feet of any wetland, estuary or stream, the Project is appealable to the Coastal Commission only because it meets the definition of a “major public works” project pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30603 and defined by Public A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 8

196
2 Resources Code Section 13012(a) as “facilities that cost more than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000).”
Appellant argues that the Council approval should be set aside by the Commission because it is inconsistent with following policies of the City of Half Moon Bay (“City”) Local Coastal Program (“LCP”): (1) Land Use Plan Chapter 7; (2) Zoning Code Section 18.37.035C; (3) Land Use Plan Policy 7-10; (4) Zoning Code Sections 18.01.010 G; (5) Zoning Code Sections 18.37.010 A and E; and (6) Coastal Act Section 3025.

As explained in detail below, and as supported by the evidence in the record and the additional enclosed and referenced evidence, the Project is consistent with these LCP policies to the extent they apply to the Project.

1. The Project is Consistent with Land Use Plan Chapter 7 to the Extent it Applies
Appellant argues that the Project is inconsistent with the following section of the Land Use Plan (“LUP”) contained in Planning Section 7.1:

As further explained below, Appellant’s argument fails because this section of the LUP is designed to protect the eastern hillsides themselves and the Project is not located in the eastern hills.

The Upland Slopes section of the LUP states that measures to protect the scenic quality of the hillside along the City’s eastern boundary are necessary and then identifies certain hillsides that the City has jurisdiction over. The policy then states that any new development – in the identified hillsides listed – should be sited and designed to maintain the natural character of the landscape and to avoid substantial cuts and fills.

To implement this policy, the City adopted Zoning Code Section 18.37.035, which as discussed in detail below, protects the specified hillsides designated as visual resources on the LCP Visual Resources Overlay Map. The Project is on a relatively flat, previously developed site just 138 feet east of Main Street; it is not A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 8

197
3 located in the eastern hillsides or in any visual resource area depicted on the Visual Resources Overlay Map, and therefore is not subject to Zoning Code Section 18.37.035.

Nonetheless, in response to Planning Commission and community concerns, the District voluntarily revised the Project by reducing the height of the tower from 50 feet (which is permitted by the development standards for the project set forth Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.09) to 40 feet with a 5 foot transparent railing. As evidenced in the attached rendering (Attachment 1) submitted into the record prior to the City Council decision, and in the enclosed additional photos (Attachment 2) and video submitted by separate email due to file size, the Project as revised further complies with the LUP Upland Slopes directive, to the extent it is applicable, to "maintain[s] the natural character of the landscape".

Additionally, as the Project is a prefabricated structure that will be sited on a preexisting concrete slab. As such, it "avoid[s] substantial cuts and fills" in compliance with the LUP Upland Slopes section, to the extent this section is applicable to the Project.

2. Zoning Code Section 18.37.035C is Inapplicable to the Project; Even if It Were Applicable, the Project is Consistent with this Section Appellant argues the Project is inconsistent with Zoning Code Section

18.37.035C, set forth in full below, because the Project "would still project above the ridgeline skyline as seen from Highway 1". Appellant's argument fails for the reasons set forth below.

A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 8

198
4 a. Section 18.37.035C is not Applicable to the Project Reading Section 18.37.035C within the context of Chapter 18.37 as a whole, it is clear that Section 18.37.035C is not applicable to the Project. Chapter 18.37.015 states that "all new development projects within or adjacent to visual resource areas shall meet the visual resource standards established within this chapter." Section 18.37.020 then establishes five separately defined visual resource areas:

Beach Viewshed Areas, Scenic Corridors, Upland Slopes, Planned Development Areas and Old Downtown, and requires that maps of all of these designated visual resources areas be prepared and maintained, based upon the visual resources overlay map contained in the City’s local coastal program land use plan. It then goes on to define each of these distinct visual resource areas.

Zoning Code Section 18.37.020 (B), set forth in full below, defines Upland Slopes as follows:

The Project Site does not fall within the definition of Upland Slopes. It is not within a scenic hillside and it is not above the 160 ft. elevation contour line; it is on a relatively flat, previously developed lot. It is also not indicated on the visual resources overlay map which is attached as Appendix B to the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project (the "MND"). As such, it is not located on an Upland Slope. Nor is it adjacent to an Upland Slope.

Therefore, in accordance with Zoning Code Section 18.37.015, the Project is not subject to Zoning Code Section 18.37.035 which governs development of Upland Slopes.

As explained by City staff in its response prepared for the City Council appeal hearing, in Exhibit A to the March 1, 2016 Staff Report to the City Council ("Staff Report"), “Zoning Code Section 18.37.020B identifies upland slopes as scenic A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 8

199
5 hillsides visible from Highway 1 and 92 which include areas above the 160 ft. elevation contour line. Four specific upland slope areas are identified; the one closest to the project site is located “southeast of Pilarcitos Creek and east of Arroyo Leon.” The project site is located over 1,200 feet west of Arroyo Leon and is flat. The site is not located on or adjacent to an upland slope and is not subject to the upland slope standards of Zoning Code Section 18.37.035.” (Exhibit A to Staff Report, p. 4.)
Any conclusion to the contrary would conflict with the plain reading of Chapter

18.37 as a whole. Section 18.37.015 states that "new development projects within or adjacent to visual resource areas shall meet the visual resource standards established in this chapter." Section 18.37.020 then identifies five distinct visual resource areas and the rest of the chapter goes on to specify the visual resource standards for each identified visual resource. Staff points out that "[b]ased on the appellant's interpretation, development located in or adjacent to one [visual] resource area (such as the Old Downtown) would be subject to visual resource standards developed for another area (like a beach viewshed area or the Wavecrest PUD). This interpretation is illogical and would have significant implications far beyond this project." (Exhibit A to Staff Report, p. 3.) Indeed, if this were the intent of Chapter 18.37, then why would it bother to define the five different visual resource areas and specify distinctly different visual resource standards for each of the visual resource areas? Moreover, as explained in the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project (the "MND"), the Project Site not only is not within the Upland Slopes visual resource area, it is not within any of the other four visual resource areas: “The Visual Resources Overlay Map from the Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Program is included as Appendix B of this Initial Study. As shown on the map, the closest identified visual resource to the project site (depicted with a red star) is “Old Downtown” located 0.6 mile, or eight blocks, from the project site…Other visual resources identified in Appendix B include ocean views from Highway 1 and scenic hillsides all of which are north of Old Downtown and therefore further away from the project site…” (MND, p. 25.) The MND concluded that the project as originally project (at 50 feet high) would have “a less than significant impact on all identified visual resources and would conform to the development standards contained in the [Zoning Code].” (MND, pp. 26-

27.)
b. Even if 18.37.035C Were Applicable to the Project, the Project Complies
A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 8

200
6 As demonstrated in the rendering submitted into the record prior to the May 3, 2016 City Council hearing and shown in Attachment 1, even if Section

18.37.035C applied to the Project, the Project complies with this section. As revised, the Project does not "intrude or project above the ridgeline skyline as seen from Highways 1 and 92."
Appellant alleges that the rendering "presents a misleading depiction of the tower's true height in relation to the ridge line skyline when seen from this and other parts of Highway 1." (Figure 2 to Appeal.) He argues that unlike as in Figure 1 attached to his appeal, "there are no height reference points (e.g. story poles) to verify the accuracy of the rendering… The story poles in Figure 1 indicate that the 45 ft. tower would continue to project above the ridge line skyline by about 10 feet when viewed from the western shoulder of Highway 1." (Id.) We must first note that the accuracy of Figure 1 is not verified. According to Appellant, "Figure 1 shows a photo taken from the western shoulder of Highway 1 in January 2016. The photo shows the 50 ft. story poles erected by the applicant for the original design of the tower." Superimposed on this photo is a 35 ft. mark at the ridgeline and a 50 ft. mark at the top of one of the story poles.

Nowhere in the appeal does it state how the 35 ft. reference point was measured and determined, who took the photo, and from what location and what height.

In response to Appellant's allegations, on May 25, 2016, the District and the District's architect sited a 43 ft. fire truck ladder as a reference point in the approximate location of the proposed Project (as demonstrated in the first Attachment 2-A and 2-B) and then took two photos (Attachment 2-C and 2-D) and shot the video I am emailing to you separately due to file size. The photo shown in Attachment 2-C was taken on southbound Highway 1 at Higgins Canyon Road. The photo shown in Attachment 2-D was taken approximately 500 feet north of that location along southbound Highway 1. The video, which will be submitted separately by email due to file size, was taken driving southbound along Highway 1 and then turning around and driving northbound on Highway 1. This additional supporting evidence clearly verifies the accuracy of the rendering shown in Attachment 1, thereby nullifying Appellant's challenge, and confirming that the Project does not "intrude or project above the ridgeline skyline as seen from Highways 1 and 92" as required by Section 18.37.035.

Even if the small portion of the upper story of the Project were to pop up above the ridgeline from certain vantage points along Highway 1, it would still be in substantial compliance with Section 18.37.035 due to the insignificant width of the tower (just 23 feet which is less than one-third the total width of the project) and the minimal visual disruption of the largely transparent railing. As pointed A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 8

201
7 out by Councilmember Ruddock at the May 3, 2016 hearing, even if Appellant's Figure 1 were accurate:

The actual tower that would project above the skyline is only about 23 feet wide. The rest of the building is 28 feet high or less. So most of the building, two-thirds of it, the vast majority, is not going to project over the skyline. So for much of your trip down Highway 1 or up Highway 1, it’s not going to be visible above the skyline. It may at one or two points, but in general I'm thinking not. Therefore, I don't think there is a substantial issue there for the Coastal Commission. I think they are going to look at how much of the building protrudes above the skyline and for how much of the trip up and down Highway 1.

Councilmember Ruddock’s conclusions are supported by the photos in Attachments 1 and 2 and the referenced video submitted separately.

It is also worth noting that an application to the City has been submitted for a 3- story, 41 ft. high, 148-room hotel project directly to the west of the Project (and shown in the video) which if approved, would completely obscure sight of the proposed Project from Highway 1 and therefore moot altogether the Project's compliance with Section 18.37.035.

3. Land Use Plan Policy 7-10 is Inapplicable to the Project; Even if it Were Applicable the Project is Consistent with this Policy
Without any explanation or support, Appellant complains that the Project is not consistent with Land Use Plan Policy 7-10 set forth in full below:

This policy applies to "new development on upland slopes visible from Highway 1 and 92 as indicated on the Visual Resource Overlay Map." As explained above in Section 2(a), the site is not located on or adjacent to an upland slope or any visual resourced indicated on the Visual Resource Overlay Map and therefore, the Project is not subject to Policy 7-10. As explained above in Section 2(b), even if this policy were applicable, as evidenced in the rendering enclosed in Attachment 1, the photos enclosed in Attachment 2, and the video submitted A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 8

202
8 separately, the Project complies with this Policy because it is "subordinate in appearance to the natural landform", is "designed to follow the natural contours of the landscape" and is "sited so as not to intrude into the skyline as seen from public viewing places."

4. The Project is Consistent with Zoning Code Section 18.01.010G to the Extent this Section Applies to the Project
Again, without any explanation or support, Appellant complains that the Project is not consistent with Zoning Code Section 18.01.010G set forth in full below:

Zoning Code Section 18.10.010 sets forth the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code as a whole. With respect to subsection G, and as explained in detail in Section 2 above, the Project does not hinder the Zoning Code’s intent to "conserve and enhance important visual resources within the city." As stated in Exhibit A to the Staff Report, "[t]he proposed training tower will be visible from Highway 1, but is not expected to be visually intrusive or to significantly obstruct views of the hillsides due to the structure's relatively small size, its distance from Highway 1, the remaining open area on the parcel, and the screening provided by existing street trees on either side of Main Street." (Exhibit A to Staff Report, p. 4.) As such, the Project is consistent with Zoning Code Section 18.10.010G.

A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 8

203
9 5. The Project is Consistent with Zoning Code Section 18.37.010 Again, without any explanation or support, Appellant complains that the Project is not consistent with Zoning Code Sections 18.37.010A and E set forth in full below:

The Project is consistent with Section 18.37.010A as it does not hinder the intent to "protect scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas as a resource of public importance." As explained above, the Project Site is not located within or adjacent to a visual resource area and because it does not substantially protrude above the eastern hillside ridgeline it does not hinder the scenic and visual quality of this visual resource area.

The Project is also consistent with Section 18.37.010E because it is "visually compatible with the character of the surrounding areas." As explained in Exhibit A to the Staff Report and the MND, the Project is visually compatible with Fire Station 40, the existing fire station on the Project Site, and the Coastal Repertory Theatre, an industrial building with a domed roof, and a residential development located further north consisting of two story buildings with pitched roofs. (Exhibit A to Staff Report, pp. 4-5, 6-7; MND pp. 27-28.)

6. The Project is Consistent with Coastal Act Section 30251 Again, without any explanation or support, Appellant complains that the Project is not consistent with Coastal Act Section 30251 set forth in full below:

A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 8

204
10 As indicated above and as concluded by City staff, the Project is consistent with this section because "it will not negatively impact a visual resource area, will not significantly block views of the hillsides, and is reasonably compatible with adjacent development." (Exhibit A to Staff Report, p. 7.) In closing, the Coastside Fire Protection District addressed citizen and Council concerns by reducing the Project height and incorporating a brick building façade. While the reduced height does compromise the functionality of the Project to some extent, it will still be able to serve the Project’s purpose of providing on-site training for the fire fighting staff. The City Council heard and considered all the testimony and evidence in the record, made all the necessary findings and conditions regarding this Project, and approved the Project with a unanimous 5-0 vote. For the foregoing reasons, and as supported by the evidence in the record and the additional material enclosed and referenced in this letter, we agree with Councilmember Ruddock that this Project as revised does not meet the test of Substantial Issue and hope you will reach the same conclusion.

Many thanks for your consideration.

Respectfully submitted,
Camas J. Steinmetz
Deputy District Counsel
Cc: Nancy Cave, District Manager
Robin Mayer, Coastal Commission Legal Counsel
Patrick Foster, Coastal Planner
A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 8

205
ATTACHMENT 1
A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 8

206
ATTACHMENT 2A
A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 8

207
ATTACHMENT 2B
A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 8

208
ATTACHMENT 2C
A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 8

209
ATTACHMENT 2D
A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 8

210
From: Dave Schorr [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 12:52 PM
To: Foster, Patrick@Coastal
Subject: Half Moon Bay Fire Tower Appeal
Dear Mr. Foster;
I am a resident of half Moon Bay. I am writing in support of the appeal filed by Mr. Lansing with respect to the proposed fire training tower.

For purposes of your proceedings, we will leave aside prior errors by the Fire District and the City, with regards to effectively (or not) analyzing potential impacts, compliance with CEQA, piecemealing of this project, etc.

At issue here is the impact of the proposed development upon visual resources as viewed from within the city of Half Moon Bay, and as viewed from a prominent and delineated view corridor, that of State Highway 1.

The intent of the Coastal Act and the LCP as adopted by the City is to preserve and protect the visual resources of this most beautiful area. At issue between the appellant and the project applicant has been an interpretation of portions of the LCP, trying to settle the point of whether or not this parcel is subject to visual resource protections which clearly pertain to upland slope areas, but by intent, would logically also pertain to views of those upland slopes and the associated ridgeline profile as viewed from Highway 1.

It is not debated, even by the City, that the proposed fire tower at either 45 or 50 feet of height, would protrude above the ridgeline, as viewed from Highway 1. It would seem that this is a clear violation of the letter and intent of Coastal Act, and in and of itself sufficient grounds to deny the project as currently proposed.

The nature and character of the proposed development is not consistent with the scenic and rural nature of the area.

I must address the way in which the project applicant has presented this project, with deliberate attempt to minimize all appearances of negative visual impact, both with regards to aesthetics and height/intrusion upon the ridgeline profile.

The drawings submitted as renderings of the proposed project greatly minimize the negative aesthetic qualities of prefabricated buildings from the same manufacturer currently installed elsewhere. As opposed to the drawings which present a relatively clean structure, the structure in reality is festooned with exterior, steel, galvanized stairways and landings, giving it a highly industrial, unsightly appearance.

But, the major issue here is the height of the building, and the precise extent to which it does protrude above the inland hill ridgeline when viewed from Highway 1.

A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 8

211
In this regard, the project applicant has significantly and consistently gamed the system. All photographs and renderings provided have been given from the perspective of the viewer on the southbound side of Highway 1, looking towards the hills. Unfortunately, you can't argue with geometry. Take the same viewer, and place them on the northbound side of Highway 1, approximately 100 feet closer to the proposed project site, and intrusion upon the ridgeline is much more pronounced.

The story poles erected by the applicant were not in conformity with existing city code and standards, and did not adequately outline the parameters of the structure. As well, they have now been taken down, so no further analysis of visual impact can be done at this point in time.

Given the above two points, I most strongly urge the Coastal Commission to defer any judgment upon this matter until direct inspection of the proposed site and its impact on the visual resources can be made by Coastal Commission staff, as evidence submitted by the applicant to date is unreliable and biased.

This would require the applicant to reinstall the story poles, with all required flagging, and I would suggest with the additional component of marking 5 foot height increments on the poles as they ascend, for easier comparison with the background ridgeline, as viewed from various vantage points.

It is only with these physical components reinstalled, that Commission staff could then make a site visit and make objective and conclusive determination as to the maximum height permissible for this project which would not intrude upon unimpeded view of the inland hill ridgelines.

Currently, heading north on Highway 1, the visitor experiences a view of expansive fields, with low-lying structures of the City not disrupting views of the hillsides. There would be a very different experience should this project be allowed to proceed.

A very real and significant danger is the precedent that this project, if unmodified, would present.

Allowing violation of the ridgeline profile by this project would inevitably be cited as precedent by subsequent developers, leading to incremental but irreversible and irreparable damage to our precious visual resources.

Please consider these comments and suggestions in preparing your staff report and making any further determinations.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions, or requests for clarification.

Sincerely,
David Schorr
650-726-2842
A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 8

212
Public Comment

10.22.2024 thru 01.17.2025

01.30.2025 City Council Meeting
Hyatt Proposed Project PDP-072-13
From: KeepHMBscenic
To:HyattHotel, Rick Hernandez;David Gorn;
Tue 11/12/2024 6:33 PM
Hello all;
I am writing to inform/complain that the story poles currently up for the Hyatt Hotel buildings do not comply with the story pole policy I see from 2011 - if it has been updated and made less stringent, I apologize and will stand corrected.

