Agenda packet — Half Moon Bay City Council, January 30, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

SPECIAL MEETING

CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 2025

HYBRID MEETING (SEE NEXT PAGE)

ADCOCK COMMUNITY CENTER
535 KELLY AVENUE
HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019
Robert Brownstone, Mayor
Debbie Ruddock, Vice Mayor
Patric Jonsson, Councilmember
Paul Nagengast, Councilmember
Deborah Penrose, Councilmember
6:00 PM
This agenda contains a brief description of each item to be considered. Those wishing to address the City Council on any matter not listed on the agenda, but within the jurisdiction of the City Council to resolve, may come forward to the podium during the Public Forum portion of the agenda and will have a maximum of three minutes to discuss their item.

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

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

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

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, special assistance for participation in this meeting can be obtained by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at 650-726-8271. A 48-hour notification will enable the City to make reasonable accommodations to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). http://hmbcity.com/
Wi-Fi: HMB Public
Password: Recreation1
1 HYBRID MEETING PARTICIPATION PROTOCOLS
This meeting will be held in-person and via Zoom for public participation. Remote participation is provided as a supplemental way to provide public comment, but this method does not always work. The public is encouraged to attend in person to ensure full participation. Public comments may be made in-person or remotely via Zoom, and interpretation will be available. All Councilmembers and staff will participate in person. During any public comment portions, attendees may use the “raise your hand” feature and will be called upon and unmuted when it is their turn to speak. The meeting will also be streamed on Channel 27, on pacificcoast.tv, and on Facebook at www.facebook.com/cityofhalfmoonbay. Please click to join the webinar: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87674804231 or join by phone at 669-900-9128, using Webinar ID 876-7480- 4231. If joining by phone, use *9 to raise your hand, *6 to mute and unmute.

CONVENE SPECIAL MEETING

ROLL CALL / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

1. ORDINANCES AND PUBLIC HEARINGS

1.A APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO DENY THE HYATT PLACE HOTEL

PROJECT - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW,

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, PARKING EXCEPTION, AND CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR A 102-ROOM HOTEL WITH ASSOCIATED SITE

IMPROVEMENTS AND A FOUR-LOT SUBDIVISION FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 16 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS, FILE NO. PDP-072-13
Staff Recommendation: That the City Council, by Resolution either: 1) Deny the appeal, affirming the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the project, based upon the Findings and Evidence contained in Exhibit A of the draft resolution (Attachment 1); OR 2) Grant the appeal, reversing the Planning Commission’s decision, and a) 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 based upon the Findings and Evidence contained in the draft resolution (Attachment 2); and
b) 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 based upon the Findings and Evidence contained in the draft resolution (Attachment 3).

STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT 1 - Resolution for Denial
ATTACHMENT 2 - CEQA Resolution
ATTACHMENT 3 - Resolution for Approval
2 ATTACHMENT 4 - Plans
ATTACHMENT 5 - PC Denial Resolution
ATTACHMENT 6 - PC Minutes 10.09.2024
ATTACHMENT 7 - PC Minutes 10.22.2024
ATTACHMENT 8 - Appeal Submission 11.04.2024
ATTACHMENT 9 - DEIR, EIR, ERRATA Reports
ATTACHMENT 10 - 2016 CCC Staff Report - Fire Training Tower ATTACHMENT 11 - Public Comment 10.22.2024 thru 01.17.2024 Public Comment - 01.18.2025 thru 01.27.2025
Public Comments - 01.27.25 thru 01.29.2025
Public Comment - 01.29.2025 thru 01.30.2025

ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING
3

Page 1 of 20 ends

BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: January 30, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
FROM: Leslie Lacko, Community Development Director
Douglas Garrison, Senior Planner
TITLE: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO DENY THE HYATT PLACE HOTEL PROJECT – COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT,

SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP,

PARKING EXCEPTION, AND CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR A 102-ROOM HOTEL

WITH ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND A FOUR-LOT
SUBDIVISION FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 16 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS, FILE NO. PDP-072-13
______________________________________________________________________ FOR CONSIDERATION BY COUNCIL:

That the City Council, by Resolution either:

1. Deny the appeal affirming the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the project, based upon the Findings and Evidence contained in Exhibit A of the draft resolution (Attachment 1); OR

2. Grant the appeal, reversing the Planning Commission’s decision, and a. 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 based upon the Findings and Evidence contained in the draft resolution (Attachment 2); and
b. 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 based upon the Findings and Evidence contained in the draft resolution (Attachment 3).

FISCAL IMPACT:
4

Page 2 of 20 ends

The proposed 102-room hotel will generate Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue contributing to the City’s General Fund in support of City operations and services. TOT accounts for 41 percent of the City’s General Fund revenue. In addition, Sales Tax accounts for 16 percent of the City’s General Fund revenue and visitor serving uses such as hotel use may provide additional General Fund revenue sales tax. The aforementioned tax revenues may vary each year as they are generally dependent on coastside seasonal tourism demand/room occupancy.

STRATEGIC ELEMENT:

This action supports the Fiscal Sustainability Element of the Strategic Plan.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The item before the City Council is an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny a proposed 102-room hotel with over 2 acres of open space along SR-1 and S.

Main Street, and a proposed Tentative Parcel Map that would create three new lots on the north side of Seymour Street and adjust the lot line between the existing James Ford dealership and the proposed hotel property. The Planning Commission was unable to reach consensus on LUP Policy interpretation regarding brief easterly view impacts of the distant ridgeline from SR-1 locations immediately adjacent to the hotel project site, resulting in a 3-2 project denial vote.

The proposed hotel has received several City reviews and opportunities for public comment by the Planning Commission in October 2016 through August 2022. The Architectural Advisory Committee joined the Planning Commission providing project review and feedback in July 2020, and June 2021. With each review, the appellant made significant design revisions, reducing the proposed hotel building size and massing from 148 to 129 to 102 rooms and reducing building size, mass and configuration. The appellant contends that the project revisions were in response to the Architectural Advisory Committee, Planning Commission and public comments or concerns, resulting in a refined design that improved the visual site character and reduced ridgeline view impacts, prior to moving the application forward for formal Planning Commission consideration in 2024.

As cited by the appellant, City staff recommended project approval at the two Planning Commission public hearings held on October 9th and 22nd 2024. At each hearing, staff clarified within the staff reports and the presentations the Planning Commission’s role and the flexibility they have to interpret and balance policies in the City’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP), when approving projects. In this case, the Commission made Findings of denial based on the following LUP Policies:
• 9-3 - Visual Quality;
• 9-12 - Town Boulevard Scenic Corridor; and
• 9-23 - Upland Slopes and Ridgelines.
5

Page 3 of 20 ends

The Commission could not reach consensus on how to interpret the above-stated policies in a way that would allow project approval, given that the project would create brief interruptions of views of the distant hillside ridgeline from SR-1.

The appellant requests the City Council consider the extensive revisions to the project design and environmental review process implemented in response to City and public comments and concerns. The appellant emphasizes City staff review and analysis and the entire project record that indicates the proposed project, as conditioned, complies with, and is consistent with, all local and state codes, policies, regulations and conditions. The appellant requests that the City Council take into account City staff recommendations for approval as identified in previous Planning Commission staff reports and supplemental documents of the project record. Upon review of the entire project record, staff is providing the City Council an option to affirm the Planning Commission’s project denial Findings; or approve the proposed project as initially recommended to the Planning Commission by staff.

DESCRIPTION:

The proposed project consists of a Coastal Development Permit, Site and Architectural Review, Parking Exception, and Environmental Review for a 66,268 square-foot, 102- room hotel on the project site with associated site improvements. The proposed hotel consists of two main buildings—a north building (3 stories) and a south building (2 stories)— a parking lot that faces Main Street — and 2.02 acres of open space and publicly-accessible pathways along the southern and westerly portions of the proposed hotel site. The preferred Project Alternative also includes a Tentative Parcel Map that would create three new lots on the north side of Seymour Street and adjust the lot line between the Ford dealership and the proposed hotel property.

The proposed project involves three parcels of privately-owned land. Site 3 as iden�fied below in Figure 1 is a five-acre, vacant parcel on the 1100 block of Main Street (undeveloped parcel north of the intersec�on of SR-1 and South Main Street).