Current rooflines are marked with string and sparse flagging.

Policy states:

Netting shall be placed around the perimeter of the proposed building footprint at the elevation of the proposed building pad and shall simulate the proposed roofline as shown in Attachment A.

Attachment A shows a diagram with netting. Attachment 4 shows a photo with netting.

The overall simulation with netting is much more effective than the sparse and non compliant flagging now in place.

Please have the Applicant remedy this prior to hearing any Appeal at Council.

I must again insist that story poles also be put up for the townhome component of the project, as the townhome have been clearly delineated as part of the overall Project under consideration. To fail to do so renders the project as failing to be adequately defined (CEQA requirement), and constitutes impermissible piecemealing (CEQA requirement).

Dave Schorr
Half Moon Bay
213
Public Comment

01.17.2025 thru 01.27.2025

01.30.2025 City Council Meeting
Hyatt Proposed Project PDP-072-013
1) Dave Schorr
2) City Staff response
3) Chip and Linda Goldstein
4) James Henderson
5) David Pasternak
6) Debby Lesser
7) Gail Park
8) Roberta Gelt
Mon 01/20/2025 5:56 PM
From: KeepHMBscenic
To: HyattHotel
Robert Brownstone; Deborah Penrose; Debbie Ruddock; Matthew Chidester; Patric Jonsson;Paul Nagengast
Hello -
This is a followup to email of November 13, 2024, several months ago, pointing out that the story poles for the Hyatt were then, and are still now non-compliant with City policy. And per that policy, public hearing on the matter cannot proceed until 6 days after complaint story poles are installed, at the soonest.

Two distinct points of non-compliance:

1. Upper roof lines are not marked with 24" netting, as required. What is there now is nearly invisible, is not compliant with story pole policy, and does not adequately convey to the public the impermissible impact to legally protected visual resources that the project as planned creates, as affirmed by your Planning Commission.

2. There are no story poles erected for a significant portion of the defined project - the 16 townhomes to the north of the car dealership. One cannot say that is for future consideration, as the 16 townhomes are specifically called out as part of the project, and necessary to meet the goals of the City with this project. With significantly less setback from SR1 than the hotel, and at up to 28 feet height (if I am not mistaken), it is obvious that this component of the project under appeal will have significant and unavoidable impacts to legally protected visual resources, such impacts having been blatantly disregarded to date by the City. To shunt consideration of these impacts to future date uncertain is to engage in blatant and impermissible piecemealing on the project, which is prohibited under CEQA.

Please be sure to address these deficiencies prior to scheduling a public hearing on the appeal of the denial of the project by Planning Commission from Oct 22, 2024.

Thank you,
Dave Schorr
214
Public Comment

01.17.2025 thru 01.27.2025

01.30.2025 City Council Meeting
Hyatt Proposed Project PDP-072-013
Tue 01/21/2025 1:34 PM
From: Matthew Chidester
To: keepHMBscence.org
Dave,
Thank you for reaching out. Below are our responses to your two comments:

1. The original project story poles were first installed in June, 2022. The contractor installing the story poles recommended against using “netting” as described in the City Council Resolution, due to the height and floor area of the project. Their previous experience in the Half Moon Bay area has shown that the netting creates a large amount of wind load and structural failure is common. This is consistent with City staff experience also. Consequently, pursuant to Section 5 cited above, the Director waived the netting requirement and allowed the use of brightly colored triangular pendants. Additionally, prior to preparation of the Draft EIR, the EIR consultant retained a visual simulation professional, to prepare visual simulations of the hotel buildings. The Director also relied on this information in approving the modifications to the story pole design. It should also be noted that the applicant retained BKF Engineering to confirm the story poles accurately represented the building locations and heights. Most of the triangular pendants did not survive the next storm, spreading shredded plastic throughout the property and beyond. Consequently, the Director approved replacement of the pendants with narrower strips of brightly colored material. These have proven to be more durable. This iteration was installed in September of 2024. However, some damage has occurred since then.

The applicant has agreed to install additional strips prior to the City Council meeting, and as of Friday new flags were installed.

2. Staff determined that installation of story poles for the residential subdivision would not be appropriate at this time because this project component is limited to subdividing an existing residentially zoned lot to create three additional lots. An earlier project version, considered for Alternative 2, included eight residential lots, and conceptual plans for townhouse development. Story poles were installed to show the portion of site closest to the highway. However, those conceptual building designs were removed from the project, when the proposed parcel map was reduced from eight lots to four and the story poles removed. Plans have not been developed for future development on these lots and a proposed date for development has not been proposed. Consequently, any use of story poles at this time would be unduly speculative. If, in the future an application is submitted to develop these lots, the City will require story poles at that time.

We believe the applicant has met the requirements and will be scheduling the hearing and publishing the agenda/staff report soon.

Sincerely,
Matthew Chidester (he, him)
City Manager
215
Public Comment

01.17.2025 thru 01.27.2025

01.30.2025 City Council Meeting
Hyatt Proposed Project PDP-072-013
Sun 01/26/2025 10:09 AM
From: Chip B. Goldstein
To: HyattHotel
HMB City Council members,
We have been residents of HMB for over 22 years, all that time in the southern portion of the city. We care deeply about the future of our beloved community, and want to ensure its fiscal health, protect its scenic beauty, and sustain its cultural riches. We realize that all of this depends on a robust tourism industry. Nonetheless, we oppose the plans to build another hotel, that, according to occupancy rates is not needed, and, furthermore, that will not enhance the southern gateway to the downtown district.

While a new hotel will bring in some amount of additional hotel tax, it will also cannibalize occupancy from many existing locally owned small hotels, as well as the Ritz Carlton, key contributors to the city’s financial coffers. And there is reason to believe they are seriously on the edge. Pre-pandemic, occupancy rates were running at about 72%. They are now down to 55%. On average, there are 265 empty hotel rooms in Half Moon Bay every night. Adding another 102 rooms is simply not needed. And, even though raw occupancy numbers as well as percentages are down, transient occupancy tax revenues are way up from pre-pandemic, since the city is now capturing increased occupancy tax on Airbnb rentals.

The Planning Commission and the City Council have made some important recent decisions that we believe are the right ones in advancing the needs and preserving the character of our community -- 555 Kelly, Stone Pine Cove, converting the Coastside Inn to housing for the unhoused -- among them. We respectfully request that you make another decision that is the correct one by continuing to uphold the previous Planning Commission and City Council votes to reject the proposal for the Hyatt Hotel and instead looking at alternatives for improved land use at that Hwy 1 / South Main Street lot.

Sincerely,
Dr. Chip B. & Linda B. Goldstein
Sun 01/26/2025 1:03 PM
From: James Henderson
To: HyattHotel
There was a good reason the Planning Commission denied the application for the Hyatt Hotel & town homes. The basis for denial was clear inconsistency with existing rules and regulations, specifically the height and bulk of the project blocking legal protected views of hills and ridge lines.

I see no reason to override existing protections that are on the books. As I understand it, our hotels and motels are running at 60% or less. So where is the need to create more inventory - while potentially hurting existing businesses that might get fewer customers because inventory has increased, while the number of people needing that service has not. 216
Public Comment

01.17.2025 thru 01.27.2025

01.30.2025 City Council Meeting
Hyatt Proposed Project PDP-072-013
And just for the record, I have no problem with the concept of the hotel, but it needs to be reduced in proposed height. Please uphold the Planning Commission's denial.

Best Regards,
James Henderson
General Manager
KHMB Radio
FM 100.9 ~ AM 1710
650/726-1710
KHMBradio.com
Sun 01/26/2025 7:38 PM
From: David Pasternak
To: [email protected];[email protected];Robert Brownstone;Deborah Penrose; Debbie Ruddock; HyattHotel
Dear Council Members,
I have previously addressed this issue, most recently in a detailed email statement to the Planning Commission on October 5,2024.I will not repeat the content of that communication, but respectfully request your review of that email and the other public comments that have been provided.

In considering the Developer’s appeal of the Planning Commissioners’ denial of permits, I urge you to focus on two basic matters:

First is the threshold issue of compliance with the L.U.P. requirements. Without such compliance, a C.D.P. cannot be granted. No permit is available ,nor can any waiver be considered.

The E.I.R. revealed noncompliance with multiple sections of the L.U.P., the Planning Commission recognized that noncompliance, and no further consideration was required. Debate regarding the extent of violations and the issue of any “overriding concern” that might trump the significant and unavoidable” consequences resulting from the development was irrelevant.

Second, is your desire and obligation to base this decision on an accurate understanding of the data presented. As the old expression goes, “you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts".

This application for permits has a long history, with a record that includes thousands of pages. The E.I.R., Planning Commission Staff Report and other documents have been subject to rebuttal, including independent research that addresses issues that include the severity of visual obstruction and realistic economic benefit to be derived from the Project. The Staff Report by the Planning Commission was, at least implicitly, found by your Planning Commission to be deficient and/or inaccurate. However, your own Staff’s Report reads more like a brief for Hyatt than a dispassionate 217
Public Comment

01.17.2025 thru 01.27.2025

01.30.2025 City Council Meeting
Hyatt Proposed Project PDP-072-013
summary of the evidence, with minimization of the Commission majority’s articulated strong findings of violation and doubts as to the Staff’s (irrelevant) findings of potential benefits. l, therefore, strongly urge you to review the public comments submitted by supporters and opponents before rendering a decision. In the interests of reassuring us all that such decision, when issued, is based on your best possible evaluation of all the evidence, I would respectfully request that you provide a detailed statement of findings upon which your decision is based.

It is my belief that your careful consideration of the full record will compel your denial of the Appeal.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
David Pasternak
Mon 01/27/2025 11:45 PM
From: Debby Lesser
To: HyattHotel
Dear HMB City Council,
Please reject that awful Hyatt project at the South end of Main St. Bad Project. The renderings don't come close to the way the hotel is really going look. It's going to be an eyesore with all sorts of traffic issues. No doubt about it. It does not enhance our city.

What is the hotel occupancy right now? What would the occupancy at the Hyatt need to be for this poorly located project to have any significant impact on the. HMB budget? Based on current overall occupancy rates, what would the hotel taxes generated from the Hyatt project buy the City of HMB? Unless the answer is something truly significant that would benefit all residents living in HMB, then the answer is Forget It.

Let's ask ourselves what HMB really needs. Does it really need a 60-room hotel that will block the Main St residents' view and cause all sorts of traffic congestion issues? Is that what we really need? There are other ways to generate income that will benefit a wider range of community members. Let's proactively focus on those projects and opportunities before our lovely HMB becomes just another schlocky tourist town like so many others.

Regards,
Debby Lesser
30 year resident
218
Public Comment

01.17.2025 thru 01.27.2025

01.30.2025 City Council Meeting
Hyatt Proposed Project PDP-072-013
Mon 01/27/2025 11:48 AM
From: Gail Park
To: HyattHotel
Please Read the fine lines and Do Not trust. Plans can change as nails are being hammered.

We do not need this building.

Sincerely, Park
Mon 01/27/2025 11:49 AM
From: Roberta Gelt
To: Patric Jonsson;Paul Nagengast;Robert Brownstone;Deborah Penrose;Debbie Ruddock; HyattHotel
I am completely against the building of the Hyatt Hotel at the south end of Half Moon Bay.

Although I'm not a resident now, I know that the developers have not followed the laws about development there and the building of this hotel and townhomes would destroy the area and the views there. The Planning Commission has already denied their project and I ask that you do the same for their appeal.

Thank you.

Roberta Gelt
Moss Beach
219
Public Comment

01.27.2025 thru 01.29.2025

01.30.2025 City Council Meeting
Hyatt Proposed Project PDP-072-013
1) HMB Downtown - Colleen Henney
2) G Murayama
3) Norm Picker
4) Brian Holt
5) Linda Mead
6) Christina DuCote
7) Dave Schorr
220
January 27, 2025
Dear Honorable City Council Members,
The Board of Directors of the Half Moon Bay Downtown Association writes to express our strong support for the proposed Hyatt Place hotel project in Downtown Half Moon Bay. This development represents a significant opportunity to enhance our local economy, boost tourism, and strengthen our community's economic resilience.

The Hyatt Place project will directly benefit our downtown businesses by increasing overnight leisure stays, attracting conference and business travelers, and providing additional accommodations during peak tourism seasons. This will drive foot traffic to local restaurants, shops, and attractions, enabling our local businesses to capture more visitor spending.

The potential increase in Transient Occupancy Tax revenue is well known, but it is far from the largest economic impact of this project. A 2023 study by the American Hotel & Lodging Association and Oxford Economics1 found that for every dollar spent by hotel guests in the United States, an additional $2.20 is spent on food, shopping, recreation and transportation. At a typical occupancy rate, that translates to over 14 million additional dollars spent in our community annually, including 3.7 million spent on food and beverage and 2.2 million spent on retail shopping.

Because of the location of this project, we expect a significant portion of these additional revenues will be spent downtown. The potential impact is hard to overstate. A revenue increase of this magnitude will create and save local jobs, allow existing businesses to thrive and create new opportunities for the next generation of small business owners.

We appreciate the City Council’s recent focus on the revitalization of our area with the Downtown Streetscape Master Plan. The proposed improvements have the potential to enhance and elevate Downtown Half Moon Bay for generations to come. But these are future plans that cannot be realized without funding and much additional planning. The Hyatt project stands to provide a huge economic boost to downtown on a much shorter timeline, already fully funded and with plans that have been refined over years of reviews and public comments. We believe that both projects are in the best interests of our community and hope to see both come to fruition.

We respectfully urge the City Council to approve the Hyatt Place hotel project, recognizing its potential to invigorate our local economy and support our community's long-term economic growth.

Sincerely,
Half Moon Bay Downtown Association Board of Directors
Colleen Henney, President
David Oliphant, Vice President
Kevin Henney, Secretary/Treasurer
Angela Forte
Marika Holmgren
Kerri Leever
1 https://www.costar.com/article/1787677919/majority-of-hotel-guest-spending-comes-outside-of-room-rate 221
Public Comment

01.27.2025 thru 01.29.2025

01.30.2025 City Council Meeting
Hyatt Proposed Project PDP-072-013
Tue 01/28/2025 12:52 PM
FROM: G Murayama
To: HyattHotel
A new hotel with 100+ rooms crammed into critical Main Street apex that is located adjacent to the Fire Dept, local playhouse, low-cost housing project will bring quaint Half Moon Bay into a wad of crowded stress!
The increased number of vehicles and people will add to the existing traffic congestion on Hwy 1 for pedestrians, vehicles, and bicyclists, illegal parking issues, not to mention pollution and potential crime.

What are the traffic, safety and health measures that Hyatt will bring to the table to mitigate these foreseeable issues?
Respectfully,
HMB Resident since 1994
Tue 01/28/2025 1:13 PM
FROM: Norm Picker
TO: HyattHotel
I forgot to mention the jobs it will create also.

Norm
Dear City of HMB City Council:

I support the project. I think it is in a great location to support tourism and business travelers. The Hyatt Place brand is well known among business travelers. And Hyatt is, of course, well known among all Americans. This cannot be emphasized enough. It will be a draw, which is what we need in that location. The city has documented and we all see it, how people come for the day but don’t stay for the night. And quite a few come for the day at the beach and don’t spend cash in our community.

From this location, you can walk to the Coastal Rep Theatre, downtown and the beach from here. The new sidewalks down Poplar will be a welcome addition and a nice tiein. I can see folks coming here and just parking the car and walking or biking everywhere, if they wanted to.

It is fine as designed per the renderings. I am impressed how many changes have been made for the better during this 8 year process. This is the 3rd or 4th iteration. Reduced in size. One 2 story building; one 3 story building; gap of 32 feet 222
Public Comment

01.27.2025 thru 01.29.2025

01.30.2025 City Council Meeting
Hyatt Proposed Project PDP-072-013
between buildings allowing for a clear view of the hills. Set back from the road, thereby reducing the visual impact. Awesome that there is no parking facing the highway; awesome the open space area along highway. The gap between bldgs: yes! etc. etc. Mr. Jamison should be congratulated.

I think it is so important to approve this project. We need to keep moving forward. Let's support Mr. Jamison and Hyatt's investment in HMB. I would gather it is $10-$20 million investment. It will help downtown thrive more. The developer did a financial analysis and the answer was a clear “yes” that this would be financially successful. This project makes sense to me. I think you would be tossing a great opportunity if you do not approve this. I too want to preserve our beautiful charming town. The way to do that is to welcome smart investment. If you just keep saying “no”, you will gradually see our downtown and our community decline: economic decline; aesthetic decline; public safety decline; and city services decline.

Our downtown businesses rely on tourists to stay afloat. This hotel will bring vacationers and business travelers to downtown, spending cash to support our shops, cafes, and restaurants. This will be a boost to revenue for the City, theatre, and local businesses. We need revenue to support city services. As things stand, we have a budget deficit and inflationary pressures continue to be significant and may intensify in the next few years. Streets need paving, police need to be funded, public works maintained and improved, etc.

I know some residents are concerned about views being impacted. I don’t see an issue. The rendition shows that one can see the mountains still. And the impact is a relatively small area and as you drive by it is gone in a few seconds. There is an empty field across highway 1 from this location so it is not affecting any existing homes.

Some opponents are just using the views impact as a reason to halt this, but in reality they don’t want any development, whether commercial or residential, in Half Moon Bay.

In general, we are fooling ourselves if we think we can survive as a city without continuing to make improvements and investments. The opponents, if they succeed in stopping this and other future projects, will wake up one day with broken streets, empty stores, increased crime, etc and say "what happened?" And one will be wondering "where are the tourists? the families with children? etc".

The traffic concerns are just not realistic. You have the Traffic Engineers report. And just common sense tells me if it is not a big deal. I have never seen a backup of cars entering any hotel parking lot around here nor pretty much anywhere in the entire USA I have travelled. In fact, I think the weekend traffic will improve slightly as folks will come Friday night or Saturday morning and stay put through Sunday.

The four parcels that can have up to a 4-plex on each will be a great help to our housing needs. 223
Public Comment

01.27.2025 thru 01.29.2025

01.30.2025 City Council Meeting
Hyatt Proposed Project PDP-072-013
The HMB Chamber of Commerce / Visitors Center is very supportive of this project and has explained why downtown businesses will benefit.

Please don’t look a gift horse in the mouth. Act now so we don’t miss out on the hotel and all of the associated benefits.

Thank you for hearing my concerns. I hope and pray you will approve Mr. Jameson’s appeal and his project.

Sincerely,
Norm Picker
Half Moon Bay
From: Brian Holt
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 4:40 PM
To: Patric Jonsson < >; Paul Nagengast < Deborah Penrose <[email protected]>; Debbie Ruddock < >; Robert Brownstone Jessica Blair
Subject: 1.A Appeal of Hyatt Place Hotel Project
Mayor Brownstone and City Councilmembers -
For the past fifteen years, I have had the pleasure of residing in Half Moon Bay. I had the honor of serving on the General Plan Advisory Committee throughout the development of our communities General Plan and Local Coastal Plan (LCP). Later, I served on the Planning Commission (2016-2020) and on the Recovery Task Force for the Coastside Economic Recovery Initiative.

Activation of the southern end of Main St. has been a long-term goal and a consistent theme throughout my service on various boards. I have also long advocated for economic investments that embrace our communities agricultural heritage while celebrating our natural environment.

The Hyatt Place Hotel project has undergone multiple design revisions resulting in an attractive project that is programmed to achieve multiple long standing goals in our community.

I had the honor of serving on the Planning Commission during the initial rounds of review of the Hyatt Place Hotel project. The project that was presented to the Planning Commission this past year and the subject of this appeal is a vastly improved project that is true to the spirit of the General Plan and LCP. The visual resource protections built into these plans were intended to prevent projects that significantly deteriorate the visual quality of our community. They were not intended to be applied in a manner that stops vital investments into our community due to fleeting incursions on our skyline. The Hyatt Place Hotel project will be a visual asset to our 224
Public Comment

01.27.2025 thru 01.29.2025

01.30.2025 City Council Meeting
Hyatt Proposed Project PDP-072-013
southern gateway that improves the current visual character of the property while providing necessary visitor services that support coastal access.

I appreciate the Planning Commission's thorough consideration of this project and their concern for precedent. Their deliberations, and subsequent vote, affirm our communities commitment to protection of our unique viewsheds. However, I respectfully ask the City Council to accept the appeal in recognition of the overwhelming interest in activation of our communities southern gateway, facilitating investments in coastal dependent visitor services, and advancing a project that has been thoughtfully designed with consideration for our communities agricultural heritage.

The Hyatt Place Project will be an asset to our community and should be embraced.

Brian Holt
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
From: Linda Mead
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 1:16:31 PM
To: Paul Nagengast
Subject: Htatt
Dear Paul:

Half Moon Bay is a charming seaside community. As such, no building in HMB should exceed two stories. Nor should any building block views of the hills and ocean. People come here for our verdant beauty. Let's make sure to keep it this way, please.

Regards,
Linda Mead
225
January 29, 2025
Half Moon Bay City Council & City Staff
Re: Opposition Letter Regarding the Hyatt development project Method of Delivery:

Email to Jessica Blair <[email protected]>
Bridget Jett <[email protected]>
To Whom It May Concern:

The Hyatt is not the type of progress that is desired or needed in HMB. This was solidified in the denial decision.

An example of progress would be projects that improve the condition of HMB schools, roads, medical services, social services and small businesses. HMB does not need hotel development projects that mainly attract transient tourists, worsen traffic congestion and put additional strain on our fire and police departments which don’t have funding or resources to increase their staff & services.

Please don't be misled by a developer’s promise of jobs for workers. The workforce for hotel construction will likely be those who don't live in HMB and/or union workers that commute from other areas of the Bay Area to work. Further, these jobs are shortterm and cannot provide long-term stability for the HMB workforce. Any promise of long term jobs by the Hyatt is also misleading. The Hyatt will have labor eligibility requirements that our local HMB workforce will not meet. In concept “more jobs” sounds great. In reality, the jobs won’t go to current local HMB residents.

Additionally, small businesses will not experience the benefits you might be think. While some of our convenience retail and restaurants will get some walk in shoppers, the reality is our small businesses need local, sustainable, long term HMB shoppers to increase their economic vitality. This would come through development projects that include mandatory requirements and a significant commitment to an improved business development district (BID) and other enhancements projects - not a new hotel.

Moreover, the Hyatt project significantly conflicts with our coastal community's guiding principle to promote and preserve open space. This has been made evident by the majority of the community being opposed to the development. Any development project that is approved should result in a positive impact that expands our trails and preserves more open space and improves green spaces options such as a new park.

The City’s focus and efforts are in place to serve the greater good of HMB. The majority of HMB residents oppose the hotel. The City should feel comfortable to denial the appeal and dedicating development resources to approving projects that increase the quality of life for seniors, students, service providers and farm workers. HMB needs improved infrastructure, roads, schools and medical services. Whatever benefits a new hotel may bring does not outweigh the negative impact on our infrastructure and community.

This project will bring more traffic, congestion and potential for accidents on roads that are already beyond reasonable capacity and are packed with existing tourists and residents. Further, our sherif and fire department are not currently adequately resourced for added people and vehicles. The strain on already tight resources is not acceptable for the safety of residents. The potential problem should not be ignored.

I urge our elected officials and City representatives to recognize the negative impacts and arrive at the conclusion that the reality is this hotel doesn’t really help HMB. Last but not lease, the hotel tax revenue will not be sufficient to offset real impacts on resources and on the community.

HMB simply cannot afford to approve of this development. Please denial the appeal.

Sincerely,
Christina A. DuCoté
Half Moon Bay Resident
226
Submitted via email Wednesday, January 29, 2025 11:20 AM Hello City Council Members;
I apologize in advance for the length of these documents, but one must be thorough in establishing the case against the Hyatt.

As well, there are many problems with the EIR and Staff Report to comment on. I realize there may be some redundancy in the two documents attached, I apologize for that as well. But it cannot be helped.

From public testimony before Planning in October 2024, it became apparent that there is an additional Significant and Unavoidable impact regarding traffic/VMT, which was not properly called out in the EIR. This is detailed in the Rebuttal to the Appeal.

In particular, please look at the last several pages of the Rebuttal to Appeal - this is in response to the recently released Staff Report you received last Friday. The problems and biases in there required prompt and thorough response.

The Rebuttal is dated January 25 2025. The September document contains detailed analysis of the ways in which the current project iteration violates multiple LUP sections, and multiple IP (Implementing Municipal Code) sections. Much of this has previously been submitted to Planning Commission and is part of the administrative record on this case. To spare you a larger email, the Attachments to the September 30 document are not here, but are in the administrative record. Accurate photo renderings of visual impact can be seen at www.KeepHMBscenic.org - not included here to keep the submission smaller.

Thank you for your time. Based on all of the impartial, fact-based evidence, as well as overwhelming community sentiment against this project, I urge you to uphold the Planning Commission denial of the project, and I urge you to deny the Appeal.

Thank you,
Dave Schorr
Half Moon Bay
www.KeepHMBsccenic.org
227
David Schorr
www.KeepHMBscenic.org
January 29, 2025
RE: HYATT HOTEL PROJECT APPEAL
Dear Council Members:

A petition opposing the Hyatt hotel project which has gathered nearly 1000 signatures, and that’s even without standing in front of Safeway. This represents widespread opposition to the project.

The signatures and comments from people who signed are attached here.

There are signatures on the petition from across California, from all across the nation, and from international visitors. This affirms the importance of the scenic beauty of Half Moon Bay to everyone.

But the bulk of the signatures are from the Coastside and Half Moon Bay. These are your constituents, the people who elected you, and the people you represent. Please listen to them, the widespread opposition to this project, and turn it down tonight.

You have firm legal basis to uphold the denial from Planning Commission and turn down the project.

Your Land Use Plan and City Municipal Code give clear and unambiguous guidance for development, and are strongly protective of visual resources. This is a very large project, which clearly violates multiple sections of the Land Use Plan and Municipal Code. And, City Code further precludes issuing a permit for a project which violates the Land Use Plan.

If you were to set aside the significant and unavoidable findings of the Environmental Impact Report, and if you set aside the violations of the Land Use Plan, what good is the years of work that went into carefully and painstakingly drafting that Land Use Plan? Doing so would be setting the very dangerous precedent for future developers to claim that they can flaunt the rules and build what they want.

The Staff Report which recommends that you approve the hotel can frankly not be trusted. It is highly biased. Staff has been working to push this project for years, and this is merely the latest step in those efforts. The Staff Report is not an impartial recounting of fact and regulation, it’s an endorsement endorsement for the Hyatt. It must be rejected.

The economic arguments in favor of the hotel or not well thought out. We are currently at only 55% capacity in our existing hotels, with plenty of access capacity, and the competition from 102 additional rooms is certainly not needed.

Please listen to your constituents, and follow the law which governs development in our city. Uphold the planning commission denial of the project
Thank you.
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
David Schorr
423 St. Joseph Avenue
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
January 25, 2024
Re: Hyatt Place and townhome project proposal PDP-072-13

APPEAL REBUTTAL
SUMMARY:

Applicant has appealed the Planning Commission decision to deny the Project. Denial was properly based upon Project inconsistency with LUP 9-3, 9-12, and 9-23.

The Findings for Denial were drafted by the City Attorney present at the October 22, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, and adopted and approved by the Planning Commission by majority vote.

The Findings for Denial are valid, and based on proper interpretation of the City LUP and Code.

By contrast, Applicant’s appeal is non-substantive in nature, and offers no reasoning or fact to justify overturning the decision of the Planning Commission. The appeal states “The project complies and is consistent with all local and state codes, policies, regulations and conditions.” This is untrue, unsupported by fact, and is in conflict with prior decision of the Planning Commission. Planning Commission’s denial of the project as currently proposed must be upheld.

The meetings on this Project were chaotic, ran very late, and the Planning Commissioners were clearly rushing towards the end on the October 22, 2024 meeting. Due to running up against meeting end time of 11 pm, and not having the desire to continue this item to yet another meeting, they did not have time to consider reasonable and objective reading of the LUP and supporting IP to also find inconsistency with LUP sections as follows:

In plain reading of the LUP, the Project is also non-compliant with Secs 9-1, 9-5, 9-6, and inconsistent with Municipal Code (IP) sections 18.37.010, 18.37.020, 18.37.030, and 14.37.035.

These points were not considered by the Planning Commission due to time and fatigue; they should have been.

These notes are an effort to direct your attention to key points that lead to this conclusion: Consistent with City Code, the City shall not issue a development permit if it cannot make the required findings of full compliance with all applicable sections of the LUP. Full compliance with all relevant sections of LUP and IP are required by the text of LUP sections 1-3 and 2-2. Therefore the Appeal for this Project must be denied.

It has been suggested by some that the LUP is not rigid, and that the City should “balance” the needs of development and income vs. preservation of visual (and other) resources, even if that violates the LUP. That is not correct. The process of striking the balance between development and preservation is what happened in careful drafting of the LUP and its’ supporting IP, and certification of same by the California Coastal Commission. That discussion has happened, and the rules and develop limits of the LUP reflect the broad-based values of the community. The importance of visual resources is affirmed and codified in multiple sections of the LUP and IP, emphasizing their importance and primacy. The requirement of LUP compliance as a prerequisite for issuing a CDP is clearly called out in LUP 1-3 and 2-2. This project does not qualify for a CDP; the appeal must be denied, and project denial upheld.
254
Issues of Precedent:
- In 2022 Planning Commission denied a Caltrans project for a 5’ x 12’ message sign at the south end of town, on the basis of impact to Visual Character and Resources. That proposed sign had no impact upon views of hills or ridgelines, and is orders of magnitude smaller and less impactful than the Hyatt project, yet was denied based on multiple LUP sections regarding visual resources and visual character.
- In 2016 Coastal Commission allowed the fire training tower project to present a 24 foot wide intrusion into the ridgeline. By comparison, the frontage of this proposed 34 foot tall hotel is 500 feet long, and the same approval cannot be anticipated. Importantly, the Coastal Commission, while allowing the 24 foot intrusion (also set back farther from SR-1 than the Hyatt) strongly affirmed the importance of protection of visual character and visual resources of Half Moon Bay, and specifically views of the inland hills, hillsides, intervening ridgelines, and uppermost ridgeline, as seen from SR-1. In considering denial of the Project, Planning Commission considered how the two projects are not comparable, the Hyatt having much greater impact on visual character and resources.

Additional issues:

Applicant contends on Appeal that “The project complies and is consistent with all local and state codes, policies, regulations and conditions.” However, Applicant does not provide ANY evidence to support that statement, and Applicant’s contention is false. Planning Commission was very clear that this is a very large set of structures which WILL impact visual resources. The specific design elements of color, siding choice and landscaping do not mitigate the mass and bulk, and specifically do not mitigate the 34 foot height of this project. Whether it is “pretty” or not is irrelevant – LUP and IP consistency is required, and the Project does not meet that standard.

The Applicant has noted selective statements by Commissioners praising the aesthetics of the Project. The Planning Commissioners appeared to be using this language to “soften the blow” to the Applicant, as the same Commissioners went on to state concerns over size, mass, loss of views, and clear points of LUP inconsistency, and to vote to deny the project. Those concerns and findings are the accurate and appropriate basis for denial of the Project as currently proposed.

Please also incorporate here by reference the entirety of public comment to Planning Commission dated September 30, 2024, as that document contains a detailed analysis of Project LUP inconsistencies, as well as deficiencies in the Final EIR. I encourage Council members to read that document.

Your fundamental decision here is deciding whether to grant the Appeal by the Applicant, or to uphold Planning Commission decision to deny the Project as proposed. In order to issue a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) for the proposed project, all the other required prerequisites steps also need to be followed – certify the EIR, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, grant the parking exemption, lot line adjustments, parcel map. To do so in the clear lack of conformance with City LUP and IP would be improper, and is not allowable.

The critical issue is to properly consider the controlling authority of our LUP as a prerequisite to the required CDP, which is thus fatal to any supportable approval. Absent conformance with the LUP, which is not subject to any waiver or exception, the CDP cannot be approved. 255
The EIR document has identified noncompliance with LUP policies: 9-3, 9-12. 9-23. In plain reading of the LUP, the Project is also non-compliant with Secs 9-1, 9-5, 9-6.

The Project as proposed is noncompliant with the clear intent of the introduction to Chapter 9 of the LUP.

Additionally, the project is noncompliant with the following sections (at a minimum) of the IP for the LUP, in the Municipal Code: 14.37.035, 18.37.010, 18.37.020, 18.37.030.

Detailed discussion of the above noted areas of noncompliance has been submitted in writing previously, in comments to the DEIR, FEIR, and supplemental written comments and oral testimony before the Planning Commission.

Noncompliance with our LUP has been well documented and acknowledged, and affirmed by Planning Commission. These violations, per se, prevent issuance of the required CDP. There are no exceptions to requirement of full LUP compliance.

The simple and clear requirements for issuing a CDP are in the HMB LUP:

From LCLUP, pages 1-43,44: 1-3. Findings for Development Approval. The City shall make the findings for all development that requires a discretionary permit that the development meets the standards set forth in all applicable Land Use Plan policies. The City shall not issue a development permit if it cannot make the required findings.

From LCLUP page 2-19:
2-2. Complete Policy Compliance. Ensure that all new development as defined by the Coastal Act complies with the policies of the Land Use Plan. New development means any project for which a coastal development permit is required. Allow flexibility only when the Land Use Plan provides for an exception.

City Council’s order of consideration is very important: You need to consider the CDP before you consider the EIR. This is because the law allows the local lead agency to disapprove the EIR in a case where you have turned down a project, in addition to any (previously documented) inadequacies that the EIR may have. This simplifies your tasks at hand.

As further background to inform discussion from Oct. 9, LUP Section 1-2. Coastal Resource Protection Priorities clearly establishes the primacy of protecting coastal resources (which includes viewsheds / visual resources):

Protection of ESHA, public access and other coastal resources are a high priority for the City. To the extent that any policies in this Land Use Plan (which serves as the City’s General Plan Land Use Element) and other elements of the City's General Plan are ambiguous, the City shall interpret them in the way that best protects ESHA and other coastal resources and maximizes public access. In advance of updating the Implementation Plan for conformance with the policies of the 2020 Land Use Plan, the policies of the Land Use Plan shall provide the standard of review for any proposed new development, including where these policies are more protective of ESHA and other coastal resources and maximize public access as consistent with the Coastal Act.

In other words, if a conflict or question arises, the approach most conservative of resources must be taken, whether that more conservative language in in the adopted 2020 LUP, or in the not yet fully aligned IP/Municipal Code.
256
Additional documentation from the IP/Municipal Code supporting the fact that a CDP cannot be issued if the Project is not compliant with all applicable sections of the LUP:

18.01.020 Compliance required.

No land shall be used and no structure shall be constructed, enlarged, altered, moved, or used in any district as shown on the zoning district map except in conformance with the regulations established by this title. (1996 zoning code (part)).

Zoning is subservient to Coastal Act and CCC regulations:

18.20.025 Permit required.

Unless otherwise exempted, all development as defined in Section 18.20.020(C) in the city of Half Moon Bay requires a coastal development permit. The coastal development permit must be approved prior to the commencement of development and shall be required in addition to any other permits or approvals required by the city. A local coastal development permit may be combined with any other permit application. When not feasible to combine a coastal development permit with one or more other applications, it may be processed concurrently with or prior to any other procedures required by this title or the municipal code. Prior to initiating the review process for any discretionary or ministerial permits in the city, the community development director shall determine the feasibility of concurrent or prior processing of the coastal development permit. The coastal development permitting requirements herein and exemptions in Section 18.20.030 shall be carried out in full conformity with Sections 30600 and 30610 of the Coastal Act and Title 14, Sections 13250, 13252, and 13253 of the California Code of Regulations. Any conflicts between the provisions in the zoning code and either the Coastal Act or Title 14, Sections 13250, 13252, and 13253 of the California Code of Regulations shall be resolved in favor of the California Coastal Act and Title 14, Sections 13250, 13252, and 13253 of the California Code of Regulations.

Permit-issuing officials have responsibility to honor zoning ordinance:

18.26.040 Conformance required in issuance of permits and licenses.

All departments, officials and public employees of the city, which are vested with the authority to issue permits or licenses, shall conform to the provisions of this title, and shall issue no permit or license for uses, buildings or purposes where the same would be in conflict with the provisions of this title, and any such permit or license, if issued in conflict with the provisions of this title, shall be null and void. (1996 zoning code (part)).