Site 2 is a 1.45-acre parcel at 100 Seymour Street (James Ford Auto Dealership site).

Site 1 is a 1.15-acre parcel on the northeast corner of SR-1 and Seymour Street (currently used for James Ford Auto Dealership parking). Site 1 is the future residen�al parcel, Site 2 is the exis�ng James Ford auto dealership parcel, and Site 3 is the future hotel parcel.
6

Page 4 of 20 ends

FIGURE 1: Aerial Image of Project Parcels
The proposed project plan set is included as Attachment 4. It details the proposed site layout, architectural elevations, building renderings, material and color details, design inspiration, concept landscape and planting plans, grading and civil sheets for the hotel site, and includes the parcel map.

BACKGROUND:

The project’s public review history is summarized in the Table below. A more detailed project history is provided in the Discussion section of this report (pp. 5-6) and in the Application for Appeal (Attachment 8). Past versions of the proposed project can be viewed on the City’s Hyatt Proposal project webpage and/or in the associated meeting agenda packages, for which links are provided.

Table 1. Project Evolution
Date Meeting Results
10/25/2016 Initial PC Study
Session
3-Story, 149 room hotel and 2,250 square
foot mixed-use building
3/27/2018 2nd PC Study
Session
Single and two-building designs presented.

PC recommended multi-building approach
7

Page 5 of 20 ends

10/9/2018 3rd PC Study Session Based on comments, 3-building design introduced and number of rooms reduced
from 149 to 129
7/16/2020 AAC Study Session 129 room project introduced to newly formed AAC
6/29/2021 Joint PC/AAC Study
Session
Based on earlier comments, two-building
format, number of rooms reduced from 129
to 102. Parcel map concept introduced.

Included in DEIR as “Alternative 2, Reduced
Intensity”.
8/9/2022 PC Study Session
focus on DEIR
Additional design changes increase spacing
between the two hotel buildings. This
becomes “Modified Alternative 2”.
10/9/24 PC Public Hearing
#1
Public comment / Project consideration
10/22/24 PC Public Hearing
#2
Public comment / Project consideration and
denial
On October 9, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Proposed Project. After receiving the staff and applicant presentations and public comment, the Planning Commission asked clarifying questions of all parties and began deliberations.

After some discussion, the Commission continued the hearing to October 22, 2024, to allow more discussion and deliberation. At the October 22, 2024, public hearing, the Commission received additional public comment, asked additional clarifying questions, and conducted further deliberations. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to deny the proposed project on a 3-2 vote.

The basis of the denial was the Planning Commission’s inability to reach consensus on the appropriate interpretation of certain policies in Chapter 9 (Scenic and Visual Resources) of the LUP. Prior to the Commissioners denying the project, they also voted 3-2 on each individual finding for denial. Attachment 5 is the signed Planning Commission resolution for denial. The staff report and attachments from the October 9, 2024, Planning Commission hearing are available here and the supplemental memorandum and attachments from the October 22, 2024, Planning Commission hearing are available here. The Final Planning Commission minutes from the respective meetings are included as Attachments 6 and 7.

The findings listed by the Planning Commission to support the motion for denial are as follows:
8

Page 6 of 20 ends

(1) The project does not preserve and enhance Half Moon Bay’s unique visual quality because the project’s height and mass interferes with expansive views of upland slopes from the coastal terrace (in conflict with LCLUP Policy 9-3); (2) The project, which is in close proximity to and visible from Hwy 1, does not protect views to upland slopes as seen from Hwy 1 (in conflict with LCLUP Policy 9-12); and
(3) The project does not protect broad views of upland slopes and prominent ridgelines from the Hwy 1 scenic corridor because it is not sited and designed to minimize intrusions into the ridgeline through the application of appropriate height and setback restrictions (in conflict with LCLUP Policy 9-23).

On November 4, 2024, the Planning Commission’s decision was appealed by the Project applicant. The submitted appeal application and the appellant’s complete statement is provided as Attachment 8.

DISCUSSION:

The appellant’s grounds for appeal and main points are paraphrased below, followed by staff responses.

A. Basis for Appeal
The appellant states that the proposed project plans have gone through several revisions in response to input from City staff, Planning Commission, Architectural Advisory Committee, the California Coastal Commission, and the public. New design elements have been introduced in response to environmental and visual concerns from the various studies that have been completed for the project. Several Planning Commission comments described the project as “a beautiful project,” “as designed it’s a beautiful place,” “in a place where a hotel would be good,” “satisfies the policy concerns,” and “consistent with the policies.” Guidelines and the LCLUP Policies (9-3, 9-12, 9- 23 pertaining to views of upland slopes and ridgelines) could be interpreted to apply in a way that would support approval of the project. The appellant contends the project complies with, and is consistent with, all local and state codes, policies, regulations and conditions, referencing the 10/9/24 and 10/22/24 Planning Commission staff reports and supplemental documents.

Response
The proposed project has been through extensive review by staff as well as appointed officials on the Planning Commission and Architectural Advisory Committee. Based on feedback and environmental constraints on the site, the proposed project has been scaled back through the following design iterations:
• The initial project submittal in 2016 was for a 148-room hotel in a single, three-story building.
9

Page 7 of 20 ends

• Based on feedback, the initial project presented at the Planning Commission Study Session in 2018 was reduced to a 129-room hotel broken up into multiple smaller buildings in three- and two-story formats.
• Based on further feedback provided, a revised project presented at a Joint Planning Commission/Architectural Advisory Committee Study Session in 2021 depicted a smaller 102-room hotel separated into two buildings (one three-story and one two-story) set apart by a 16’ breezeway to allow a visual break of building mass between the buildings. A separate bike rental building is introduced. • Based on feedback provided at the 2021 Study Session, the applicant’s final design (the subject of this CDP application) is for a slightly smaller 102-room hotel in two buildings (one three-story and one two-story) separated by a larger 32’ breezeway to allow a more generous visual break between the buildings. The separate bike rental building remains. • In addition, the proposed hotel buildings were shifted further to the north and east to create more open space along the south end and west side of the hotel. This was done to protect ridgeline views from the Southern Gateway area (EIR Viewpoints 2 and 3 as shown in Figures 2 and 3 below), and to reduce visual impacts from the west side of SR-1 (EIR Viewpoint 4, as shown in Figure 4 below). In addition to reducing the visual impacts of the previous versions of the hotel project, the design changes increased the setbacks between the delineated wetlands in the SR-1 right-of-way and the hotel buildings and resulted in an open space area on the site of 2.02 acres, accounting for over 40 percent of the site for open space.
• Lastly, based on feedback provided by the AAC and the Planning Commission, the proposed architectural design, materials, colors and landscaping were refined, specifically to enhance and improve the project site and surrounding site character as a transitional gateway site from the agricultural open space fields to the south (east of SR-1), to the recently improved Main Street/SR-1 roadway widening, intersection signalization, and associated improvements, to the large concrete Half Moon Bay entry monuments, and to the proposed on-site dedicated open space adjacent to the proposed hotel improvements. 10

Page 8 of 20 ends

Figure 2. DEIR Viewpoint 2 (Main St./ SR 1)
Figure 3, DEIR Viewpoint 3 (Approx. ½ way between Main St and Building) 11

Page 9 of 20 ends

Figure 4. DEIR Viewpoint 4 (from Naomi Patridge Trail)
As analyzed in the October 9, 2024, Planning Commission staff report, hotels are an allowed use in the C-G Zoning District and the future residential use on the north side of Seymour Street is an allowed use in the R-2 district per the Zoning Code/Local Coastal Implementation Plan. Additionally, the proposed hotel is in conformance with the C-G zoning development standards except for parking, which is the subject of a parking exception request, but not cited as a Planning Commission finding for denial. The staff report further describes staff’s analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with Municipal Code sections that regulate aesthetics, including Chapter 18.37 (Visual Resource Protection Standards), which is part of the certified Local Coastal Program; and Chapter 14.37 (Architectural, Landscape and Site Plan Review), which is not part of the Local Coastal Program. As cited above, numerous design approaches have been employed to reduce the proposed project’s visual impacts and enhance the project site and its surroundings, with the most significant improvements being:
• 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.
• The buildings are set back over 100 feet from the pavement edge of SR-1 (and even further from the travel lanes) to reduce visual intrusion into the ridgeline of the hills to the east, and the buildings do not exceed the height limits of the zoning district.
12

Page 10 of 20 ends

• The buildings are designed to be visually compatible with local agricultural building forms, colors and rough textures.
• Landscape elements align the project with the existing context of the site and neighboring properties. On the west side of the site, landscaping includes wetland restoration and use of native plantings found in nearby Wavecrest; on the east side of the site, landscaping includes street trees and frontage improvements consistent with the streetscape of Main Street and surrounding site character.
• The project site sets aside 2.02 acres of open space area between the proposed hotel improvements and Main Street to the south and SR-1 to the west, accounting for over 40 percent of the site for open space.