Noncompliance with our LUP has been well documented and acknowledged, and affirmed by Planning Commission. These violations, per se, prevent issuance of the required CDP. There are no exceptions to requirement of full LUP compliance.

The above should help simplify and clarify your decision-making process.

Subsequent to denying this Appeal, and application for a CDP, the City Council should decline to certify the FEIR, and cite specific policies and zoning with which the project is not compatible, naming the evidence of the inconsistency with those policies associated with this Project.

Following are additional reasons to separately decline to certify the EIR, and to decline to adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations:

Public comment on the DEIR identified many areas of concern, inconsistency, faulty logic, and bias towards the Applicant in the DEIR findings. The FIER failed to address these issues in a substantive fashion, and merely “stuck to its guns”, primarily in the area of visual impacts as viewed ONLY from two carefully selected viewpoints 300 and 500 south of the project. The approach taken in the EIR documents, and recommended by City Planning Staff is not adequately protective of Visual Resources.
257
Additional Significant and Unavoidable impact not properly called out in the EIR:

Key point: The project Applicant stated (at the Oct 9, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, public testimony at 9:20 pm) that the hotel will NOT implement airport shuttles, as was required in the VMT Reduction strategy (TDM). As a result of not meeting VMT reduction goals, the Project will therefore create a Significant and Unavoidable impact under CEQA which was not properly identified in the FEIR.

Details of this follow:

The EIR claims a 15.4% reduction in VMT as a result of successful future implementation of TDM.

15.0% is the standard required to reduce impacts from Significant and Unavoidable to Less than Significant (LTS). Following is demonstration that this claimed reduction is not supportable:

DEIR Table 4.15-6 Estimated VMT Reductions, page 4.15-29, page 399 of the pdf From the above Table, we see that guest trips to and from airport are the largest single component of VMT, at approximately 46%. (Although, this may underestimate mileage significantly, as it presumes all guests are coming from airports only 29 miles away, while in truth guests traveling in cars from elsewhere in California will drive much farther than 29 miles to get to and from HMB) It is not clear by what means employee travel will be magically decreased by 14%.

We also see that any deviation from the proposed VMT reduction will render the percent change below 15.0%, with VMT therefore becoming a Significant and Unavoidable impact not called out in the EIR process.

Note that in the quote above from the FEIR, TDM measures identified include airport shuttle and parking price incentives to discourage private vehicle usage.

Additional details on TDM from DEIR Appendix H:
258
However, in public testimony before Planning Commission October 9, 2024 (9:20 pm), Applicant stated that airport shuttles would be infeasible and would not be implemented. Applicant further stated that parking fees (a disincentive to drive) at the hotel were not anticipated. Applicant did not address room rate reduction for guests who do not drive to the facility, the flip side of a parking fee.

Without airport shuttle to SFO and SJC, VMT reduction contemplated/predicted is reduced from 772 miles to 394 miles per day. Impact of parking price incentive was not analyzed in the table above. However, taking the airport shuttle VMT reduction off the table alone gives a percent change of only 7.9% in VMT reduction.

But… if one removes the airport shuttles from the equation, that also calls into the question VMT and vehicle trip reductions contemplated for Guest Trips (Local). Local guest trips reduced is largely predicated on guests having arrived not in their own vehicles. Absent the airport shuttle, that first step of VMT reduction would not have occurred, so neither will the local guest trip reduction. The remaining measures of in town shuttle and bike rental are likely to yield only a few percentage points of VMT reduction (if that), further demonstrating that the EIR’s conclusion of the TDM measures reducing VMT by 15 4% is incorrect and without factual basis.

Additionally, as mentioned in previous comments, in the EIR there are no real-world comparison or examples of comparable TDM plans successfully resulting in >15% reduction in trips for hotels similar to the proposed – remote from airports, no airport shuttle, with effectively no public transit options. Claimed reductions appear to be speculative in nature.

Therefore, having failed to meet the reduction threshold of 15.0%, VMT is yet another impermissible Significant and Unavoidable impact to consider regarding this Project. ----
Regarding the considerable discussion at October 9 and 22 2024 Planning Commission meetings regarding the extent to which the Project impinges on visual resources: As has come up before, it was pointed out that there have been developments along the Town Boulevard which already obscure views of the inland hills. This is true. Some of those single-family residences have been approved in recent years by the Planning Commission, some prior. However, it is important to note that the visual resource protection standards for the Town Boulevard apply to the entire Town Boulevard, not just the chosen Viewpoint 2 and Viewpoint 3 in the EIR. And, in light of the visual resources as seen from the Town Boulevard having been degraded by incremental and cumulative development projects over the years, it becomes even more important to protect the visual resources which currently remain. To allow this Hyatt project as proposed would not be adequately protective of Visual Resources.
259
Related to this issue, it must be pointed out that this is a case of pervasive “shifting baseline” – a problem plaguing many sections of the EIR for the Hyatt, and also plaguing other Planning decisions. The fact that 17 structures (per Commissioner Hernandez) have been built along SR-1 which block views of the hills, (likely impermissibly in reality) has created a new baseline, that of degraded and blocked access to visual resources. This situation is cited by some as to say, why not have another building along SR-1, the views are already impaired. This is flawed and dangerous reasoning, leading to incremental loss of the (legally protected) visual character and visual resources which make Half Moon Bay so special.

The shifting baseline problem is also prominent in arguments from the developer and supporters of the project. They claim that improvements have been made since original design proposals of 148 rooms, now 102 rooms plus 16 townhomes; setbacks greater than original, etc. None of this is relevant – the project as currently proposed is what needs to be evaluated for LUP consistency. If it is better than original, but still non-compliant, what went before is irrelevant. Without LUP consistency as required by Policies 1-3 and 2-2, and other sections of LUP and IP, no CDP can be issued.

Another deficiency in City process on the Project relates to visual impact of the proposed 16 townhome component. City continues to insist that up for approval here is only the subdivision, not the townhomes themselves. This is inaccurate and inconsistent. Modified Alternative 2, the Project version considered in the FEIR, clearly includes the townhomes, as noted and called out on page 1-10 of the FEIR. As well, the EIR has analyzed greenhouse gas emissions and traffic impacts of the townhome component, making clear that the townhomes are part of Modified Alternative 2, and to be considered as part of the Project. The EIR documents also consider required wetland setback for the townhome component. In public testimony, the Applicant offered that as he decreased hotel room count from 129 to 102, he added the residential component to the Project in light of City desire to have more housing built. It is therefore inexplicable that the City maintains that the visual impacts of the townhome component of this project need not be addressed by installation of story poles. The townhomes would be up to 28 feet tall, with a setback of only 50 feet from wetlands, thus closer to SR-1 than the hotel, with significant and unavoidable impact to legally protected visual resources. The City’s approach to this Project leaves the Project inadequately defined (impermissible under CEQA), deprives the public of the opportunity to evaluate visual impact of the entire Project including the townhomes, and is overall not adequately protective of visual resources.

Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC):

The strongest argument made by Staff in the SOC is the economic argument of the City needing more TOT, and demand for hotel rooms of the specific type and price range that this Project would provide. However, from Chamber of Commerce data:
• Citywide average occupancy is currently only 55%, has been decreasing year-to-year • The Ritz is currently above the average occupancy, at roughly 60% • The Ritz has 261 rooms, close to half of all the rooms in HMB • If the Ritz is at 60% occupancy with 50% of total rooms, that means the rest of the hotels are on average at approximately only 50% occupancy, not 55%. • The Hyatt would provide 102 additional rooms in a price range already saturated by other hotels (this data previously entered into the record)
Therefore:
• With the remaining 290 (non-Ritz) rooms at 50% occupancy, the Hyatt would add 102 rooms in the same price range as those 290 rooms, and will be harmful to existing hotel businesses
• Supporting existing local businesses would be better than introducing additional competition at this time
260
• City TOT revenue, looked at using a trailing average over the past nine years, shows consistent growth due to a number of factors (increased rate, capturing STVR). TOT now is 25% higher than pre-pandemic.
• From page 5-36 of the LUP, the City acknowledges that the Hyatt project may not be necessary:

At the time of this LUP update, the City was in the process of reviewing a prospective hotel project at the former L.C. Smith Estate PD for about 130 rooms (note: this is the Hyatt site/project); and had also received a preliminary application for a hotel and RV park at the Surf Beach/Dunes Beach PD which included a 200-room hotel with a spa and conference facilities and 170 RV spaces.

Pending further economic and other studies, it is unclear if this much additional lodging will be needed over the course of the planning horizon or if the city’s infrastructure can support this level of intensification of new visitor-serving uses.

Since the time of that writing, occupancy has declined further (both in percentage and absolute number of visitor nights per year), emphasizing the redundancy of the proposed Hyatt project, and it’s risk to existing hotel businesses.

Planning Commission noted with concern that an economic analysis of the impacts of this project has not been done - leaving in question the extent to which this Project might generate TOT, as compared with negative effects of drawing business away from existing hotels, forcing room rate reductions due to competition of adding 102 more rooms at a time of surplus, and impacts upon City services such as public safety, water and sewer capacity, with likelihood of a new hotel contributing to sewer system and plant overload.

FURTHER ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS REFUTING NEED FOR HYATT:

Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required to allow certification of the EIR in presence of Significant and Unavoidable impacts delineated in the EIR. There is considerable emphasis on stated economic benefit of the Project, in the form of TOT; this forms the basis of the sentiment that this hotel is “needed”.

Data does not support that contention.

Claimed economic benefits of the hotel are based on a presumption of “need” for this hotel, when 9 years of (declining) occupancy data clearly shows that this hotel is not needed, and would in fact be harmful to existing hotel businesses.

Over the past nine years:
• Occupancy rates in City hotels have fallen consistently, from 69%, now down to 55%. • The number of occupied rooms per night has fallen by more than 20%. • The number of empty rooms per night has increased by 44%, from 185 empty rooms per night to 264 empty rooms per night.

Looking at this over 9 years allows us to smooth out the curve from the 2 years badly impacted by Covid. But the trends are very clear and unambiguous – overnight stays are down (by 31,000 room nights per year), and additional capacity of 102 rooms is not needed. *All data is direct from Chamber of Commerce.
261
Looking at occupancy as a percentage corroborates declining occupancy:

Most telling is the number of vacant rooms per night, which has increased by 44% from 9 years ago, indicating weak demand. In 2015 there were 185 empty rooms per night; in 2023 there were 264 empty rooms per night. That is even in light of 52 rooms removed from inventory as the Coastside Inn changed from hotel to homeless shelter. With those 52 rooms gone, if demand was strong, increasing, or even just steady, the number of empty rooms per night would have decreased.

Instead, empty rooms per night have increased steadily.

Graph follows of empty hotel rooms in HMB:
(following page)
75000
85000
95000
105000
115000
125000
135000
145000
155000
165000
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Rooms occupied
Rooms occupied annually
Rooms occupied Rolling average
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
% occupied
% occupied rooms
Annual % rolling avg %
262
Despite declining room count and occupancy, the following chart shows that the City has consistently increased TOT income over the past 9 years, a result of capturing STVR occupancy, as well as raising the TOT percentage. TOT is now more than 25% higher than it was pre-Covid. The City has done well with TOT, with existing hotels. It will do even better if it works to increase occupancy of existing, locally owned properties.

November 2024 passage of the local sales tax ballot measure will provide an additional $2mm to the City annually. This takes significant pressure off the budget, making the argument for additional TOT less pressing.

Bottom line:

Project noncompliance with our LUP has been well documented and acknowledged, and affirmed by the Planning Commission. These violations, per se, prevent issuance of the 150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Vacant rooms /night
Vacant HMB Hotel rooms per night
Vacant rooms per night Rolling avg vacant rooms
3000000
4000000
5000000
6000000
7000000
8000000
9000000
10000000
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Annual TOT
Axis Title
HMB TOT revenue
TOT revenue Rolling avg TOT
263
required CDP. City Code does not allow for exceptions to the requirement of full LUP compliance. Additionally, the EIR is deficient and cannot be certified; and the additional hotel capacity is not in the best interests of the City at this time. Planning Commission, the finders of fact in this matter, have determined by adopting Findings for Denial that the Project as currently proposed is not in compliance with multiple sections of the LUP. Therefore, the Appeal must be denied, and Planning Commission denial of the Project upheld.

I would hope that the City is able to communicate clearly to the Applicant, that this is not intended to deny him investment backed expectations for realizing profit from his property; simply that any development on this parcel must comply with existing Policy and Code. A project of lower height and mass should be able to be approved with minimal difficulty or delay. Using the currently proposed footprint, if rooflines of the proposed structures do not exceed 19 feet above existing grade, the project will be in substantial compliance with the LUP and supporting IP.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this submission regarding the proposed Hyatt and townhome project. I am available for any questions or requests for clarification. ****
NOTE: the above 11 pages were written subsequent to the October 22, 2024 Planning Commission denial of the project, and then the Applicant’s appeal. With release of the Staff Report for the January 30, 2025 City Council meeting, we now see that Staff is not giving an inch in their support of the project, nor admitting to any prior errors of analysis or evidence of bias. it is now necessary to address some of the many deficiencies, biases and outright falsehoods in the Staff Report. That will be done here as an addendum, rather than rewriting the foregoing:

Although the Staff Report nominally gives Council options to grant or deny the project appeal, Staff takes the very unusual position of disputing the findings of the Planning Commission, and Staff now declares that the project is fully compliant with all sections of the LUP and the related IP. This is contrary to the decisions of the finders of fact, the Planning Commissions. In doing so, Staff even sets aside the multiple findings on LUP non-compliance enumerated in the EIR. Doing so takes some mental gymnastics, adopting an alternative fact reality, and rather creative interpretation and use of the English language, but this is merely further evidence that Staff is heavily biased in favor of moving this project forward.

Staff also uses very strange and basically meaningless language at multiple points, apparently in an attempt to question or discredit the decisions rendered by Planning: “The Planning Commission was unable to reach consensus on LUP Policy interpretation”, “The Commission could not reach consensus on how to interpret the above-stated policies “, “The basis of the denial was the Planning Commission’s inability to reach consensus on the appropriate interpretation of certain policies in Chapter 9” etc. Planning Commission is not required to come to “consensus” as implied by Staff – the Planning Commission made a well-reasoned majority vote that the project is not in compliance with three sections of Chapter 9 of the LUP.

Staff perpetuates the matter of a “shifting baseline” which has plagued this process for some years. It matters not if the Applicant has downsized, changed, moved, or modified the project over the past 8-10 years. What matters is whether the Project presented here for consideration, at this time, as Modified Alternative 2, is eligible for a CDP, which test it fails on the basis of clearly determined LUP non-compliance (see EIR findings, Planning Commission decision). This problem has been pointed out previously, Staff’s refusal to consider this as a valid point furthers confirms their bias.

Staff perpetuates their insistence that visual impacts are brief and fleeting in nature only. This is accomplished by continuing to insist, to the point of absurdity, that Viewpoints 2 and 3, 300 and 500 feet away from the southern edge of the project, represent the points of view of greatest 264
impact upon visual resource. This strains credulity, as well as simple reality. It also completely ignores visual resource impacts experienced by SR1 travelers heading south, as well as northbound travelers in the roughly 800 feet to the north of the chosen viewpoints, as they travel north past this extensive project. This problem has been pointed out previously, Staff’s refusal to consider this as a valid point furthers confirms their bias. The size of this project dwarfs any other individual residential project approved in recent years along the SR1 corridor.

Also on this point, Staff describes the visual impacts of the hotel as brief and fleeting. They reference the fire training tower decision, declared as “fleeting” by CCC. However, they ignore the plain fact that the training tower is only 24 feet wide, set back several hundred feet from SR1, whereas the frontage of this hotel approaches 500 feet, and closer to SR1. This problem has been pointed out previously, Staff’s refusal to consider this as a valid point furthers confirms their bias.

To further call into question Staff’s judgement on this point, the Staff Report cherrypicks comments from Planning Commissioners to favor their stance, while ignoring statements from several Planning Commissioners specifically and properly observing that the hotel project is in no way comparable to the fire training tower, as it is much larger and longer, presenting greater impact to visual resources. These visual impacts were the logical and proper basis for Findings for Denial adopted by Planning Commission.

Staff willfully, irresponsibly and knowingly makes the following false statement: “The buildings step down in height from three stories to two stories from the north end of the site toward the southern gateway corner to maintain openness.” It has previously been entered into the administrative record, and building elevation plans in the project documents confirm, that regardless the number of floors in the two buildings, both buildings measure a nearly identical height of between 33 and 34 feet, due to a higher ceiling height of the first floor of the southern building. This inconsistency has been previously documented, and is easily verifiable from the plan set. In this light, Staff’s statement here can only be considered as deliberately and willfully misleading and deceptive, and furthers confirms their bias in favor of the project.

Story poles and townhome component of the project: This issue has gone back and forth multiple times, accompanied by significant linguistic gymnastics on the part of the City, desiring to have their cake and eat it too. Are the townhomes part of this project or not? For purposes of evading the requirement to install story poles and thereby affording the public, the Planning Commission, and the City Council the opportunity to evaluate the visual impact of the townhomes, the City maintains that the project has only a subdivision without any actual townhomes, and story poles are not therefore required. This is knowingly false and incorrect on several levels:
- The City has declared the townhomes an integral and necessary part of the project to meet City goals and objectives, calling out the townhomes in Statement of Overriding Consideration “C” (to justify certifying an EIR with impermissible Significant and Unavoidable findings) – quoted from the Staff Report as “The proposed project will provide up to 16 residential units” This makes it clear that the townhomes are part of the Project, presented as Modified Alternative 2. - Page 1-10 of the FEIR identifies the townhomes as a component of the project. - At October 2024 Planning Commission meetings, the Applicant confirmed adding the townhome component to the project to meet City goals
- The DEIR/FEIR evaluate greenhouse gas emissions and traffic impacts of the townhomes, considering them an integral part of the Project as a whole, Modified Alternative 2. - It is only on the issue of visual impacts where the City illogically declares that suddenly the townhomes are not part of the project, merely a subdivision of land as part of the project now, to allow future townhome development, and therefore exempt from evaluation of visual impacts. The problem with this is it creates a textbook situation of piecemealing, impermissible under CEQA. - CEQA required adequate definition of a project. To defer consideration of the townhomes to a future date uncertain creates a situation where the Project is not adequately and fully described. 265
- All of this has been previously documented, Staff’s refusal to consider, or even acknowledge this as a valid point, furthers confirms their bias.

It would be possible to continue at length as to the deficiencies and plain bias in the Staff Report, but this document provides more than adequate basis for City Council to uphold Planning Commission’s denial of the Project as currently proposed. A smaller hotel project would still meet Coty goals, while decreasing traffic impacts, and potentially eliminating impacts upon legally protected visual resources.

Respectfully submitted,
David Schorr
Half Moon Bay, CA
266
David Schorr
423 St. Joseph Avenue
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
PUBLIC COMMENT ON HYATT PLACE PROJECT, City File Number: PDP 072-13 Electronic attachments to this submission:
• Att. A: Visitor Serving Features cost estimate
• Att. B: CCC fire tower Substantial Issue Determination • Att. C: Findings for Denial Caltrans message sign
• Att. D: Photos – current story poles with building outline masking September 30, 2024
Dear Planning Commissioners;
Regarding the Resolution before you on October 9, 2024 on the Hyatt hotel proposal:
“1. Certify the Environmental Impact Report for the Half Moon Bay Hyatt Place Project, Adopt CEQA Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Measures, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment 1); and

2. Approve PDP-072-13, an application for a Coastal Development Permit, Site and Architectural Review, and a Parking Exception for a 66,268 square-foot, 102-room hotel; Tentative Parcel Map to adjust the lot line between the hotel parcel and the adjacent James Ford auto dealership parcel and to create four residential parcels on the north side of Seymour Street for future development of up to 16 residential dwelling units as allowed by the R-2 zoning district development standards (Attachment 2).”
I request that you reject this Resolution in its entirety. Reasoning and explanation follows.

In summary, the Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) presented by Staff is inadequate to justify certifying the EIR for this Project, and inadequate to justify approving the CDP and other conditions of point 2 of the Resolution.

Separate from the inadequacy of the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the EIR is deficient on many points, and cannot be certified. To try to keep this submission relatively brief, I will focus on the most important aspects of deficiency, rather than going through every single point in detail, which would involve 100 to 200 pages of submission.

In this submission, unless otherwise specified, “Project” refers to “Modified Alternative 2” as noted in the FEIR, rather than the original Project definition.

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS:

This is the crux of the procedural issue right now, as the EIR has identified Significant and Unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project. Absent adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations (which subsequently would have to be adopted by City Council), the project as proposed cannot be approved under CEQA.

A Statement of Overriding Concerns (SOC) must present credible and reasonable evidence that social/economic/other benefits on the project outweigh the consequences of the negative impacts of the Significant and Unavoidable findings of the EIR. Staff maintains that they have met that burden - the public disagrees.

So, we should look in detail at each of the six points raised by Staff in the SOC:
267
Text of SOC A:
“ A. The Proposed Project will provide Coastal Act and Local Coastal Act priority uses geared towards visitors and workforce housing. This is in alignment with Coastal Act Section 30222:

Private lands; priority and development purposes, which states that “[T]he use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry.” The Proposed Project is also in alignment with LCLUP General Policies 2-3: Priority Land Uses, 2-4: Sustainable Land Use Pattern; LCLUP Land Use Policies 5-73: Location of Visitor Serving Commercial Development; 5-71: Inclusion of Lower Cost Accommodations. The Proposed Project will provide 102 hotel rooms to coastside visitors. A portion of the 102 rooms meet the Coastal Commission’s definition of Low-Cost Affordable Rooms and furthers the goal to provide no- and low-cost amenities. This enables visitors from a wider range of incomes to secure overnight accommodations on the coast, which in turn benefits other visitor-serving businesses throughout Half Moon Bay.”
COMMENT on SOC A: Documents elsewhere in the Project File provide the detail that six (6) out of 102 rooms will be provided at a lower cost of $148 per night. The Applicant is attempting to comply with LCP provisions and Coastal Commission guidance, of providing between 15 and 25% of hotel rooms at lower cost, by adding the equivalent of another 14 rooms through in lieu expenditures on other development activities classified as low-cost and no-cost visitor serving amenities. In this case, the Applicant is applying $1.78 million in development costs of wetland preservation/protection, and bike and pedestrian paths as the in lieu contribution. Given that a good portion of this is dedicated to the wetland preservation/protection which is separately required for this Project, that expenditure is not an additional contribution towards low-cost and no-cost visitor serving amenities; it would have to happen anyway.

Note that Sec. 5-71 in HMB LUP states as alternatives to actual counted low-cost rooms: “ …other low-cost public access and recreation benefits such as airport shuttles, bicycle rentals, or trail connections”
In Sec. 5-71, the already required wetland activity of mitigation/enhancement/preservation work is not called out as a low-cost public access feature. In the cost estimate for this portion of work (Attachment A), it appears to be split roughly half and half between wetland work and pathways/benches, etc. Therefore, it seems overly generous to allocate the entire $1.78 million on this estimate towards low-cost room offsets.

Additionally, one should reasonably question the visitor serving value of the bike and pedestrian pathways to be installed – they will be sandwiched between the hotel buildings and the highway, and likely see very little use by the public. It is also rather ironic that anybody who does use these pathways, when looking towards the east, they will see the hotel buildings, rather than existing views of the beautiful rolling hills, upland slopes, and ridgelines which will be blocked by the hotel buildings.

On balance, actual tangible benefits of lower-cost visitor serving amenities would be better served by allocating a larger number of rooms at the $148 per night level. Recall, “This enables visitors from a wider range of incomes to secure overnight accommodations on the coast” - that is the clear and simple intent of the LCP policies at issue. Only 6 rooms is a pretty minimalist approach to fulfilling that goal. While technically the proposed accommodations (rooms plus in lieu) may be LCP compliant, at only 6 rooms of actual low-cost accommodation, this does not satisfy the criteria of an Overriding Consideration, it is simply a required condition of development. You don’t get extra points for simply following the rules. 268
Text of SOC B:
“B. The Proposed Project will provide other no- and low-cost amenities including a publicly accessible bikeway and pedestrian pathway adjacent to SR-1. The site currently has no public access along SR-1. Furthermore, the project will create 2.02 acres of an enhanced, native-planted wetland buffer adjacent to the existing wetlands within the SR-1 Caltrans road right of way in a dedicated open space easement. The open space area includes the paths, benches, and educational interpretive signage that describes the open space area. These new bike and walking paths provide public access to an area that does not exist today. This access allows for new public views of interest from the site looking to the west (Wavecrest area) and towards the ocean beyond. The Proposed Project will also provide bicycle rentals on site, which is another amenity that will help visitors enjoy the coast as well as provide access to other businesses within Half Moon Bay.” COMMENT on SOC B: Please see discussion of point A above regarding the questionable value of the bike and pedestrian pathways. As noted, wetland buffer protections and enhancements are separately required for this development. The discussion of point B mentions views to the Wavecrest area and towards the ocean, but pointedly ignores the consideration mentioned in discussion of point A, that the currently existing views towards the east, the legally protected views of the upland slopes, intervening ridgelines, and upper ridgeline, will be eliminated by the hotel buildings themselves. Given the limited length of the pedestrian and bike pathways, and likely low utilization, Staff’s arguments here do not satisfy the criteria of an Overriding Consideration.

Text of SOC C:
“C. The Proposed Project will provide up to 16 residential units on property that is currently used for automobile parking and will contribute to the City meeting its 6th cycle RHNA housing obligations. The project applicant intends to provide a portion of the units at below market rental rates to project employees, although the applicant is not required to do so and the project is not conditioned as such. The provision of housing to a variety of housings and at various income profiles is a City goal, as recognized in LCLUP Policy 2-6, “Encourage a diversity of housing types, including housing at a range of affordability levels, densities, sizes, and ownership types with equitable access to environmental benefits. Meet the needs of Half Moon Bay’s diverse population, including young families, multi-generational families, students, young professionals, and seniors.” The Proposed Project will help the City towards this goal.” COMMENT on SOC C:

The topic of housing, and affordable housing, is very important, and very emotionally charged.

People look favorably upon projects that provide true affordable housing for people in need.

However, I ask the Planning Commissioners to read point C very carefully. People will want to interpret Staff’s verbiage here as this project contributing to affordable housing stock. But that is not the case.
• Staff states that the Applicant “intends” – not shall, or will, but intends; and Staff further states that Project approval is not conditioned upon these intentions, in other words, this is neither required nor binding.
• “A portion” is not a defined quantity – it could conceivably be only one out of the 16 units to be developed.
• “Below market rental rate” is not affordable housing – that point must be made very clear. On a two bedroom townhome, if market rate is $3000 per month, renting at $2900 per month would indeed be below market rental rate, but would not satisfy any affordable housing needs.
269
If the intent here is to create the impression that affordable housing will be created by this Project, that is not adequate or appropriate. This should be turned from an intention into a binding condition upon the Applicant, with a defined and significant portion of the 16 townhomes dedicated to truly affordable housing. As delineated and written, Staff’s recommendations do not satisfy the criteria of an Overriding Concern.

Text of SOC D:
“D. The Proposed Project will generate Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue for the City in support City Council FY 2024-25 budget direction to staff to identify and pursue sources of revenue to off-set the increased cost of providing city services. The City’s FY 24-25 Adopted Budget recognizes that “…reserves will not be enough to sustain the City in the future unless revenues increase, or services and expenditures are drastically decreased. A key priority for staff and the Council in the coming fiscal year will be to identify strategies to balance the budget for the future, including additional sources of ongoing revenue, increased pursuit of grants and philanthropic support for community projects and programs, and continuing to find new efficiencies and cost savings wherever possible. These are all important practices for any organization, but especially now for the City of Half Moon Bay.”
COMMENT on SOC D:

This is likely the crux issue upon which Staff is relying to support the Statement of Overriding Considerations, an economic benefit argument. Staff’s Point D here dovetails with, and rests upon the following language from the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR):
“As described in Section 3.0, Project Description of the Draft EIR, the Original Project would be consistent with the City’s project objective of meeting demand for branded and reasonably affordable hotel rooms to support Half Moon Bay’s growing local tourist and agribusiness economies. Past studies indicate that there is adequate visitor demand on the coast to support the project. Furthermore, the Chamber of Commerce has also found a need for conference facilities to support mid-week hotel use, which is off-peak from the high weekend demand. The proposed hotel would be mid-range, featuring more amenities than a budget hotel, but would be lower in cost than a luxury hotel.”
The language of the SOC and the separate language elsewhere in the FEIR are problematic in many significant ways:

Bottom line, Staff contends that this hotel is necessary to support a growing tourist economy, and to fill a specific price niche. The validity of the phrase “growing tourist economy” is key to this assumption, upon which this point of the SOC is based. It implies that we do not have enough hotel rooms available to allow our local tourist economy to grow. As demonstrated following, that is false, and therefore the entire contention of point D of the SOC fails.

The following table is occupancy and transient occupancy tax (TOT) data from the past nine years, taken from City budget Actuals, and cross-referenced against figures available from the Chamber of Commerce BID documents.

REST OF PAGE BLANK, please see next page for table
270
YEAR TOT totals # rooms total % occupancy
Rooms
occupied per
night
Rooms empty
per night
2015-2016 $5,935,558 Not available Not available Not available Not available 2016-2017 $6,024,860 579 72 417 162
2017-2018 $6,434,808 579 72 417 162
2018-2019 $6,828,108 624 72 449 175
2019-2020 $5,291,821 640 67.4 431 209
2020-2021 $4,817,532 640 67.4 431 209
2021-2022 $9,442,518
not stated,
inferred as 588
(loss of 52 at
Coastside Inn)
55-60 from
other
sources,
news articles,
Chamber
report, 57.5% 338 250
2022-2023 $8,852,640
not stated,
inferred as 588
(loss of 52 at
Coastside Inn)
55-60 from
other
sources,
news articles,
Chamber
report, 57.5% 338 250
2023-2024 $8,167,938
not stated,
inferred as 588
(loss of 52 at
Coastside Inn)
55-60 from
other
sources,
news articles,
Chamber
report, 55%
from CoC 323 265
First, a couple of caveats and notes:
• The pandemic obviously decreased TOT revenue FYs 2019-2021, with a significant rebound the following fiscal year 2021-2022. However, if you average those 3 unusual FYs, it comes to roughly $7 million per year, continuing the sustained trend towards increasing amounts of TOT year-to-year.
• By looking at this over the longer stretch, we can see that the City is most certainly not hurting for TOT revenue. TOT has increased significantly, and consistently, from 2015 through 2024. Factors here include folding in TOT from short-term vacation rentals (STVR) in the past several years, increasing the TOT from 10% to 15% (if I have my numbers correct), and likely an underlying increase in room rates at our existing hotels.

These numbers from the City and the Chamber clearly demonstrate that an additional 102 rooms of overnight lodging are not required, nor are they likely to be required in the near or midterm future. All factors indicate that the number of overnight visitors to hotel accommodations has been decreasing consistently over the past seven years or so. This is corroborated by occupancy rates dropping from 72% in the years pre-pandemic, to 55% currently.
** In particular, please look at the last column of the chart, which shows that the number of empty/available rooms per night has been increasing steadily over the past several years. There are currently 265 empty rooms on the average night here, more than ever before. 271
These hard facts and numbers clearly and convincingly contradict Staff’s assertion that this new hotel is necessary to support a growing tourist economy. From a business perspective, it is also highly questionable “that there is adequate visitor demand on the coast to support the project” as Staff asserts. The economic viability of the project is not the purview of the Planning Commission, but it is worth thinking about nonetheless.

Rebuttal to additional Staff assertions in point D:
“Furthermore, the Chamber of Commerce has also found a need for conference facilities to support mid-week hotel use, which is off-peak from the high weekend demand. “ COMMENT: Project as currently proposed has only a single relatively small room for meetings, at 1250 ft.². It would therefore have a very minimal impact on supply of conference facilities. “The proposed hotel would be mid-range, featuring more amenities than a budget hotel, but would be lower in cost than a luxury hotel.”
And
“project objective of meeting demand for branded and reasonably affordable hotel rooms” COMMENT: Dovetailing with the statistics provided above regarding declining occupancy rate, and increasing numbers of vacant rooms per night, we must look at the value, desirability and affordability of a Hyatt hotel. Right across the highway from this proposed hotel is the Best Western-branded Aristocrat Hotel, adjacent to Camerons. Rooms at the Best Western rent out at $300-340 per night. One would reasonably expect a Hyatt property to be more expensive than a Best Western, in the range of $400 per night. Given the previously well-documented declining occupancy rates, I find it hard to believe that the masses are clamoring for another 102 rooms of $400 per night hotel space. The term “reasonably affordable” is obviously open to interpretation, but I have a hard time applying that term to hotel rooms at $300 and above, much less at $400.

EIR and Staff documents contend that this hotel is necessary to fill a gap in this particular price range of traveler options. That is not the case. Following are October 2024 nightly rates (exclusive of TOT) at local hotels:

Half Moon Bay Inn 225
Quality Inn 234
Miramar Inn & Suites 257
Ocean View Inn 279
Mill Rose Inn & Garden 304
Aristocrat - Best Western 349
Seal Cove Inn 350
Nantucket Whale Inn 358
Half Moon Bay Lodge 371
Beach House Half Moon Bay 397
Harbor View Inn 418
Oceano Hotel and Spa 420
Cypress Inn on Miramar Beach 470
Ritz Carlton 1348
This clearly disproves EIR and Staff contentions, and demonstrates that there are many hotel rooms currently vacant nightly in the $300-$400+ per night price range. 272
Given the glaring inconsistencies between hard facts of occupancy and Staff’s simply relying on a belief/factually unsupported statement of need for additional hotel rooms, Staff’s recommendations cannot be considered as valid, and therefore do not meet the criteria of an Overriding Concern.

Text of SOC E:
“E. The Proposed Project will help the City towards achieving Strategic Initiatives. The FY 24-25 Adopted Budget includes Strategic Elements, which are high-level objectives that provide a long-range vision for the City’s future and a consistent focus for the City’s services. Based on the Strategic Elements, the City Council has adopted Strategic Initiatives intended to help guide the City’s actions and work plans as well as focus efforts on addressing the City’s identified priorities. Fiscal Sustainability Strategic Element Initiatives include the following, which the Proposed Project helps further:
· Support and sustain a business environment that contributes to economic prosperity and revenue generation and improves the community’s economic well-being. · Promote a balanced economic development approach that retains, attracts, and supports businesses Citywide for a strong, stable, complementary, and diverse business environment, including tourism, coastal resources, conservation, and farmland cultivation.” COMMENT on SOC E:

Fiscal responsibility and sustainability on the part of the City is indeed an important goal. While an additional 102 rooms of hotel availability will likely add some amount of additional TOT, the data provided in discussion of point D demonstrates that the City has been successful in steadily increasing TOT revenue over the past nine years. This is absent adding any additional hotel rooms. In fact, with the Coastside Inn converting 52 rooms to homeless shelter, room count has dropped since 2021. Under conditions of steady or (City-claimed) increasing demand (at odds with fact), this should lead to increased occupancy rates. Instead, we are seeing the opposite, consistently declining occupancy rates. Nonetheless, by folding in TOT on STVRs and increasing the TOT rate, the City is seeing significantly increased TOT revenue, negating the need for additional hotel rooms at this time, especially in light of the acknowledged Significant and Unavoidable impacts of this Project. Property tax income is also up significantly this past year, by approximately $1 million. All of this suggests that City revenue side numbers are quite strong, and more attention should be paid to the expense side of the ledger (which is not the concern of Planning Commission).

Considering all of the above, it must be made clear that Staff is knowingly making incorrect statements about the economic and tourist environment/data/income/occupancy we currently have. Staff assertions on point E do not satisfy the criteria of an Overriding Consideration, as their arguments for need for additional TOT are not valid.

In fairness, we must also consider the likely negative effects of the Hyatt hotel project upon existing hotel/lodging businesses. From the Statement of Overriding Considerations:
“City goals: Support and sustain a business environment that contributes to economic prosperity and revenue generation and improves the community’s economic well-being. · Promote a balanced economic development approach that retains, attracts, and supports businesses Citywide for a strong, stable, complementary, and diverse business environment”
While a new hotel will add some TOT revenue, it will also siphon business from existing, locally owned hotel businesses. This is especially true when a national chain moves in, with membership reward programs, etc. I have already been approached by one of the local small hotel owners, expressing significant concerns about their viability should Hyatt come to town.