Within the allowances of the zoning district, the proposed project has been optimized to reduce visual impacts to the hillsides to the greatest degree possible and enhance the site and site surroundings while still allowing for a viable commercial development project on the site.

B. Basis of Appeal
The appellant notes that the Planning Commission recognized the project’s appealing architecture, site planning, visual aesthetics and integration into the downtown/South Main Street neighborhood in their comments. However, the Planning Commission was unable to reach consensus on project consistency with three LCLUP policies: 9-3, 9-12, and 9-23 (pertaining to views of upland slopes and ridgeline). The appellant disagrees with the Planning Commission’s findings and suggests that the demonstrated support from the California Coastal Commission staff in the letter included as Exhibit B in the Appeal application (Attachment 8) should be relevant in determining that the proposed project meets the intent of the Coastal Act, and thereby the LCLUP.

In addition to the zoning consistency review described above, staff completed a review of the proposed project’s compliance with relevant LCLUP policies and provided a detailed summary of compliance with LCLUP policies 9-3, 9-12, and 9-23, as noted below, and also as noted in the draft CDP approval resolution (Attachment 3):

Policy 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.
13

Page 11 of 20 ends

Policy 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;
b. Incorporates design standards such as screening of commercial parking areas and landscaping provisions; and
c. Is visually compatible with the surrounding land and development.

Project Compliance with 9-3 and 9-12: The proposed project does not impact views to the ocean, nor does it impact views to the historic Johnston House.

Project Draft EIR visual simulations, based on photos taken 7/4/24 from Viewpoints 2 and 3, as shown in Figures 2 and 3, simulate northbound views from SR-1 across the project site toward the hillsides to the north and east.

These points were selected because northbound traffic will experience the longest, and consequently greatest, visual impacts. From these vantage points, the proposed project does not intrude into the view of the ridgeline, nor does it block views to the ocean or the Johnston House.

The story poles erected on the site indicate that, when passing by the proposed project site at certain points closest to the project along SR-1, the proposed project will appear to intrude into the ridgeline briefly as shown in Figure 4. Other recent and long-standing residential, commercial, and institutional development, including highway signage, mature landscaping, and public utility poles within the SR-1 vicinity have an equivalent or greater effect.

To reasonably address this concern, the proposed project has been oriented on the site and designed with substantial setbacks from SR-1 in an effort to minimize the intrusions into the ridgeline. Additionally, the two main buildings have been separated by 32 feet (an increase from the previous proposal of 16 feet) to allow a break in the building mass and introduce views beyond the buildings, as recommended by the Architectural Advisory Committee. In addition, the proposed project development is clustered and set back from SR1 and the intersection of SR-1 at South Main Street to allow for clear sight lines across the substantially undeveloped portion of the site (Policy 9-12.a), and provide an appropriate transition from the City’s recent concrete monument gateway and SR-1/Main Street improvements.

The proposed buildings screen the parking areas from SR-1 and landscaping will be installed to screen the parking areas from Main Street (Policy 9-12.b).

The project mass is broken up into multiple structures and building design and 14

Page 12 of 20 ends

materials were selected to be visually compatible with local agricultural building forms, colors and rough textures. Landscape elements align the two sides of the project to the context of each side of the site. On the west side of the site, landscaping includes wetland restoration and use of native plantings found in nearby Wavecrest; on the east side of the site, landscaping includes street trees and frontage improvements consistent with the streetscape of Main Street and surrounding site character (Policy 9-12.c).

Policy 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; and
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.

Project Compliance with 9-23: The project site is located below the 160-foot contour line and is relatively flat (Policy 9-23a). As noted in the compliance statement for Policy 9-12, the proposed project has a substantial setback from SR-1 and is below the maximum height allowed in the zoning district, both of which contribute to minimizing the intrusions into the ridgeline. The rooflines of the two main buildings are designed to minimize building height and optimize visual consistency with surrounding development and site character (Policy 9-23.b). The other section of the policy (#c) does not apply to this project.

The October 22, 2024, Planning Commission memo also included an important section that discussed the broad and partially subjective nature of determining policy conformance concerning aesthetics and clarifying the Commission’s discretion to interpret policy statements of the City’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan. The section noted that many LCLUP policies in Chapter 9 on Scenic and Visual Resources, contain broader, less specific language such as provide, protect, ensure, enhance, maximize, or avoid. Policies with this type of language offer guidance on what is (or what is not) acceptable, but there is no black and white standard to be met. Policy guidance usually stops shy of stating how much is enough, too little, or too much, and allows for the 15

Page 13 of 20 ends

decision-makers (in this case the City Council) to decide what is best and most appropriate. At the request of the Planning Commission, the October 22, 2024, staff memo also included examples of other local projects that analyzed impacts to views of the ridgeline and aesthetics. The staff memo described and included photographs of residential projects at 555 Poplar Street, 543 Filbert Street, and the 2016 Coastside Fire Protection District Tower. The evidence of policy compliance provided in the resolutions of the two residential projects concluded that both proposed developments would obstruct limited existing views of the east ridgeline from SR-1. However, in only a fleeting manner for drivers, and the visual impacts affecting the protected area, specifically the eastern ridgelines, would not be substantial. Similar findings were made for the Coastside Fire Protection District Tower by the City in the approval resolution. The Tower CDP was then appealed to the Coastal Commission on the basis that it did not comply with City LCLUP policies intended to protect visual resources. The Coastal Commission found that the appeal did not raise substantial issues and denied the appeal. (Attachment 10, Coastal Commission Report)
In addition to staff’s analysis of the Hyatt project, Coastal Commission staff provided written confirmation that they were supportive of the proposed hotel project and “ensure[ing] that the development is sited and designed to protect and be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area, particularly with respect to the view from the southern entrance of Half Moon Bay as shown in Viewpoint 2 in Figure 5-9 of the DEIR.” (Exhibit B of Attachment 8). A photosimulation from Viewpoint 2 is shown in Figure 2 above. It illustrates that the view from this southern entrance is visually compatible with the surrounding area.

Given all of the above information and guidance on the role of, and legal parameters of, policy interpretation, the Planning Commission could not agree or reach consensus on their right to decide what should be done when a proposed development partially or intermittently intrudes on views into the ridgeline from SR-1.

C. Basis of Appeal
The appellant states that at least one of the Planning Commissioners acknowledged that they were uncomfortable evaluating the CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations, which includes factors such as economic development and tax revenue benefits and that these would be appropriate for City Council consideration, and the Planning Commission needed to focus on LCLUP policy compliance, referencing the 10/9/24 and 10/22/24 Planning Commission staff reports and supplemental documents. The appellant 16

Page 14 of 20 ends

contends the project complies with, and is consistent with, all local and state codes, policies, regulations and conditions.

Response
While staff determined that the proposed project can be found in compliance with all pertinent policies of the LCLUP, there is one environmental impact that was identified, in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), to be significant and unavoidable under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In the case of the proposed project, the one significant and unavoidable CEQA impact is Impact AES-3: The project would substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. This finding was made because the existing site is vacant and offers uninterrupted views to the ridgelines from SR-1. New development on the site will interrupt the views to the ridgelines from SR-1 to a limited degree.

It should be noted that the CEQA standard for determining impact significance is different from that of consistency with LCLUP policies. Thus, a visual impact may be both significant under CEQA and still comply with LCLUP policies.