With average occupancy running at 55%, I can imagine that many of our existing small hotel 273
owners are on the edge financially currently. Occupied rooms per night and occupancy rates have been dropping consistently. This is not the time to add to hotel room inventory, as that is extremely likely to hurt, or even kill off existing local hotels, in direct opposition to City goals of sustaining and retaining stable businesses . We would be better off making efforts to support existing businesses before bringing in new competing businesses.

Text of SOC F:
“F. The Proposed Project will anchor the south end of the Main Street corridor, as anticipated in the recently City Council-adopted Half Moon Bay Streetscape Master Plan, July 2024.”
COMMENT on SOC F:
“Anchoring” is a very loose term, without specific definition or defined value. In addition, Staff presenting this is simply a reiteration of self-defined Project goals, rather than demonstrating any distinct and measurable social/economic/other value. Therefore, point F as stated by Staff does not satisfy the criteria of an Overriding Consideration.

Summary:

Considering all of the above, Staff’s Statement of Overriding Considerations is inadequate and cannot be adopted. This applies whether looking at the conditions individually, or collectively.

And, failing adoption of the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the EIR cannot be certified, and the CDP and related exemptions and other conditions cannot be approved.

DISCUSSION OF EIR DEFICIENCIES:

This could easily run to several hundred pages. But if that were the case, nobody would read it. I will attempt to limit this to a high-level discussion of glaring deficiencies. For purposes of entering information into the administrative record, I will be incorporating by reference documents and information previously submitted, as far back as 2017.

Summary of areas of deficiency:

1. incomplete definition of project; leading to incomplete evaluation of project

2. impermissible piecemealing

3. incorrect baseline being created, pervasive

4. visual resources impact: selected viewpoints chosen for purposes of minimizing impact

5. inaccurate characterization of prior Coastal Commission guidance and precedent (fire tower)

6. previous Planning Commission and Coastal Commission precedent regarding impacts to visual resources
a. Fire tower 2016
b. Caltrans message sign 2022

7. lack of consistency with Policy and Code, specific sections

8. wetland buffer setback for townhomes vs. hotel buildings

9. traffic mitigation plan purely aspirational, without supporting documentation

10. hydrology/site runoff

11. lack of substantive response to public comment, pervasive

12. inconsistencies
274

1. Incomplete definition of project; leading to incomplete evaluation of project • California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a project description that is accurate, stable, and finite. The project description should reflect the details of the project, its site, and its surroundings.
• Project size and scope: The amount of detail in the project description should reflect the project's size and scope, as well as the expected impacts.

To put it plainly, Planning Commission cannot approve a project for which there is not a full and adequate definition and description.

At issue here is the townhome component of the Project. This is clearly intended to be part of the Project as a whole; lot line adjustments and subdivision parcel maps are included in the project scope, and noted as requiring Planning Commission action for approval. As part of looking at Modified Alternative 2, the EIR considered VMT/vehicle trips and greenhouse gas emissions from the townhome component of the Project, as well as discussion of a 50 foot versus 100 foot wetland buffer setback for the townhomes, so it is indisputably included in the scope and evaluation of the entire Project.

As such, the townhome component of the project must be adequately defined, per CEQA, and subject to thorough evaluation as part of the EIR process.

What is lacking, rendering the EIR deficient on this point, is evaluation of Visual Impact of the townhome development. Situated close to the highway, of as yet undefined height (demonstrating lack of complete project definition), though with a statutory upper limit of 28 feet, it is certain that the townhomes will have impact upon protected visual resources (inland hills, upland slopes, ridgelines). As such:
• plans for the townhomes on the parcel subdivision must be provided, including elevations and setbacks
• the EIR must evaluate visual impacts of this portion of the Project • story poles must be installed, per City policy, minimum of six days before any public hearing, to allow the public and Planning Commissioners to view in real time, in situ, impacts to visual resources
The City has declined to respond to requests that story poles be installed for this portion of the Project, going back to early August 2024.

The City will say that future plans for this “potential” development will undergo its own CEQA evaluation. But that is disingenuous at best, as the townhomes are clearly stated as part of the current Project, though not adequately defined. Should the City continue down this path, that would lead to the next issue, that of:

2. impermissible piecemealing
CEQA Guidelines define a project under CEQA as “the whole of the action” that may result either directly or indirectly in physical changes to the environment. This broad definition is intended to provide the maximum protection of the environment.

Piecemealing or segmenting means dividing a project into two or more pieces and evaluating each piece in a separate environmental document, rather than evaluating the whole of the project in one environmental document. This is explicitly forbidden by CEQA, because dividing a project into a number of pieces would allow a Lead Agency to minimize the apparent environmental impacts of a project by evaluating individual pieces separately, each of which 275
may have a less-than-significant impact on the environment, but which together may result in a significant impact. Segmenting a project may also hinder developing comprehensive mitigation strategies.

In general, if an activity or facility is necessary for the operation of a project, or necessary to achieve the project objectives, or a reasonably foreseeable consequence of approving the project, then it should be considered an integral project component that should be analyzed within the environmental analysis. The project description should include all project components, including those that will have to be approved by responsible agencies. When future phases of a project are possible, but too speculative to be evaluated, the EIR should still mention that future phases may occur, provide as much information as is available about these future phases, and indicate that they would be subject to future CEQA review. (ref: CEQA Portal Topic Paper, ceqaportal.org)
From this, an excerpt:
“In general, if an activity or facility is necessary for the operation of a project, or necessary to achieve the project objectives, or a reasonably foreseeable consequence of approving the project, then it should be considered an integral project component that should be analyzed within the environmental analysis.”
The Statement of Overriding Considerations, as quoted following, has identified the townhome component as an integral, desired, and required part of the larger Project:
“The Proposed Project will provide up to 16 residential units on property that is currently used for automobile parking and will contribute to the City meeting its 6th cycle RHNA housing obligations.”
Therefore, the townhome component is considered “necessary to achieve the project objectives”, and cannot be exempt from complete and thorough analysis in this EIR, rather than some future EIR.

To fail to analyze the visual impacts of the townhome component at this time, both within the EIR and by failure to erect story poles; but to delineate the parcel map, wetland buffers, etc., which are necessary and logical precursor steps to later development, is textbook and impermissible piecemealing.

This is especially important in this particular case, because impact upon protected visual resources is the primary basis of complaint about this Project, and is the source of the Significant and Unavoidable impacts that the project has already been determined to create.

However, as will be discussed later, the EIR consultants and Staff are seeking to minimize the extent of the Significant and Unavoidable visual resource impacts in general, throughout the EIR. The townhome component will add an additional 50 to 75 feet of impactful frontage (at this time height is not defined) of visual obstruction of protected visual resources. This is plainly apparent from the minimal setback of the development from the highway (even less than that of the hotel buildings). Evaluation of impact to visual resources from the townhome component has been omitted from the EIR, and that is impermissible.

3. incorrect baseline being created, pervasive
Under CEQA, baseline conditions are the conditions which exist on the parcel prior to the proposed development activities. While it is true that the very limited visual simulations presented in the EIR compare existing conditions to built conditions, the language used throughout the EIR in dozens, if not hundreds of places, seeks to use, or at least imply, a 276
different standard of comparison. The net effect is to create in the mind of the reader the impression that Modified Alternative 2 is an improvement, in some way, from what preceded it.

Repeatedly, the EIR authors compare the visual impact of Modified Alternative 2 (current Project) with the visual impact that would have occurred with the Original Project, at 147 rooms, closer to the highway, and other Alternatives that have been considered along the way over the past years. This is stressed over and over, although it is in fact completely irrelevant – what should be referred to at all points in the text is the comparison of existing, undeveloped status compared with impact of the Modified Alternative 2. This may seem a subtle point, but it colors the way people interpret the language of the EIR. And it is incorrect.

Several (of many) examples:

Example 1:

Top paragraph on page 2-432 of FEIR, pg 446 of pdf
“Modified Alternative 2 was found to not impact protected views of the ridgelines as demonstrated from Viewpoints 2 and 3. Therefore, Modified Alternative 2 would be consistent with LCLUP Policy 9-2, where the Original Project would be inconsistent.” This single excerpt is illustrative of several problems found throughout the EIR. To my current point, the EIR takes pains to compare the current project with the original project, which is irrelevant. Problem #2, to which I will return later is that of cherrypicking Viewpoints 2 and 3, which has significant consequences for evaluation of impacted visual resources. Problem #3 is the EIR choosing to focus on the ridgeline protrusion only, rather than protection of views of upland slopes, to be discussed in detail later.

Example 2:

FEIR p 2-15, pdf p 29:
“Modified Alternative 2, which is smaller than the Original Project, does not intrude into the ridgeline as presented in Viewpoints 2 and 3.”
As in Example 1, the same problems persist: Creating an impression of improvement by comparing current with original project, rather than current with existing conditions; and relying on extremely limited and carefully chosen Viewpoints upon which to rest all analysis and conclusions. Also, the EIR itself later declares that the hotel does project into the ridgeline from Viewpoint 3, an inconsistency.

Example 3:
page 5-51 of FEIR, pg 609 of pdf
“Both Modified Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would substantially reduce the aesthetic impacts associated with the project as a result of the reduced project massing, increased setbacks, and improved site plan”.

Found in the section of the EIR discussing comparison of alternatives, this nonetheless persists in creating a comparison between the original project and the current project, rather than between the current project and existing site conditions.

The use of this minimizing language is especially significant, as even the EIR authors have ascertained that the current Project does have Significant and Unavoidable impacts to visual 277
resources. There are many more examples of this use of language and inappropriate comparison, but this document is long enough already.

4. visual resources impact: selected viewpoints chosen for purposes of minimizing impact

5. inaccurate characterization of prior Coastal Commission guidance and precedent (fire tower)

6. previous Planning Commission and Coastal Commission precedent regarding impacts to visual resources
c. Fire tower 2016
d. Caltrans message sign 2022

7. lack of consistency with Policy and Code, specific sections The above four or topics and subtopics are the core of objection to the EIR conclusions and Staff recommendations regarding the Hyatt project. They are linked, interrelated, and overlapping, and cannot be discussed separately. Please bear with me for the complexity and detail here.

At the top of the hierarchy here are high-level, overarching, and controlling general principles deeply embedded in City Policy and Code documents, which are in turn based upon, and formulated in compliance with, the California Coastal Act. Individual Code sections are implementation of the high-level Policies, and are all subordinate and subservient to the highlevel Policies. The overarching intent of high-level Policies must be kept in mind when looking at individual components of implementing code. Any conflicts or ambiguity due to lack of precision in wording or definition should be decided on the side of conservative interpretation, to provide the best protection of environmental resources, under CEQA.

It is therefore important to set the tone of this analysis by quoting relevant excerpts directly from the header section of Chapter 9 of the LUP, Scenic and Visual Resources: (emphasis added for clarity)
“LAND USE PLAN CHAPTER 9:

9. Scenic and Visual Resources
Furthermore, the Coastal Act prioritizes protection of views from public places The visual character of Half Moon Bay is defined by ... and its small-scale downtown Highway 1 Highway 1 is the primary north-south transportation route through the Planning Area.

As a result, a large share of the visual impression of the city is experienced from this corridor.”
“Positive visual attributes:

Views of hillsides and ridgelines of coastal mountains
Sweeping views of the ocean, upland slopes, open spaces, and agricultural areas that make Half Moon Bay so distinctive and picturesque can all be seen from different segments of Highway 1.

Upland Slopes. As seen from the majority of the Planning Area, the upland slopes to the east create a scenic backdrop that contributes greatly to the overall visual quality.

Scenic corridor policies require protection of significant views available along Highways 1 and 92,
278
The LUP retains long-standing policies to keep development below the 160-foot contour line on hillsides, and requires lower-scale building heights along major roads, view corridors, and other public viewing areas to maintain the quality of broad views of the ocean and upland slopes”
All of the subsequent Policies and Implementation through Code are in service of these highlevel principles, and decision-making must be guided through that lens.

Sadly, the EIR, and supporting Staff recommendation of Statement of Overriding Considerations, instead picks and chooses words and phrases from Policy and Code, and uses them to promote adoption of the Project as proposed.

The importance of views to and of upland slopes including intervening ridgelines, culminating in uppermost ridgelines, is very clearly expressed in the language and intent of Chapter 9.

However, the EIR authors parse the language of Chapter 9 and its implementing Code very differently – choosing to focus almost exclusively on visual impact only as it regards protruding above the highest ridgeline. That, by plain reading of the text, is a very narrow and inappropriate interpretation of both the language and intent of Chapter 9.

The intention of broad interpretation of protection of views of visual resources is clearly affirmed in the California Coastal Commission (CCC) findings regarding the fire tower appeal of 2016 (Attachment B). While allowing the fire tower, as a 24 foot wide “fleeting” intrusion into the ridgeline, set back approximately 250 feet from the highway, they clearly affirmed the importance and validity of the overarching intent and language of visual resources protections in the LUP in force at the time (these protections were continued into the revision of the LUP adopted in 2020).

Excerpts from CCC Substantial Issue Determination (Attachment B) regarding the fire tower appeal of 2016 follow, emphasis added for clarity: (Chapter 7 of the earlier LUP referenced here is now Chapter 9 of the current LUP). Note, these are the words of the CCC:
“The IP clearly intends to protect the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas, allow development only when it is visually compatible with the character of the surrounding areas, and conserve and enhance important visual resources within the City, including views of the inland hillsides at the eastern edge of the city as expressed by IP Sections 18.01.010(G) and

18.37.010(A) and (E), cited above. Specifically regarding development in upland slopes areas, IP Section 18.37.035(C) requires that new development be sited so as to not intrude or project above the ridge line skyline as seen from Highways 1 and 92.” AND
“Although the City-approved project is not located on an upland slope, that does not mean that the ridgeline protection policies don’t apply. Indeed, the LCP intent is to protect the views of the eastern hillsides, including avoiding development that projects above the ridgeline (see, for example, LUP Policy 7-10 and IP Section 18.01.010(G) cited above). In addition, the LCP makes clear that the area within 200 yards of Highway 1 is a scenic corridor to which specific requirements adhere. The City has taken the position, however, that these requirements only apply if the area is mapped on the visual resources map. Such interpretation is not adequately protective of visual resources, however.” AND
279
“In its final resolution, the City acknowledges that the subject site is located within 200 yards of Highway 1, therefore requiring the application of LCP Policy 7-10, which states in the second sentence that “[s]tructures shall be subordinate in appearance to the natural landform, shall be designed to follow natural contours of the landscape, and shall be sited so as not to intrude into the skyline as seen from public viewing places.” This is appropriate as the LCP intent is clear in that it means to protect the scenic quality of the hillsides along the City’s eastern boundary, and it would be inappropriate (and not protective of this resource) to try to imply only certain such views are protected, and others not, because of mapping inadequacies.

With respect to the Highway 1 corridor protections, the LCP has a variety of requirements that affect the proposed project, including that development shall remain at or below twenty-eight feet in height, shall not interfere with any views of scenic coastal areas, shall be located where least visible from the public view, and shall be designed to maintain a low height above natural grade (see IP Sections 18.37.030 (A)(3) and (B)(1), (2) and (5)). Ultimately, when read in conjunction, LCP Chapter 7 and the IP consistently describe an overall LCP intent to protect Highway 1 corridor and ridgeline vistas, including the Highway 1 scenic corridor (at least 200 yards out from the edge on either side of Highway 1) and the City’s eastern hills, thus requiring an analysis of the City-approved project’s consistency with all relevant provisions, including all those that refer to visual concerns related to the inland ridgelines and Highway 1 views.”
Laborious flogging of the terminology “hillsides”, “inland hills”, “eastern hills” is necessary in light of the EIR authors’ insistence that views of the ridgeline are important whereas views of the hillsides are not. The logical end of the EIR’s position is that development that eclipses 99% of the views of the inland hills is allowed, but as long as there is a glimpse of the uppermost ridgeline, it’s all good. That is obviously absurd, and plainly contrary to the intent of Policy and Code.

The LUP has been updated since the fire tower issue was decided, but the intent and protections of the pre-2020 LUP have carried forward unchanged, and in great detail, to the current, approved and adopted LUP.

To this point, CCC would likely disagree with the following EIR contention that Policy 9-1 does not apply to this Project, and EI contention that the Project is consistent with Policy 9-1:

From Att_2_CDP_Reso_Ex_A_Findings document for 10/9/2024 PC meeting:
“Policy 9-1. Scenic and Visual Resource Areas. Identify and protect scenic and visual resource areas in Half Moon Bay, including but not limited to the scenic corridors, natural resource areas, and built environment resources as defined in this chapter and designated on Figure 9-1.

Compliance: Figure 9-1 (Scenic and Visual Resource Areas) shows the location of visual resource areas, including upland slopes, none of which occur on the project site. Policies limiting development on upland slopes do not apply to this project because no development on upland slopes is proposed. Other policies better address development at lower elevations for the protection of upland slopes.”
Therefore, having established that City Policy and Code have the clear intent of protecting views of hillsides, upland slopes and intervening ridgelines as well as the uppermost ridgeline, and this policy having the affirmation of validity from CCC, we can move on to the next component of complaint about inadequacy of the EIR with respect to visual resources:
280
FEIR p 1-8, pdf pg10:
“The view from the southern Downtown gateway intersection of SR-1 and Higgins Canyon Road (Viewpoint 2) provides a view of an open field, and of the protected ridgeline view. The ridgeline represents both a scenic vista and a scenic resource, per the LCLUP. As shown in Figure 5-9 (Appendix 3.0-A of the Final EIR) Modified Alternative 2 would not interfere with the long-range views of the ridgeline for Viewpoint 2 (same as the Original Project).” Image of Viewpoint 2 with visual simulation is found on FEIR p 5-30, pdf p 588. It is true that from so far to the south, ridgeline views are not impacted, but hillside views are.