In enacting CEQA, the Legislature made it clear that the EIR is an informational document that: (1) informs government decisionmakers and the public about the potential effects on the environment of a proposed project; and (2) identifies ways that impacts to the environment can be avoided or reduced by design changes, adoption of project alternatives or imposition of mitigation measures. Alternatives and mitigation measures must be feasible and not prevent attainment of “project objectives.” Under CEQA, project objectives refer to the stated goals and purposes of a proposed project. These frame the range of feasible alternatives and mitigation measures to evaluate during the environmental impact analysis. This informs decision-makers on how to minimize significant environmental impacts while still achieving the project's primary objectives. In this case, the Draft EIR included both the applicant’s project objectives and the City’s objectives (Draft EIR, pp. 3-14 and 15). Attaining many of these objectives also support the Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) findings for approving a project with a significant environmental impact that has been reduced but cannot feasibly be reduced to a less than significant level.

CEQA provides a process that allows a local agency to certify an EIR and approve a project even though one (or more) significant and unavoidable environmental impacts (as those impacts are defined in CEQA) remain, even after mitigation, if the decisionmakers determine that the project’s benefits outweigh its adverse environmental effects. This decision is documented in the SOC. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 describes the requirements for 17

Page 15 of 20 ends

determining whether to adopt a SOC: “CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered ‘acceptable’.”
Staff prepared a draft SOC, supported by evidence in the record, for the Planning Commission’s consideration. Because the Planning Commission voted to deny the project, they did not need to take action on the FEIR or the SOC.

The draft SOC, which is included in the draft CEQA Resolution that the City Council may consider (Attachment 2), identifies the following reasons that approval of the project may be warranted despite the significant and unavoidable impact to the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings:

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.

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 18

Page 16 of 20 ends

buffer adjacent to the existing wetlands within the SR-1 Caltrans right-ofway in a dedicated open space easement. The open space area includes 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 and contributes to the City’s South Main Street gateway character as cited in this and previous staff reports. 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.

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 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.

D. The proposed project will generate Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue for the City in support of 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.” The City’s adopted budget cites TOT as accounting for 41 percent of the City’s General Fund Revenue. In addition, Sales Tax accounts for 16 percent of the City’s General Fund Revenue and visitor serving uses such as hotel use may provide additional General Fund revenue sales tax.
19

Page 17 of 20 ends

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; and
• 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.

F. The proposed project will anchor the south end of the Main Street corridor and recent gateway improvements, as anticipated in the recently City Council-adopted Half Moon Bay Streetscape Master Plan, July 2024.

If the City Council decided to certify the FEIR and adopt the SOC, they could opt to make modifications to the prepared SOC, as long as the City Council’s reasoning is supported by evidence in the administrative record.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared that covers the Proposed Project. Preparation of the EIR began in 2018 when a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published, which serves to notify the general public and public agencies that an EIR is being prepared, and the City, as lead agency, solicits input on those issues that should be analyzed in the EIR. A link to the Draft EIR is HERE.

After the Draft EIR was prepared and released for public review, comments were received on the document. The comments were responded to in the Final EIR. The Final EIR has been posted on the City’s Hyatt Project webpage since August 2, 2024, a notice was emailed on August 2, 2024, to the Hyatt project interested parties email list as well as those who have requested to be notified of Planning Commission meetings (2,100 recipients in total), a legal notice was published in the San Mateo Daily Journal on Saturday, August 17, 2024, and copies of the Final EIR have been available at City Hall since August 2, 2024, for review. A link to the Final EIR is HERE.

After the Final EIR was published, it was discovered that a few minor revisions/corrections needed to be made to the document. On September 4, 2024, the 20

Page 18 of 20 ends

City published an Errata to the Final EIR, and another errata, dated October 16, 2024, was published with the October 22, 2024, Planning Commission staff memo. A link to the September 4, 2024, errata is HERE and a link to the October 16, 2024, errata is HERE. The complete EIR for the project is comprised of the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, and the two errata.

On October 22, 2024, the Planning Commission denied the project without taking action on certifying the EIR. Additional noticing has been provided for the City Council appeal hearing as described below.

NOTICING AND PUBLIC INPUT:

Prior to the City Council meeting, a legal notice was published in the San Mateo County Daily Journal on January 17, 2025. Notices were mailed to residents within 800 feet of the proposed project site, which exceeds the minimum legal noticing requirement of 300 feet. Additionally, notices were posted at 3 locations on the property, notifying the community of this item. Prior to packet distribution, public comments related to the Project received after the Planning Commission hearings are attached (Attachment 11). At time of agenda publication, additional notification was provided by way of the City’s e-news, notification to interested parties, and updated City’s informational proposed project web page.

Public Comments
One email was submitted to the City on November 12, 2024, concerning compliance with the City’s Story Pole policy. The commenter cited sections of City Council Resolution No. C-66-11, which established the current story pole policy. Which was interpreted by the commenter as meaning that “netting” delineating the roof lines is required in all cases. One section that was not cited is No. 5 which states:

5. The Planning Director may waive or modify these requirements where the installation of Story Poles would unduly interfere with the use of the property or where other circumstances would render installation of Story Poles impractical.

The 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 21

Page 19 of 20 ends

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. The current 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.

Additionally, the commenter noted that story poles should be installed for the proposed residential lots, located on the north side of Seymour Street, prior to the City Council hearings, Staff determined that this would not be appropriate 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.

CONCLUSION:

After discussion and deliberation at two public hearings on October 9, 2024, and October 22, 2024, and considering the professional city staff analysis concluded with a recommendation for project approval, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 to deny the Proposed Project. The signed denial resolution is included as Attachment 5. As a result, the following two options are provided to the City Council:

1. Deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission’s decision, based upon the Findings and Evidence contained in Exhibit A of the draft resolution (Attachment 1); OR

2. Grant the appeal, reverse the Planning Commission’s decision, and a. 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 based upon the Findings and Evidence contained in the draft resolution (Attachment 2); and
22

Page 20 of 20 ends

b. 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 based upon the Findings and Evidence contained in the draft resolution (Attachment 3).

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Resolution for Denial with Findings and Evidence, Exhibit A

2. Draft CEQA Resolution to Certify the Environmental Impact Report for the Half Moon Bay Hyatt Place Project, Adopt CEQA Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Exhibit A, Mitigation Measures, Exhibit A, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit B

3. Draft Project Approval Resolution with Findings and Evidence, Exhibit A and Conditions of Approval, Exhibit B

4. Project Plan Set dated September 4, 2024

5. Planning Commission Signed Resolution for Denial

6. Planning Commission Minutes, dated October 9, 2024

7. Planning Commission Minutes, dated October 22, 2024

8. Application for Appeal dated November 4, 2024

9. Draft and Final EIR with errata dated September 4, 2024 and October 16, 2024

10. Coastal Commission - Coastside Fire District

11. Public Comments Received after Planning Commission hearings 23 ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. C-2025-____

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

DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY 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 CREATE FOUR RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON A PARCEL 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. (APN 065-012-030, 065-012-020, AND 064-352-150), PDP-072-13 WHEREAS, an application was submitted by the applicant seeking approval of a Coastal Development Permit, Site and Architectural Review, and a Parking Exception for a 66,268 square-foot, 102-room hotel; and a Tentative Parcel Map to adjust the lot line between the hotel parcel and the adjacent James Ford auto dealership parcel and 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 (collectively, the Proposed Project); and WHEREAS, the procedures for processing the application have been followed as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings on October 9, 2024 and on October 22, 2024 on the Proposed Project, and reviewed and considered the Final EIR, written reports, and other information in the record, and at which time all those desiring to be heard on the matter were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission considered all written and oraltestimony presented for consideration; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission concluded that the Project was determined to be inconsistent with the City’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan (“LCLUP”) policies related to Scenic and Visual Resources. The Planning Commission therefore did not approve the requested permits and project and denied the Project on October 22, 2024 for the reasons set forth in the attached findings; and
WHEREAS, an application for appeal was filed on November 4, 2024, appealing the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has made the required findings for denying the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the project.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Half Moon Bay City Council at a duly noticed public hearing held January 30, 2025.
***************************************************************** I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted on the 30th day of January 2025, by the City Council of Half Moon Bay by the following vote:
24 ATTACHMENT 1
Ayes, Councilmembers:

Noes, Councilmembers:

Absent, Councilmembers:

Abstain, Councilmembers:

Attest: APPROVED:
___________________________ _____________________________ Jessica Blair, City Clerk Robert Brownstone, Mayor
25 ATTACHMENT 1

EXHIBIT A

FINDINGS AND EVIDENCE
City Council Resolution C-25-__
PDP-072-13
Coastal Development Permit – Findings for Denial
The required Coastal Development Permit for this project may be approved or conditionally approved only after the approving authority has made the findings listed in Municipal Code Section 18.20.070. The City Council cannot make one of those required findings (i.e., the development as proposed or as modified by conditions, conforms to the Local Coastal Program) for the following reasons:

1. Local Coastal Program – The development as proposed or as modified by conditions and as required by the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), conforms to the Local Coastal Program.

Non-Compliance: The project consists of the construction of a 66,268 square-foot, 102- room hotel with associated site improvements. The proposed hotel consists of two main buildings—a north building (3 stories) and a south building (2 stories)—and a parking lot that faces Main Street. The north building consists of guestrooms on two levels and one level with guestrooms as well as employee and service areas. The south building houses the lobby and common spaces, with guestrooms on the second level. The hotel also includes a smaller, single-story building that would house a bicycle rental shop. The project also includes a fourlot parcel map allowing for future development of up to 16 dwelling units along Seymour Street and the expansion of the existing car dealership parking area on the parcel at 100 Seymour Street. The hotel and residential sites are located where public services and infrastructure are available, including sewer, water, gas and electric utilities. The Project site is within the LCLUP designated Town Center area and is surrounded by existing development. The policies of LCLUP Chapter 9 (Scenic and Visual Resources) are applicable to the project site, and the City Council found that the project does not comply with the following policies:

LUP Policy 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.

Non-Compliance: The project does not preserve and enhance Half Moon Bay’s unique visual quality because the project’s height and mass interferes with views of upland slopes.

LUP Policy 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 26 ATTACHMENT 1
to the ocean, upland slopes (i.e. minimizes intrusions into the ridgeline), and the historic Johnston House;
b. Incorporates design standards such as screening of commercial parking areas and landscaping provisions; and
c. Is visually compatible with the surrounding land and development.

Non-Compliance: The project, which is in close proximity to and visible from Highway 1, does not adequately protect views to upland slopes as seen from Highway 1.

LUP Policy 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; and
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.

Non-Compliance: The project does not adequately protect broad views of upland slopes and prominent ridgelines from the Highway 1 scenic corridor because it is not sited and designed to minimize intrusions into the ridgeline through the application of appropriate height and setback restrictions.

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

Evidence: Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15270, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. Denied projects are statutorily exempt from CEQA. 27 Page | 1 ATTACHMENT 2
Resolution No. C-2025-____

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE HALF MOON BAY HYATT PLACE HOTEL PROJECT,

ADOPTING FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (PDP-072-13) SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No: PDP-072-13
Applicant: Greg Jamison, RGJC South, LLC
Location/APNs: Unaddressed parcel on the 1100 Block of Main Street (APN 065-012-030) 100 Seymour Street (APN 065-012-020)
Unaddressed parcel on the north side of Seymour Street (APN 064-352-150) SECTION II: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Section 15000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations) (“CEQA Guidelines”), the City of Half Moon Bay, as lead agency, prepared an Environmental Impact Report for the Half Moon Bay Hyatt Place Project (SCH No. 2018032059) (“EIR” or “Final EIR”); and
WHEREAS, the project as originally proposed and analyzed in the Draft EIR (“Original Project”) consisted of a proposed hotel with 129 guest rooms and ancillary features on a 5-acre project site in the City of Half Moon Bay, all originally described in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2018, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) of an EIR for the project; and
WHEREAS, the NOP was circulated for review and comment by responsible and trustee agencies and the public for 30 days from March 22, 2018 through April 20, 2018; and WHEREAS, a scoping meeting was held on March 27, 2018 to provide the public the opportunity to comment on the scope and content of the EIR; and WHEREAS, on October 9, 2018, the City held a study session meeting on project design and to allow the public an additional opportunity to provide further input on the Draft EIR, and received public testimony; and
28 Page | 2 ATTACHMENT 2
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2020, the Architectural Advisory Committee held a design review session to consider project updates and to allow the public an additional opportunity to provide further input on the Draft EIR, and received public testimony; and WHEREAS, on July 29, 2021, the Planning Commission and Architectural Advisory Committee held a joint study session to receive further updates on the project design, receive public comments, and provide design-related comments; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research on July 14, 2022 under State Clearinghouse No. 2018032059 and a Notice of Availability was filed with the Santa Clara County ClerkRecorder on the same day and was also: (1) sent to other potentially affected agencies as required by CEQA; (2) sent to interested parties registered through the project website by electronic mail and (3) published subsequently in a newspaper of general circulation to announce the availability of the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, a Draft EIR, consisting of one volume (plus Appendices) was prepared and issued for public review and comment for a 60-day period beginning on July 15, 2022 and ending on September 13, 2022; and
WHEREAS, following circulation of the Draft EIR, the applicant submitted revised plans to the City indicating that Alternative 2 (with revisions), described in the Final EIR Volume as “Modified Alternative 2,” is now the proposed project that would be considered for approval; and
WHEREAS, Modified Alternative 2 (the “Proposed Project”) consists of a 102-room hotel, expansion of an existing auto dealership site immediately north of the hotel, and a fourlot subdivision allowing for future development of up to 16 dwelling units on the north side of Seymour Street, as described in Final EIR Volume Chapter 3-Appendix, Section 5.5.2; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR Volume was published on August 2, 2024 (Final EIR Volume), and includes the revised Modified Alternative 2 and other text revisions that are not considered “significant new information” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 because these changes would not result in a new environmental impact, and would not cause a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact identified in the Draft EIR and the Proposed Project is substantially similar to a previously analyzed project alternative in the Draft EIR; therefore, recirculation of the EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 is not required; and
WHEREAS, the City provided written responses to public agencies that commented on the Draft EIR by sending them copies of the Final EIR Volume, which contains responses to comments, on August 2, 2024; and
29 Page | 3 ATTACHMENT 2
WHERAS, two Errata to the Final EIR (“Errata”) were published on September 4, 2024 and October 16, 2024 to document minor corrections and clarifications to text and a figure in the Final EIR. None of the corrections or revisions are considered “significant new information” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 because these changes would not result in a new environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact requiring major revisions to the Draft EIR; therefore, recirculation of the EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 is not required. The September 4, 2024 Errata to the Final EIR is included as an attachment to the October 9, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report and the October 16, 2024 Errata to the Final EIR is included as an attachment to the October 22, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Memo on this item; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR consists of the July 2022 Draft EIR, the August 2024 Final EIR Volume which contains responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and the Errata to the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, all necessary public notices have been given as required by the procedural ordinances of the City of Half Moon Bay and the Government Code, and the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on January 30, 2025 to receive testimony on the Final EIR and the Proposed Project, and reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and the Errata to the Final EIR along with staff reports pertaining to the Project, all other pertinent documents, and all written and oral statements received by the City Council at or prior to the public hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council:

1. Certifies that the Final EIR for the Proposed Project, which includes two Errata to the Final EIR, has been completed in compliance with CEQA and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City.

2. Finds that no recirculation of the EIR is required.

3. Adopts the CEQA Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Proposed Project, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.

4. Adopts and makes conditions of approval all of the mitigation measures for the Proposed Project that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City that are identified in the CEQA Findings.

5. Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein, for the Proposed Project.

Noes, Councilmembers:

Absent, Councilmembers:

Abstain, Councilmembers:

Attest: APPROVED:
___________________________ _____________________________ Jessica Blair, City Clerk Robert Brownstone, Mayor
31 Page | 5 ATTACHMENT 2

EXHIBIT A

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE HALF MOON BAY HYATT PLACE PROJECT I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Half Moon (“City”), as the Lead Agency under California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., has prepared the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Half Moon Bay Hyatt Place Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2018032059) (“Final EIR” or “EIR”). The Final EIR is a project EIR pursuant to section 15161 of the State Guidelines for implementation of the CEQA (“CEQA Guidelines”). The Final EIR consists of the July 2022 Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) and the August 2024 Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR Volume”) and all errata.