FEIR p 5-50, pdf pg 608
“The protected view of the ridgeline (available from Viewpoint 3) would not be obstructed by the structures associated with Modified Alternative 2. As such, Modified Alternative 2 would not result in a significant and unavoidable impact to protected scenic vistas and visual resources within a scenic corridor in the Coastal Zone, and would therefore be environmentally superior for this environmental criterion”
Image of Viewpoint 3 with visual simulation is found on FEIR p 5-31, pdf p 589 Combining discussion of both Viewpoint 2 and Viewpoint 3:

FEIR p 2-14, pdf pg 28
“Modified Alternative 2, is smaller than the Original Project and does not intrude into the ridgeline as presented in Viewpoints 2 and 3.”
However, this language in the FEIR is problematically contradicted by the following within the same document:

FEIR Section 5.3.2, p 5-7, pdf p 565:
“Impact AES-1. The project would have a Substantial Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista.

Significant and Unavoidable. The project would interfere with the protected long-range views of the ridgelines north and east of the project site from SR-1 (Viewpoint 3). Although screening techniques and other design considerations would be used, the mass and scale of the proposed development would obstruct views of the protected ridgeline from SR-1. This is a significant and unavoidable impact.”
So, you might ask, if the EIR has declared that there are Significant and Unavoidable Impacts, which can only be bypassed through a adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, why belabor the point?
All of the foregoing is to demonstrate the effect of the discrepancy between the EIR focusing solely on intrusion into the ridgeline, versus the overarching and clear intent of the LUP, and Coastal Commission interpretation of LUP, that views of the inland hills and intervening ridgelines are of equal importance. Ridgeline interruption is an example of intrusion upon views of protected visual resources, not the only situation in which protected visual resources can be impacted.

By inappropriately narrowing the focus of evaluation to that of intrusion into views of ridgeline, rather than the more general views of the hillsides and ridgelines, the EIR is attempting to present the impact upon visual resources as isolated and inconsequential impacts.

As previously mentioned, this is inconsistent with the intent of the LUP, and inconsistent with prior CCC interpretation of City LUP.
281
Cherrypicking of viewpoints to minimize perception of impacts: Further, by very carefully choosing Viewpoint 2 and Viewpoint 3, and by making believe that these viewpoints are the only locations worthy of evaluation of viewshed impacts, for the public traversing the designated scenic visual corridor of Highway 1, the EIR is able to artificially minimize the overall impact of the massing of the building to these two discrete and artificially selected locations.

Even at that, it is important to call out the selectiveness of the Viewpoints used, and to demonstrate conclusively how they were chosen with intent to keep visual impact within a perceived “acceptable” level.

Following is a photo taken September 25, 2024, shortly after new story poles were reinstalled.

This photo was taken from the northbound lanes of Highway 1, to replicate the location and viewing angle of EIR Viewpoint 3 (Image of Viewpoint 3 with visual simulation is found on FEIR p 5-31, pdf p 589), over 300 feet south of the hotel buildings. The upper and lateral boundaries of the structures as delineated by installed story poles and flagging lines were outlined and then masked to provide a real-world simulation of the impact of the buildings upon visual resources.

This real world, current view and masking comports fairly closely with that of the simulation in EIR Viewpoint 3, although the current photo puts the top of the buildings right at the ridgeline, whereas EIR Viewpoint 3 simulation has them slightly below.

Viewpoint 3, >300’ south of southern aspect of hotel buildings, current story poles, with masking (by author of this submission)
In any case, the EIR declares under Impact AES-1 that from this Viewpoint 3, more than 300 feet south of the buildings, the mass of the building does interfere with long-range ridgeline views.

The implication is that this is as bad as it gets – and that would be consistent with conservative evaluation procedures required by CEQA -- if only it were true.

However, if one proceeds only 150 feet further north on Highway 1, the same viewing angle of the mass of the hotel buildings gives us the following, current and real world impact:
282
150’ feet north of Viewpoint 3, over 150’ from southern aspect of hotel buildings (by author of this submission)
As you can see, a small shift northward results in a significantly more pronounced impact to visual resources. The building is clearly above the uppermost ridgeline from this viewpoint. And, at this point we are still ~200 feet south of the southernmost extent of the hotel buildings. These impacts continue to increase in severity and noticeability (if that’s a word) over the next 700 feet of northward travel. I encourage the Commissioners to use their own eyes to validate these findings.
~230’ north of Viewpoint 3, though still ~80’ south of the Hotel buildings (by author of this submission), viewshed impacts further increased.
283
The point of this evidence is to illustrate that by utilizing only two carefully chosen and isolated viewpoints, and inappropriately focusing only on intrusions into the ridgeline, the EIR was able to just barely reduce the visual impacts to a level where they had to admit to them, but they are not at all representative of the experience of the loss of protected views of the inland hills, intervening ridgelines, and uppermost ridgeline, whether traveling north or south on SR-1 (a designated visual corridor, to which protections apply) past the project site.

While ignoring the reality of the mass of the building obscuring significant portion of protected views of hills, hillsides and intervening ridges, the only way the EIR authors are able to present the hotel buildings as not projecting into the uppermost ridgeline is to view the hotel buildings from more than 300 feet from the southern aspect of the proposed hotel buildings. This is why Viewpoint 3 was carefully chosen. From every point further north of that, protected views are impacted definitively and more significantly as one processes along SR-1 northbound; the buildings protrude above the ridgeline, and obscures progressively more of the protected upland slopes and intervening ridgelines. To purposely ignore this in the EIR is simply wrong.

Traveling in the southbound direction, the impact to visual resources is apparent from opposite the existing Ford dealership, with increasing impacts as one travels south. No viewpoints from southbound SR-1 were used in the EIR, a failing of both process and analysis, and of oversight of the EIR by City Staff. To purposely ignore this in the EIR is simply wrong. Photos of Project as viewed from southbound SR-1 are in Attachment D to this document.

And please realize that all of this was by design in the EIR:

At FEIR pg 2-440, pg 454 of pdf, Response to Comments C-83.36, the EIR states: “These views (VP-2, VP-3) include the most significantly impacted views of the upland slopes from SR-1.” This is patently and knowing false. All other conclusions within the EIR based upon this false statement must therefore be discarded.

Previously entered as public comment in the DEIR are photos of the 2022 installation of story poles from multiple vantage points along the scenic corridor, shown against the backdrop of existing views of inland hills, intervening ridges, and uppermost ridgelines. These photos were not masked for massing simulation, but are part of the administrative record, they show the vertical poles and flagging lines against the background of the hills, and are there available for your inspection and comparison.

The reinstallation of story poles in 2024 has not materially changed the visual impacts, as the overall height of the building has remained at 33’9”. The overall frontage of the building has actually increased by 16 feet compared with 2022, with the increase of the breezeway space between the two buildings. This much vaunted increased gap between buildings however is appreciated only if one is directly opposite this gap, and looking at 90° off axis from direction of travel on the highway – a fleeting improvement, and insignificant as compared with the 500 foot frontage of the hotel buildings.

Additional updated photos, of the current 2024 story poles, both as seen now and with masking, are available for viewing at www.KeepHMBscenic.org In the interest of keeping the size of this document “reasonable”, these photos are not included in this written document, but are provided as attachments electronically, to be considered part of the administrative record on this project (Attachment D).
284

6. issues of precedent
a. Discussed previously is the fire tower appeal to CCC of 2016, wherein the CCC affirmed the importance of protection of views of inland hills, hillsides, and intervening ridges, as well as the uppermost ridgeline views.

Also in that decision document from CCC, they refer to the 24 foot wide intrusion of the fire tower into the ridgeline as a “fleeting” impact. This is relevant to discussion of the current EIR and Project, and will be referenced later in this submission. b. In 2022 the HMB Planning Commission denied an application for a Caltrans project of an electronic message sign to be placed at the southern border of city limits, on the northbound side of SR-1. The proposed sign measured 5’ x 12’. It would be activated only in times of emergency road conditions with advisories to travelers. As such, approximately 99% of the time it would present simply as a black square, flat feature.

The Findings for Denial, (Attachment C) drafted by Staff at the instruction of Planning Commission, and approved by Planning Commission in 2022 cited non-compliance with the following regulations:
• Coastal Act Section 30251
• LUP Policy 9-1
• LUP Policy 9-2
• LUP Policy 9-12
Based on Planning Commission finding that a 5’ x 12’, typically inactive and blank message display was noncompliant with numerous significant LUP and Coastal Act provisions, that should inform decisions on a new development, unique to the setting, and out of character with surrounding development, with a height of 34 feet, and frontage of nearly 500 feet, along SR-1, with EIR-acknowledged Significant and Unavoidable impacts to protected visual resources.

Summary re: precedent: A 24-foot wide intrusion to the ridgeline could be considered “fleeting”, and development was allowed to proceed for that project. A 5’ x 12’ inactive roadside message sign could be considered “fleeting”, yet was denied on the basis of impact to visual resources. The subject proposed 34’ x 500’ hotel frontage, with acknowledged Significant and Unavoidable impacts to Visual Resources, cannot be considered as “fleeting” in nature by comparison, and should not be approved.

7. lack of consistency with Policy and Code, specific sections The overarching intent of Chapter 9 of the LUP was discussed above, on page 12. With specific references to views of inland hills highlighted, this clearly establishes the high-level goals of the Scenic and Visual Resources sections of the LUP.

To this, we must add the following:

Local Coastal Land Use Program, Ch 3, p 36 (LCLUP):
“The small-town character is a leading draw for coastal visitors. Upscaling infrastructure to accommodate visitors and growth will be at cross purposes with maintaining the desirability of this area that visitors seek.”
285
Concisely and eloquently stated, this unneeded project is inconsistent with the controlling, high-level development guidelines for the city.

From the Policies section of the LCLUP, section 3-36, regarding traffic and circulation:
“To the extent feasible, limit the approval of new higher trip generating development. “ This is clearly a “higher trip generating development”, with the EIR estimating 575 vehicle trips per day, over 209,000 extra trips per year. Stated City objectives for the Project could be met in large part with a smaller project on the site, which would also serve the goals of reducing impacts to Visual Resources.

Additional points of non-compliance with prominent portions of the LUP, emphasis added for clarity:
(these concerns are discussed in more detail in public comment made on the DEIR, incorporated by reference here, and available for your inspection in that document) “9-1. Scenic and Visual Resource Areas. Identify and protect scenic and visual resource areas in Half Moon Bay, including but not limited to the scenic corridors, natural resource areas, and built environment resources as defined in this chapter and designated on Figure 9-1.” Comment on 9-1: Project fails to protect scenic and visual resource areas, is noncompliant with 9-1. EIR maintains Project is compliant with 9-1, this reader disagrees based on points of evidence.
“9-3 Visual Quality. Preserve and enhance the unique visual quality that contributes to Half Moon Bay’s coastal and small-town character, including its open, expansive views from the coastal terrace to the beaches, bluffs, ocean, and upland slopes.” Comment on 9-3: EIR states Project is NON-compliant, this reader agrees based on points of evidence.
“9-5. Visual Impact Evaluation. Where any development is proposed within a scenic and visual resource area, including as designated on Figure 9-1, a site-specific visual impact evaluation shall be required and may include visual simulations, story poles, and/or other means of visual assessment as appropriate based on the type and location of development” Comment on 9-5: referencing previous concerns about lack of full definition and description of project, story poles have not been provided for the townhome component of this Project. EIR maintains Project is compliant with 9-5, this reader disagrees based on points of evidence.
“Policies – Development Standards 9-6. Site Planning and Design for New Development.

Require new development to be subject to design review to ensure it is sited and designed to protect public views of scenic and visual resource areas and to be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area. Measures to be considered may include, but are not limited to the following: a. Siting development in the least visible portion of the site; b.

Breaking up the mass of new structures; c. Designing structures to blend into the surrounding natural landscape; d. Restricting building maximum size and height” Comment on 9-6: Unambiguous language of “ensure” protection of public views of scenic and visual resource areas; the Project is non-compliance. Project is not visually compatible with character of surrounding areas. To achieve those goals, restricting building maximum size and height is stated as a method to be used, that has not been applied in this 286
case to protect visual resources adequately. The fact that the design has incorporated aspects of conditions a. and b. here is noted, however, the extent to which these approaches have been utilized has not been successful to the controlling requirement of protecting public views of scenic and visual resources areas. EIR maintains Project is compliant with 9-6, this reader disagrees based on points of evidence.
“Policies - Scenic Corridors 9-12. Town Boulevard Scenic Corridor. Require that new development in close proximity to or easily visible from the Town Boulevard scenic corridor, including Highways 1 and 92: a. Protects views of visual resource areas as seen from the Town Boulevard, including views to the ocean, upland slopes (i.e. minimizes intrusions into the ridgeline), and the historic Johnston House;”
“Update the IP with additional standards for new development along the Town Boulevard based on additional study of the scenic corridor. Assessment should, at a minimum, consider views of visual resource areas from the perspective of existing and potential development along the Town Boulevard and identify scenic segments along Highway 1 and 92, including views of the ridgelines and other visual resource areas. Development standards should address, at a minimum, appropriate building heights and setbacks....” Comment on 9-12: Project is noncompliant with requirement to protect views of visual resources areas including upland slopes and ridgeline views. The repetition of these conditions from one LUP section to another reinforces the importance and primacy of these provisions.

EIR states Project is NON-compliant with 9-12, this reader agrees based on points of evidence. “9-23. Upland Slopes and Ridgelines. Protect broad views of upland slopes, prominent ridgelines and other intervening ridgelines as viewed from scenic corridors and the beach and shoreline through the following means:
a. Prohibiting new development above the 160-foot contour line and on slopes greater than 30 percent, including grading and subdivisions but excluding public trails and critical facilities or public infrastructure that cannot be located elsewhere; b. Ensuring new development below the 160-foot contour line is sited and designed to minimize intrusions into the ridgeline through the application of appropriate height and setback restrictions
c. Establishing standards for the Town Boulevard, other streetscapes, and large-scale landscaping projects to highlight and frame, but not block, views of visual resource areas.” Comment on 9-23: This section reemphasizes the requirement to protect broad views of upland slopes, ridgelines and other intervening ridgelines as viewed from scenic corridors. This language is unambiguous and quite clear to plain interpretation. EIR states Project is NONcompliant with 9-23, this reader agrees based on points of evidence.

When we consider City Code, which is the Implementation of the LUP, the project is not in compliance with the following sections: (emphasis added for clarity) “Chapter 14.37
ARCHITECTURAL, LANDSCAPE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW”
“14.37.035 Design approval criteria.

G. The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures and environment in the immediate area. 287
J. The design shall promote harmonious transition in scale and character in areas located between different designated land uses.”
Project is noncompliant with both G and J.

Re: G.: It is in fact by far outsized compared to all other development existing in the area, failing clause G. EIR authors and Staff maintain otherwise, falsely.

Re: J.: As the largest structure in this area, and the largest structure in Half Moon Bay, except for Ritz, and located at the highly visible entrance to be built environment of downtown, the Project as proposed cannot plausibly be considered to promote harmonious transition between different land use areas. Immediately south of the city zoning map is a strip of Urban Reserve, vacant. To the south on the same side of the highway open farmland, designated by County.

Across the highway and immediately south of the large open field of Wavecrest – this is currently a PUD, like the subject parcel, but with a differing land use designation of “Rural Coastal” (DEIR pg 4.11-3, Fig 4.11-1, pdf pg 299) For all practical purposes, this parcel is and will remain open space. Therefore, the proposed project does not promote harmonious transition as compared with surrounding parcels and designated land uses, and is noncompliant with J.

Consultant response to this concern as raised in the DEIR was non-substantive in nature. (point 11 of objections)
And, at FEIR pg 2-440, pg 454 of pdf, Response to Comments C-83.36, the EIR states: “These views (VP-2, VP-3) include the most significantly impacted views of the upland slopes from SR1.” This is patently and knowing false. All other conclusions within the EIR based upon this false statement must therefore be discarded.
“Chapter 18.37 VISUAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS

18.37.010 Purpose and intent.

The specific purpose and intent of these visual resource protection standards are to:

A. Protect the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas as a resource of public importance.

B. Ensure that new development is located so as to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas.

C. Minimize the alteration of natural land forms.

D. Restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.

E. Allow development only when it is visually compatible with the character of the surrounding areas. (1996 zoning code (part)).”
Project is noncompliant with the clear intent and language of highlighted sections of 18.37.010.

Consultant response to this concern as raised in the DEIR was.non-substantive in nature. (point 11 of objections)
288
“18.37.020 Visual resources areas
B. Upland Slopes. Scenic hillsides which are visible from Highway One and Highway 92, as indicated on the visual resources overlay map. These areas occur include hillside areas above the one hundred sixty foot elevation contour line...”

18.37.020 is referenced here as it affirms that the hillside areas are considered visual resources, not only the uppermost ridgeline.
“18.37.030 Scenic corridor standards.

B. Development within the Highway One corridor and scenic corridors along all designated shoreline access routes as indicated on the visual resources overlay map where existing permits or development does not exist. In general, structures shall be:

1. Situated and designed to protect any views of the ocean and scenic coastal areas.“ Please note the text in this section which is both bold and underlined: The language and intent of this section clearly protects views of all portions of the hillsides, intervening ridgelines, and uppermost ridgeline, which have been previously decided defined as being part of designated “scenic coastal areas”. The specific language “Situated and designed to protect any views of… scenic coastal areas” unambiguously prohibits this Project or any other development blocking views of inland hillsides, intervening ridges, and uppermost ridgeline. Therefore, the Project is noncompliant with 18.37.030.

Consultant response to this concern as raised in the DEIR was.non-substantive in nature. (point 11 of objections)
In summary, the discussion of deficiencies of the EIR, points 4, 5, 6, 7 as discussed preceding:

While the EIR admits to Significant and Unavoidable impacts visual resources under multiple sections of the LUP, it is important to note that the EIR consistently minimizes the extent of those Significant and Unavoidable impacts to barely above that threshold. They do so by inappropriately maintaining that impacts of import are those of impacts to the views of the uppermost ridgeline only, and they ignore the impact of the Project upon views of upland slopes, hillsides, and intervening ridgelines.

It bears repeating: At FEIR pg 2-440, pg 454 of pdf, Response to Comments C-83.36, the EIR states: “These views (VP-2, VP-3) include the most significantly impacted views of the upland slopes from SR-1.” This is patently and knowing false. All other conclusions within the EIR based upon this false statement must therefore be discarded.

If the EIR is successful in persuading Planning Commission that their analysis is valid, it is therefore easier for Staff to make the argument through the Statement of Overriding Considerations that the impacts, while legally defined as Significant and Unavoidable, are “not that bad”, and easier to negate through the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

Seeing as how the analysis is flawed, the conclusions which are based upon that analysis cannot be considered valid.