In determining to approve the Half Moon Bay Hyatt Place Project (the “Proposed Project,” described in the Final EIR Volume as “Modified Alternative 2”), which is described in more detail in Section II, below, the Council makes and adopts the following findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations, and adopts and makes conditions of approval the mitigation measures identified in the EIR, all based on substantial evidence in the whole record of this proceeding (“administrative record”). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15090(a), the EIR was presented to the City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay, and the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR prior to making the findings in Sections IV to VI, below. The conclusions presented in these findings are based upon the EIR and other evidence in the administrative record.

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is an approximately 5-acre parcel located at the southern entrance to Downtown Half Moon Bay along State Route 1 (SR-1), on the 1100 block of Main Street. The site is bordered by Main Street to the east, the intersection of Main Street, Higgins Canyon Road and SR-1 to the south; SR-1 to the west; and the James Ford Auto Dealership on the adjacent parcel to the north. The 5-acre property is undeveloped and relatively flat, having previously been used as agricultural land. The site also has four seasonal wetland features located along the western boundary of the study area. Due to the presence of wetlands, the hotel portion of the project area is within the California Coastal Commission (CCC) appeals jurisdiction. A 100-foot buffer is required to be maintained between the hotel development and the wetland features; and this buffer was accommodated in the project plans.

The Proposed Project would involve the construction of a 66,268 square-foot, 102-room hotel on the project site, a subdivision allowing for future development of up to 16 dwelling units along Seymour Street, and the expansion of the car dealership parking lot. The hotel would consist of two main buildings, a north building and south building, and a parking lot that faces Main Street. A third, one-story building is proposed on the east side of the north building, 32 Page | 6 ATTACHMENT 2
which would house a bicycle rental shop. The north building would be a three-story structure consisting of guestrooms and employee areas and the south building would be a two-story structure consisting of the lobby and public space, with guestrooms on the second level.

The Proposed Project includes a lot line adjustment to increase the size of the auto dealership parcel by approximately 0.45 acres, from 1.62 acres to 2.07 acres. Proposed development of the site also includes enlarging the parking lot to accommodate dealership parking currently on the lot to the north side of Seymour Street, freeing up the parking lot parcel for residential development. The hotel portion of the Proposed Project would be constructed in a single phase and, because the site is currently undeveloped, would not require any demolition activities. No construction activities would occur in the wetland areas and approximately 40 percent of the project site would be dedicated to open space.

As set forth in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR and Appendix 3.0-A of the Final EIR Volume, the City’s objectives for the project are as follows:
• Implement the California Coastal Act, including protecting coastal resources such as wetlands and providing coastal zone priority uses such as restaurants and accommodations geared towards visitors, especially lower cost coastal access provisions including lower cost accommodations on or off-site and/or public access and recreation benefits such as airport shuttles, bicycle rentals, or trail connections.

Conform with the Local Coastal Program, including promotion of bicycle and pedestrian trails, such as along SR-1 and the Downtown area.
• Enhance Half Moon Bay’s southern Downtown gateway to the City by:
o Providing connectivity to local trails and the downtown core supporting the City’s plans to highlight access to Main Street, Historic Downtown, and the commercial core
o Providing a development that is aesthetically pleasing by balancing the urban landscape with natural elements of the coast
o Integrating the artisanal culture of the City into the design theme of the development and the project site
o Enhancing access to and patronage of the adjacent theater • Be designed as contextually appropriate for the city and provide compatibility with both the Downtown and the adjacent residential neighborhood with building massing reflective of traditional development and scale within the city and providing maintenance of adequate views.
• Be designed to be compatible with and enhance the aesthetic of the south entry to the city.
• Be served by existing public infrastructure including water supply, sewer and roadway capacity and through on-site provision of green infrastructure for storm water management.
• Support Downtown vitality and the City’s economic development goals. • Meet the demand for more hotel rooms to support the city’s growing local tourist and agribusiness economies.
33 Page | 7 ATTACHMENT 2
• Establish a higher level of use on an underused parcel in the city. • Support the local job market by providing new employment opportunities. • Provide an opportunity for the City to increase revenue stream.

The project applicant’s objectives for the project are as follows:
• Develop a mid-range hotel to fill a gap in the market. • Provide a conference and wedding venue primarily for hotel guests. • Provide service sector employment opportunities for Half Moon Bay residents. • Provide public recreational opportunities through a multi-use bicycle and pedestrian path, which will become part of the City’s circulation plan. • Provide shuttle transportation for hotel guests to beaches, harbor points of interest and downtown areas.
• Create a destination at the southern end of Main Street which will indirectly support the existing retail, hospitality, restaurants, and entertainment venues in the downtown area.
• Encourage pedestrian use of the southern portion of Main Street by providing infrastructure improvements including installing a curb, gutters, sidewalk, and landscaping between Seymour Street and the SR-1/Main Street intersection.

The EIR identifies standard permit conditions and conditions of approval, which are part of the project description, in addition to identifying mitigation measures to be adopted. Standard permit conditions are measures required by laws and regulations (primarily, the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code) or are required to comply with laws and regulations. While standard permit conditions are not mitigation measures, they may assist in reducing environmental impacts.

Conditions of approval also are not mitigation measures. They are required of the project by the City, but do not necessarily reduce an environmental impact.

III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
In accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Half Moon Bay prepared a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) of an EIR for the Half Moon Bay Hyatt Place Project. The NOP was sent to state and local responsible and trustee agencies and federal agencies on March 21, 2018. The 30-day comment period concluded on April 20, 2018. The NOP provided a description of the project and identified probable environmental effects that could result from implementation of the project. The City also held a public scoping meeting during the comment period on March 27, 2018 to discuss the project and solicit public input as to the scope and content of the EIR. The meeting was held in the emergency Operations Center (EOC) located at 537 Kelly Avenue, Half Moon Bay.

The City prepared the Draft EIR for the Half Moon Bay Hyatt Place Project in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment for 60 days from July 15, 2022 through September 13, 2022. During this period, the Draft EIR was available to the public and local, state, and federal agencies for review and comment. Notice of 34 Page | 8 ATTACHMENT 2
the availability and completion of the Draft EIR was sent directly to every agency, person, and organization that commented on the NOP, as well as to the Office of Planning and Research.

Written comments from public agencies, organizations and individuals concerning the environmental review contained in the Draft EIR were sent to the Community Development Department of the City of Half Moon Bay during and after the 60-day public review period on the Draft EIR. The City also held a Planning Commission meeting on August 9, 2022 and a community meeting on August 31, 2022, to take written and oral comments on the Draft EIR.

The Draft EIR analyzed implementation of a larger project with 129 guest rooms and ancillary features (the “Original Project”), as well as three project alternatives: No Project, Alternative 1; Reduced Intensity, Alternative 2, and Multi-Family Residential, Alternative 3. Following circulation of the Draft EIR, the applicant submitted revised plans to the City indicating that Alternative 2 (with revisions) is now the proposed project that would be considered for approval. This proposed project is described in the FEIR as “Modified Alternative 2” and is herein referred to as the “Proposed Project.”
IV. FINDINGS
These findings summarize the environmental determinations of the EIR about project impacts before and after mitigation, and do not attempt to repeat the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the EIR. Instead, these findings provide a summary description of and basis for each impact in the EIR, describe the applicable mitigation measures identified in the EIR, and state the City’s findings and rationale therefor on the significance of each impact with the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the EIR, and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the EIR supporting the EIR’s determinations regarding mitigation measures and the Project’s impacts.

In adopting mitigation measures below, the City intends to adopt each of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Accordingly, in the event a mitigation measure identified in the Final EIR has been inadvertently omitted from these findings, such mitigation measure is hereby referred to, adopted, and incorporated in the findings below by reference. In addition, in the event the language of a mitigation measure set forth below fails to accurately reflect the mitigation measure in the Final EIR due to a clerical error, the language of the mitigation measure as set forth in the Final EIR shall control unless the language of the mitigation measure has been specifically and expressly modified by these findings.

Sections V and VI, below, provide brief descriptions of the impacts the Final EIR identifies as either significant and unavoidable or less than significant with adopted mitigation. These descriptions also reproduce the full text of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR for each significant impact.
35 Page | 9 ATTACHMENT 2
V. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMAPCTS WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED The Final EIR identifies the following significant and unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the approval of the Half Moon Bay Hyatt Place Project, one of which can be reduced, although not to a less-than-significant level, through implementation of project design elements identified in the EIR. Pub. Resources Code § 21081 (a)(1). Therefore, as explained below, one impact will remain significant and unavoidable notwithstanding the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. As explained in Section IX, below, the findings in this Section are based on the Draft EIR and the Final EIR, the discussion and analysis in which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference.

A. Impact AES-3: The project would substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings.

The EIR finds that buildout of the Proposed Project would result in permanent changes in the existing visual quality of public views to the project site and its surroundings, namely the longrange views of the hillsides and ridgeline available from publicly accessible viewpoints near the project site.

The project design was designed to be visually compatible with the nature and character of Downtown Half Moon Bay. Nevertheless, the buildings are significantly larger and present larger facades than existing development patterns throughout Downtown and the immediate neighborhood. Project implementation would incorporate high quality design elements, landscaping, and screening techniques, but the visual quality of the project site as seen from public viewpoints is nevertheless conservatively considered to be adversely affected by the project.

Therefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

VI. SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE FINAL EIR THAT ARE REDUCED TO

A LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT LEVEL BY MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AND MADE

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The Final EIR identifies the following significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project. It is hereby determined that the impacts addressed by these mitigation measures will be mitigated to a less than significant level or avoided by making these measures conditions of approval for the Project. The findings in this section are based on the Draft EIR and the Final EIR, and the discussion and analysis in which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference. 36 Page | 10 ATTACHMENT 2
A. Impact AES-4. The project would create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

The EIR finds that the Proposed Project would result in significant new aesthetic impacts related to substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views of the area.

The Project would add a hotel to a predominately vacant site adjacent to SR-1, single family homes, and commercial buildings. Daytime glare would occur when sunlight reflects off rooftops, windows, and other surfaces of the proposed structures. Nighttime light would be produced from interior room lighting, exterior lights and vehicles traveling to, from, and within the project site. Therefore, the Project may increase the amount of daytime glare and nighttime light in the vicinity.

Implementation of mitigation measure MM AES-2, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and made a condition of approval would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring a lighting plan for any proposed exterior lighting and limiting the intensity and location of lighting.

MM AES-2: A lighting plan for any proposed exterior lighting must be submitted to the City of Half Moon Bay for review and approval.

Exterior lighting must be directed downward and away from adjacent properties and public/private right-of-way to prevent glare or excessive light spillover. Lighting bulbs must be limited to low intensity lights, including lighting for identification purposes. Landscaping lights must be limited to ground-level for walking/safety purposes.

B. Impact AQ-2. The project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

The EIR finds that the Project would generate dust and equipment exhaust on a temporary basis that could affect nearby sensitive receptors. Although these exhaust air pollutant emissions would not be considered to contribute substantially to existing or projected air quality violations, construction equipment may still pose health risks for sensitive receptors such as surrounding residents. The primary community risk impact issues associated with construction emissions are cancer risk and exposure to PM2.5. Off-road construction equipment and on-road vehicles can also generate PM10 and PM2.5, including from haul truck travel during demolition and grading activities, work travel, and vendor deliveries during construction.

The maximum excess residential cancer risks at the closest sensitive receptor location (the multi-family residence east of the project site across Main Street) would be greater than the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) single-source threshold of 10 in one million. This would be a significant impact
37 Page | 11 ATTACHMENT 2
Implementation of the proposed MM AQ-2, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and made a condition of approval, would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level by reducing maximum excess residential cancer risk below the BAAQMD single-source threshold of 10 in one million, thereby not exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

MM AQ-2: Selection of equipment during construction to minimize emissions. Such equipment selection would include the following:

The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment used on-site to construct the project would achieve a fleetwide average 80-percent reduction in DPM exhaust emissions or greater.

One feasible plan to achieve this reduction would include the following:

1. All diesel-powered off-road equipment, larger than 25 horsepower, operating on the site for more than two days continuously shall, at a minimum, meet U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 3 engines and this equipment shall include CARB-certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters7 or equivalent. Equipment that meets U.S. EPA Tier 4 interim standards or use of equipment that is electrically powered or uses non-diesel fuels would also meet this requirement.

2. Per the construction sheet provided by the applicant, line power shall be used to electrify generators used during construction.

C. Impact BIO-1: Construction of the project would adversely impact species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The EIR finds that construction of the Project would adversely impact special-status species or result in a take of special-status animals or active nests of birds. While the Project is not expected to directly impact special-status species due to the lack of habitat suitable onsite to support those species with a potential to occur or known to occur in the project vicinity, the California red-legged frog and the San Francisco garter snake may occur as occasional transients within the project site. Additionally, removal of existing structures, vegetation, wood piles, and other habitat features and earthwork required for construction of the Proposed Project could result in a take of special-status animals or active nests of birds afforded protection under the MTBA, California Fish and Game Code, or Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, if present at the time of construction. While no special-status bird nests were observed at the project site during surveys, there is a potential for new nests to be established prior to project implementation. Tree removal, vegetation clearing, or disturbance in the immediate vicinity of a nest in active use could result in abandonment of the nest or loss of eggs and young.

Implementation of mitigation measures MM BIO-1a, MM BIO-1b, MM BIO-1c, MM BIO-1d, MM BIO-1e, MM BIO-1f, and MM BIO-1g set forth below, which are hereby adopted and made 38 Page | 12 ATTACHMENT 2
conditions of approval, would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring preconstruction surveys, training, monitoring, and multi-agency coordination, and requiring the installation of wildlife exclusionary fences (WEFs) and other measures to prevent the entrapment of special status species .

MM BIO-1a. Preconstruction Survey: A qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey of the work area within 48 hours of the initiation of project activities. If a California redlegged frog of any life stage or San Francisco garter snake is found, the animal shall not be handled and will instead be allowed to leave the site on its own. If needed, the USFWS (and CDFW, if a San Francisco garter snake is found) will be contacted to request permission to relocate the individual or additional guidance on the disposition of the individual. The results of the pre-construction survey shall be provided to the City Manager or his/her designee one day prior to the commencement of construction activities.

In addition, the biologist shall review plans and installation for a wildlife exclusionary fence (WEF) and make any recommendations for improvements and/or changes to location and installation processes. Following the completion of the installation of the WEF, the biologist will train a dedicated member of the construction crew in the identification of the California redlegged frog and San Francisco garter snake, as well as appropriate protocols to follow if either of these species (or animals that may be one of these species) are detected on the site. This dedicated crew member will be responsible for checking the work area for these species prior to the start of construction each day, for inspecting any steep-walled holes or trenches for any animals that may inadvertently become trapped and/or injured, and for inspecting the integrity of the WEF each day and ensuring that any needed repairs are completed within 24 hours. The construction manager shall provide a weekly summary of each inspection to the City Manager or his/her designee for the duration of the exterior construction phase.

MM BIO-1b. Worker Environmental Awareness Program: Before any construction activities begin, a qualified biologist shall conduct a training session for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training shall include a description of the California red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake and their habitats, the importance of these species, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve these species as they relate to the project, and the boundaries within which the project may be accomplished.

MM BIO-1c: Exclusion Barrier A WEF shall be installed prior to the initiation of construction activities to exclude California red-legged frogs and San Francisco garter snakes from the construction area. Prior to the WEF installation a wildlife biologist shall inspect the site and WEF specifications and make final adjustments to the location of the WEF and how it is installed. The WEF shall consist of silt fencing, plywood, ERTEC fencing, or suitable material at least 36 inches in height that is buried 6 inches deep in the ground, or similar method, to prevent access under the fencing. The location and fence type shall be indicated on plans and subject to review and approval of City Plan Check
39 Page | 13 ATTACHMENT 2
MM BIO-1d. Biological Monitoring: A qualified biologist shall remain on-site to monitor the installation of the WEF to ensure that no San Francisco garter snakes or California red-legged frogs are trapped within the construction area or harmed during installation. If an individual of these species is detected, any project activities that could result in harm to the individual shall cease until the individual has moved out of the project site on its own. The USFWS shall be contacted immediately if a California red-legged frog or San Francisco garter snake is found, and the CDFW shall be contacted immediately if a San Francisco garter snake is found. If any individuals are killed or injured during project activities, the USFWS and/or CDFW, as appropriate, shall be notified within 24 hours. Proof of notification shall be provided by the contractor to the City Manager or his/her designee.