In addition to the lack of consideration given to the impact upon views of protected hillsides and intervening ridgelines, the other prominent deficiency of analysis is that of allowing admission of visual impact as Significant and Unavoidable only from Viewpoint 2 and Viewpoint 3. In fact, there are impermissible significant and unavoidable impacts protected views long stretches as viewed from both northbound and southbound travel SR-1. In the southbound travel direction, 289
this is conservatively estimated at 500 linear feet of view impact. In the northbound travel direction, approximately linear 800 feet of unambiguous view impact.

By limiting analysis of impact to protected views to isolated points of Viewpoint 2 and Viewpoint 3, the EIR described impacts to views as “fleeting” (FEIR pg 1-8, pdf pg 10). “Fleeting” is not a term defined under CEQA. However, we do have precedent on this, in writing, directly from CCC regarding the fire tower appeal of 2016. There, the CCC allowed development of the fire tower, which had a 24 foot wide protrusion into the ridgeline, set back over 250 feet from the highway. This 24 foot wide impact to visual resources, 250 feet back from the highway, was specifically described as “fleeting”. Given that the hotel buildings, and then adding the yet undefined townhome component, is on the order of 500 feet linear feet of direct frontage, it is not possible to define or describe the visual impact of Project here as “fleeting”.

All of this is to say that Significant and Unavoidable impacts upon protected visual resources by the subject Project are in fact considerably more significant, noticeable and severe than the EIR would like to admit.

8. wetland buffer setback for townhomes vs. hotel buildings With Modified Alternative 2 being considered, there was a recent design change not accounted for in the analysis. Increasing the space between the two main buildings by 16 feet expands the frontage, but also changes the relationship of building footprints to the 100 foot wetland area buffer required. This modification should be checked against the wetland delineation map to determine if the Project complies when this modification is applied.

The DEIR properly imposed a 100 foot wetland buffer upon the entire Project, including the townhome component. In the FEIR, Staff recommends a reduced buffer of 50 feet for the townhome component, pursuant to LCLUP Policy 6-41, part b, to allow for additional (but not adequately specified) development of the townhome component.

Relevant references follow:

From DEIR p 5-31, p 471 of pdf:
“Mitigation Measure BIO-4a: The subdivision plans for the reduced intensity alternative, Alternative 2, shall be revised to ensure that all of the resulting parcels can be developed without intrusion into the 100-foot wetland buffer so as to be consistent with Policy 6-57 Land Divisions of the 2020 LCLUP.”
From FEIR p 1-7, p 9 of pdf
“By comparison, Modified Alternative 2 conforms with LCLUP Policy 6-57 because all proposed parcels can be developed without encroachment into an ESHA or being located within the 50- foot ESHA buffer.”
From FEIR p 5-35, p 593 of pdf.
“Mitigation Measure BIO-4b: Residential development of the subdivided 1.15-acre site north of Seymour Street shall comply with all applicable wetland buffer requirements, specifically the 50-foot wetland buffer allowed by LCLUP Policy 6-41, part b.“ Apparently, something changed between the time of the DEIR and the FEIR.

It is the decision of Planning Commission to accept or reject Staff recommendations as to whether or not the reduced buffer should apply to the townhome component of the Project. 290
This conflict highlights again the previously stated problem that this Project is not fully and adequately defined, as is required by CEQA. Without adequate and complete description and definition, complete and thorough analysis cannot be completed. This additionally highlights the previously raised issue of piecemealing, by making some, but not all of the determinations necessary for the townhome component, which is clearly acknowledged as part of the larger and complete Project.

To put it plainly, Planning Commission cannot approve a project for which there is not a full and adequate definition and description.

9. traffic mitigation plan purely aspirational, without supporting documentation From FEIR pg 3-29, pdf 542
“Significance after Mitigation. As concluded from the Traffic Impact Study (Appendix H), implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, VMT levels would demonstrate a reduction of 15.4 percent through adherence to the TDM suite. Therefore, implementation of the project would result in less than significant impacts.”
What this language implies but does not explicitly state is that absent the aspirational TDM strategies, raw VMT/trip numbers from the Project would represent Significant and Unavoidable impacts, and therefore impermissible under CEQA.

It is also notably curious/convenient that the traffic measures proposed result in exactly 15.4% theoretical decrease, where 15.0% is the required goal per City Staff to decrease impact from Significant and Unavoidable to the level of Less Than Significant. Since all of this is pretty much made up, without any basis in actual experience or fact, it does seem that the results may have been manufactured to suit the goal. See the following:

Ref: FEIR p 5-41, pdf pg 599:
“4.15, Transportation and Traffic, the City of Half Moon Bay Staff has determined that a project that generates 15 (or more) percent less than the unmitigated project VMT, with the implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures, would indicate a less-than-significant VMT impact.”
Staff assigning 15% reduction to achieve LTS appears to be arbitrary in nature, it could have been 10%, or 20%, or any other number.

The EIR fails to cite any data or results from comparable hotel projects, (i.e., moderate size midto upper price range hotels, geographically isolated from major transit hubs (airports), and lacking service by public transportation in a meaningful fashion) where greater than 15% reduction in guest travel has been accomplished through similar TDM.

Additionally, the EIR contemplates VMT at 3965 miles per day – including all employee and supplier travel? Back of the envelope calculation says that the 3965 mile figure is suspiciously low, considering, in part, that anybody not flying in is likely to be driving a significant distance from somewhere else in California, or farther afield. All supplier travel is coming from over the hill, in low MPG heavy trucks, as compared with hotels on the Peninsula, where suppliers are close by.

All this adds to the uncertainty, speculation and assumptions which have miraculously led to decreasing VMT by exactly 15.4%, just barely over the 15.0% declared by Staff to reduce travel 291
impacts to LTS for this project. Skepticism over the VMT figures was a public comment on the DEIR, which did not receive substantive response in the FEIR. (point 11 of objections) Reality check:

It falls into the realm of wishful thinking that guests (families/couples) who have driven here, to stay in an expensive overnight accommodation, with all of their beach toys, children, etc., are going to opt for taking a shuttle to one of the local beaches. And then having to call for pickup when they want to come back, or go someplace else in a timely fashion to make the most of their vacation opportunity. Even worse, if that’s the only guest group being transported in a large, low MPG vehicle to/from the beach at that particular time, the shuttle vehicle would make a round-trip to drop them off, and another round-trip to pick them up, doubling VMT for that activity, as compared with a personally owned vehicle traveling to the beach, and then back to the hotel.

With relatively low daily guest volume (compared to an airport hotel for example), and remote from airports, it’s also quite unlikely that a shuttle service to and from SFO and SJC could be successfully implemented to the satisfaction of guests, or be operated in a fashion that decreases VMT and/or GHG emissions. If it’s not convenient, people are not going to use it, that’s the plain truth. Similarly to the paragraph above, if a low MPG vehicle is used on demand to go back and forth to the airport to transport a single guest group, that doubles the VMT and more than doubles the GHG output of the same guest group renting their own vehicle. On this point as well, it does not seem that the TDM proposed are practical in the real world.

In summary, at 575 estimated vehicle trips per day (EIR data), claims of LTS impact should be looked at skeptically.

10. hydrology/site runoff
Concern has been raised by another member of the public, posted to local NextDoor, regarding potential downstream impacts of this project. Specifically, the watercourse known as the Seymour Ditch has significant, ongoing, progressive erosion problems as it approaches the bluffs. The subject parcel here contributes drainage to the Seymour Ditch. With an additional 3 acres of hardscape, runoff is certain to increase, and during moderate to severe storm events, will most certainly overwhelm whatever on-site retention features are constructed. The EIR is silent on the subject of runoff to the Seymour Ditch. I am unaware of the total acreage of the watershed for Seymour, and how significant this might or might not be, but it has not been evaluated in the EIR. It is well-known that erosion of our drainage ditches is a source of great concern, contention, and litigation in Half Moon Bay.

Hydrology reality check:

From the EIR:
“A review of the FEMA Flood Zone Maps for San Mateo County indicates that the project site is not subject to flooding during a 100-year flood event The project site and immediate vicinity are designated as an unshaded “Zone X”, delineating a minimal flood risk hazard according to FEMA. “
There may be a technical definition or difference between “flooding” and “inundation”, but simple observation indicates that during moderate to severe prolonged storm events, more than 50% of this parcel is under 6 to 12 inches of water, quite regularly. With poor drainage, that standing water can persist for days, weeks or months (hence, wetlands…). 292
Photographic evidence of this persistent inundation as it occurred between December 2016 and March 2017 was previously submitted to the City (and incorporated here by reference).

That winter, the parcel was continuously inundated for at least three months.

This raises the very basic question of what will happen when 3 acres of the parcel (60%) is paved and built. The water has to go someplace, and given existing site conditions and historical observation, it seems unlikely that the proposed mitigation measures will be successful. It also seems extremely likely that the bike and pedestrian paths will be submerged consistently during storm events. There may also be damage to the first floor of the hotel structure itself, due to the volume of water that falls and accumulates on the site.

Despite the EIR authors’ claim that this is not going to be a problem, some additional consideration appears to be warranted. This may or may not be a specific CEQA concern, but is a practical consideration for development and operation of a (any) Project on this parcel.

12. Inconsistencies:

The following examples of multiple inconsistencies in the FEIR create in the mind of the reader confusion and uncertainty as to the validity other findings and conclusions of the EIR authors and of Staff.

1. page 5-51 of FEIR, pg 609 of pdf – discussing the parcel map for townhomes:
“The project does not include any residential units and will not support the City’s efforts to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the Cycle 6 Housing Element.” First, note that the townhome component was considered part of the Project at the time of the DEIR, so this statement is incorrect.

This is inconsistent with the Statement of Overriding Consideration verbiage:
“The Proposed Project will provide up to 16 residential units on property that is currently used for automobile parking and will contribute to the City meeting its 6th cycle RHNA housing obligations.”

2. From Att_2_CDP_Reso_Ex_A_Findings document for 10/9/2024 PC meeting:

In discussing compliance with California Coastal Act:
“Compliance: (snip)….The Project would be built on an already-developed site; would not impact environmentally sensitive habitat areas, agricultural lands, or coastal access; and would not have any adverse environmental effect. It also is located far from areas that are vulnerable to sea level rise.”
Inconsistencies:
• statement that project “would be built on an already developed site” is not true – baseline conditions are undeveloped land
• statement that project “would not impact agricultural lands” is not true -- there are mitigation measures in place for acknowledged impacts, i.e., loss of ag lands 293
• statement that project “would not have any adverse environmental effect” is not true – there are acknowledged Significant and Unavoidable impacts to visual resources.

Additionally, stating that the project would not have ANY adverse environmental effect is false. Even beyond the Significant and Unavoidable impacts acknowledged, there are VMT and greenhouse gas impacts which are described by the EIR as LTS, but very close o the upper limit of LTS, verging on Significant and Unavoidable. The assertion of compliance in this regard, that there are NO adverse environmental effects, as written by Staff, is inaccurate and untrue.

3. Previously noted inconsistencies in the FEIR regarding Significant and Unavoidable Impact AES1 : The EIR at different points says that obstruction of views into the ridgeline both will and will not occur from Viewpoint 3. This inconsistency can reasonably cause confusion in the mind of the reader, and cast doubt on other conclusions within the FEIR:

Ref: Top paragraph on page 2-432 of FEIR, pg 446 of pdf “Modified Alternative 2 was found to not impact protected views of the ridgelines as demonstrated from Viewpoints 2 and 3. Therefore, Modified Alternative 2 would be consistent with LCLUP Policy 9-2, where the Original Project would be inconsistent.” AND:

Ref: Top paragraph on page 5-26 of FEIR, pg 584 of pdf
“Modified Alternative 2 will not introduce interferences with the ridgeline view.” Vs:

FEIR Section 5.3.2, p 5-7, pdf p 565:
“Impact AES-1. The project would have a Substantial Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista.

Significant and Unavoidable. The project would interfere with the protected long-range views of the ridgelines north and east of the project site from SR-1 (Viewpoint 3). Although screening techniques and other design considerations would be used, the mass and scale of the proposed development would obstruct views of the protected ridgeline from SR-1. This is a significant and unavoidable impact.”
These inconsistencies in the document can create in the mind of the reader confusion and uncertainty as to the validity other findings and conclusions of the EIR authors and of Staff.

It must be noted that in making a determination of Significant and Unavoidable impacts, the EIR does call out noncompliance with multiple sections of the LUP: 9-3, 9-12. 9-23. In the opinion of the author of this submission, the Project in non-compliant with additional sections of the LUP, Secs 9-1, 9-5, 9-6.

It would be possible to present many more pages of inconsistencies and deficiencies of this EIR document. But I believe at this point it is not necessary, and that the foregoing, in total, more than adequately demonstrates:

1. adequate basis for Planning Commission to decline to certify the Environmental Impact Report for the Half Moon Bay Hyatt Place Project, decline to adopt CEQA Findings and a 294
Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Measures, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and

2. decline to approve PDP-072-13, an application for a Coastal Development Permit, Site and Architectural Review, Parking Exception, and Tentative Parcel Map and all associated conditions,
for the Project as currently proposed, and as it is described in the FEIR as Modified Alternative 2.

Planning Commission should therefore direct Staff to draft Findings for Denial regarding certification of the EIR, and for denial of the CDP; to be acted upon at the next Planning Commission meeting.

I would hope that the City is able to communicate clearly to the Applicant, that this is not intended to deny him investment backed expectations for realizing profit from his property; simply that any development on this parcel must comply with existing Policy and Code. A project of lower height and mass should be able to be approved with minimal difficulty or delay.

Respectfully,
David Schorr
Half Moon Bay, California
295
Public Comment

01.29.2025 thru 01.30.2025

01.30.2025 City Council Meeting
Hyatt Proposed Project PDP-072-013
1) Krstina Beckman
2) Sara Polgar
3) Jan Gray
From: Kristina Beckman
Date: Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 8:32 AM
Subject: Hyatt Hotel
To: <RBrownstone>, DRuddock; pjonsson <pnagengast>, Deborah Penrose Dear Council Members,
Before tonight’s meeting about the Hyatt Hotel, I want to let you know that I am very much against its construction.

I have written a couple letters to the editor of the HMB Review about my thoughts about the Hyatt.

My main objections are the proposed location and size of it, particularly its height.

I live in Canada Cove and I absolutely love the views of the hills as I drive back and forth to town. In spite of what others say….that the view is fleeting, that it isn't even a great view, that the hotel won’t obstruct all of the view, or my least favorite….get over it, that the city needs the tax revenue, or the Mr Jameson has been waiting too long already, I truly disagree with ALL of that!
The view of the hills IS SPECIAL and important for the character of HMB.

And as far as I know, with the exception of PF weekend, the hotels here on the coast are seldom at full occupancy.

To further clarify, I am not opposed to more hotel rooms in general, but I am Vehemently opposed to the construction this particular proposed monstrosity.

When the time comes for you to vote on Mr. Jameson’s appeal of his proposal, Please vote”NO”.

Thank you for your attention,
Kristina Beckman
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
From: Sara Polgar
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 11:16 AM
To: rbrownstone; Debbie Ruddock; pjonsson; pnagengast>; dpenrose jblair 296
Public Comment

01.29.2025 thru 01.30.2025

01.30.2025 City Council Meeting
Hyatt Proposed Project PDP-072-013
Cc: dgarrison; llacko
Subject: Comment on Hyatt Place Hotel Project Appeal 1/30/2025 (Please include the following comment in the public record for the January 30, 2025 hearing on the appeal regarding the Hyatt Place Hotel Project)
Dear City Council Members,
My name is Sara Polgar and I have been a Half Moon Bay resident and community member for more than 16 years. I care deeply about our community’s vitality and I am an avid supporter of protecting and stewarding coastside open space. As a member of the GPAC and a former planning commissioner who helped develop and approve HMB’s local coastal program and land use plan, I am experienced with our coastal development policies and how they apply to projects such as the Hyatt Place Hotel Project. I am also very familiar with the evolution of this specific project through two rounds of review and feedback in 2020 and 2021 while serving on the Planning Commission. I have continued to track the project over the years and I spoke in favor of it at the October 9, 2024 Planning Commission hearing.

The Hyatt Place Hotel Project should have been approved by the Planning Commission in October 2024. Contrary to the findings of denial, the local coastal program and land use plan (LCPLUP) policies relating to protected views do not preclude this project. In applying these policies, context matters and it is wrong to evaluate this project in a vacuum as if it would affect pristine, untouched protected views and decide on it without consideration of the setting, actual existing conditions and relative impacts, as well as the ways in which it has been carefully designed and planned to minimize and mitigate impacts.

In this case, the project is located on the east side of Highway 1 and within the Town Center where the LCPLUP calls for future development to be “concentrated in support of a vibrant, walkable core area.” Protected views impacted by this project are already significantly blocked by immediately adjacent development and vegetation on Highway 1 and Main Street.

Furthermore, the project has been carefully designed and planned with significant input from the community, Architectural Advisory Committee and past Planning Commissions to minimize relevant impacts, which is what LCPLUP policies 9-12 and 9-23 require. It is also consistent with policy 9-3. Through multiple design iterations, the applicant reduced the buildings size and spacing and integrated community feedback into their look and feel to achieve a project that is certainly consistent with preserving and enhancing the visual quality of the South Downtown portion of the Town Center where this project is located.

Setting aside policy, I also want to say that it is my opinion this is a really good project and it is no accident that is such. The applicant, a fellow community member who clearly cares deeply about HMB, has spent years working in good faith with the City and community to achieve this.

I urge you to grant the appeal to reverse the Planning Commission’s decision, certify the EIR and adopt CEQA findings and a statement of overriding considerations and associated mitigation measures and monitoring and reporting, and approve PDP-072-13.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
297
Public Comment

01.29.2025 thru 01.30.2025

01.30.2025 City Council Meeting
Hyatt Proposed Project PDP-072-013
Sara Polgar
Half Moon Bay Resident
From: "Gray, Jan"
Date: January 30, 2025 at 11:53:50 AM PST
To: citycouncil
Subject: Hyatt Hotel
Of course I support this hotel addition…. The developers have done everything asked of them… the zoning calls for a hotel.

Please vote yes and allow our town to add this project to benefit the visiting public and to benefit our city treasury.

Jan Gray
298