MM BIO-1e. Prevention of Entrapment: To prevent the inadvertent entrapment of San Francisco garter snakes and California red-legged frogs, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches shall be completely covered at the end of each work day with plywood or similar materials. If this is not possible, one or more escape ramps constructed of earth fill or wooden planks will be placed in the excavation. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they shall be thoroughly inspected for any animals by the on-site biological monitor. If at any time a California red-legged frog or San Francisco garter snake is found trapped or injured in one of these holes, any project activities that could result in harm to the individual shall cease until the individual has moved out of the project site on its own (a ramp allowing the individual to leave may need to be provided).

MM BIO-1f. Pre-Construction Bird Nesting Survey: If construction-related site disturbance commences between February 1 and August 15, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction bird nesting survey within 7 days of the start of construction activities and within 300 feet of the site. If nests of either migratory birds or birds of prey are detected on or adjacent to the site, a no-disturbance buffer shall be established in consultation with the CDFW. The size of the no disturbance buffer shall be determined by a qualified biologist, and shall take into account local site features and existing sources of potential disturbance. If more than 7 days elapse between the survey and the start of construction, the survey shall be repeated. If vegetation removal, building demolition, or earthwork stages are phased over multiple years, the pre-construction survey and nest-avoidance measures described above would need to be repeated. The results of the nest survey shall be provided to the City Manager or his/her designee prior to the commencement of construction.

MM BIO-1g. Special-Status Species Agency Coordination: Proposed project construction activities shall not result in impacts to project site wetlands and/or habitat for special-status species known to occur in the vicinity of the site.

Prior to commencement of construction activities, the project applicant’s biologist shall obtain a verified wetland delineation and obtain concurrence with the regulatory agencies regarding special-status species. The project applicant shall continue to coordinate all project activities potentially regulated by State, Federal, and local agencies and shall obtain all necessary permits from CDFG, USACE, USFWS, and the RWQCB as required by federal and State law to avoid, 40 Page | 14 ATTACHMENT 2
minimize or offset impacts to any species listed under either the State or federal Endangered Species Acts or protected under any other State or federal law.

Evidence that the project applicant has secured any required authorization from these agencies shall be submitted to Half Moon Bay prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the project.

D. Impact BIO-2: Implementation of the project would have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
The EIR finds that the Project would have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. The project site does not support sensitive habitats, but wetlands found to be jurisdictional by either the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or California Coastal Commission (CCC) may be present. Four seasonal wetlands meeting the USACE criteria for Section 404 wetlands were identified during field surveys, each exhibiting wetland vegetation and wetland hydrology indicators.

Implementation of mitigation measures MM Bio-2a and Bio-2b, set forth below, which are hereby adopted and made conditions of approval, would reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level by avoiding all wetlands where feasible and restoring avoided wetlands.

MM BIO-2a. Avoid All Wetlands to The Extent Feasible. All jurisdictional wetlands and ESHAs claimed by the CCC shall be avoided to the extent feasible. This includes direct loss and indirect water quality impacts that could occur due to adjacent development.

During construction, suitable erosion control, sediment control, source control, treatment control, material management, and stormwater management measures would be used in conformance with the NPDES Statewide Construction General Permit (Order No. 2009-0009- DWQ). Additionally, the project shall be designed to comply with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) (Water Board Order No. R2-2009-0074). This will require that the project implement BMPs into the design that prevents stormwater runoff pollution, promotes infiltration, and holds/slows down the volume of water coming from a site. In order to meet these permit and policy requirements, projects must incorporate the use of tree planters, grassy swales, bioretention and/or detention basins, among other factors. The project is already largely designed to preserve existing drainage characteristics, as seen by the placement of stormwater treatment basins near the area of the site where the seasonal wetlands occur. These basins shall be designed to drain to the avoided wetland area to preserve hydrological inputs from the site.

An explanation of compliance with this measure (including drainage design and maintenance program) shall be provided to the City Manager or his/her designee and included in the project file. Compliance checking by the City shall be incorporated into the Wetland Restoration and Monitoring Plan specified in Mitigation Measure BIO-2b. 41 Page | 15 ATTACHMENT 2
MM BIO-2b. Compensate for Lost Wetlands by Restoring Avoided Wetlands.

Most components of the project will be 100 feet away from identified jurisdictional wetland areas (as determined by site verification). Portions of the project that will be located within the buffer include the class 1 multi-use bicycle and pedestrian trail, a pedestrian path, wetlands restoration, green infrastructure, and emergency fire stands. Activities associated with these features are potentially allowed within buffers without mitigation (e.g., some trails and restoration); however, maintenance and the unlikely event of firefighting would need to be considered for mitigation. For development and uses such as these, which cannot be avoided by the project, the project shall restore avoided wetlands on-site at 4:1 by implementing a weed removal program in the avoided wetlands, which are dominated by weedy, non-native species such as pennyroyal (Mentha pulegium). It should be noted that the wetlands identified on this site were not found to be Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs). In addition to the required Section 404 permit (Nationwide), a qualified restoration ecologist will develop a Wetland Restoration and Monitoring Plan, which will contain the following components (or as otherwise modified by regulatory agency permitting conditions):

1. Goal of the restoration (to increase wetland habitat functions and values by removing invasive species);

2. Restoration design:
• Weed removal, control, and monitoring plan
• Soil amendments and other site preparation elements as appropriate • Planting plan (to replace non-natives with native wetland species) • Maintenance plan
• Remedial measures/adaptive management

3. Monitoring plan, including final and performance criteria, monitoring methods, data analysis, reporting requirements, monitoring schedule, etc.); at a minimum, success criteria will include restoration of native wetland vegetation and no more than 5 percent cover of non-native species, and provision of ecological functions and values equal to or exceeding those in the habitat that was impacted; and

4. Contingency plan for mitigation elements that do not meet performance or final success criteria.

E. Impact BIO-3: Implementation of the project would have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.

The EIR finds that the Proposed Project would have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands.

Implementation of mitigation measures MM Bio-2a and Bio-2b, set forth above, which are hereby adopted and made conditions of approval, would reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level by avoiding all wetlands where feasible and restoring avoided wetlands. 42 Page | 16 ATTACHMENT 2
F. Impact BIO-4: The project would conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.

The EIR finds that the Proposed Project would conflict with local policies and ordinances that protect biological resources, including impacts to Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs).

The removal or major pruning of heritage trees requires a permit from Half Moon Bay and replacement trees as specified in the Tree Ordinance. The Project will result in the removal of four bottlebrush trees, which meet the City’s definition of heritage trees.

Implementation of mitigation measures MM Bio-4a and Bio-4b, set forth below, which are hereby adopted and made conditions of approval, would reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level by requiring buffers for wetlands and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs) consistent with applicable local policies or ordinances.

MM BIO-4a: Prior to development of the westernmost parcel created by approval of the parcel map, a deed restriction shall be recorded to ensure the 50-foot ESHA buffer is protected in a conservation easement so as to be consistent with Policy 6-57 Land Divisions of the 2020 LCLUP.

Development within the buffer shall be limited to uses identified in Policies 6-40 and 6-42 of the LCLUP, which can include stormwater retention provided that such a system is designed as part of a conservation plan.

MM 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. Furthermore, site development shall not result in direct or indirect water quality impacts that could occur due to adjacent development. During construction, suitable erosion control, sediment control, source control, treatment control, material management, and stormwater management measures would be used in conformance with the NPDES Statewide Construction General Permit (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ).

Additionally, the Project will be designed to comply with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) (Water Board Order No. R2-2009-0074). This will require that the project implement BMPs into the design that prevents stormwater runoff pollution, promotes infiltration, and holds/slows down the volume of water coming from a site. In order to meet these permit and policy requirements, projects must incorporate the use of tree planters, grassy swales, bioretention and/or detention basins, among other factors. The site is already largely designed to preserve existing drainage characteristics, as seen by the placement of stormwater treatment basins near the area of the site where the seasonal wetlands occur. These basins shall be designed to drain to the avoided wetland area to preserve hydrological inputs from the site. 43 Page | 17 ATTACHMENT 2
G. Impact CUL-1: The project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a previously undiscovered historical resource.

The EIR finds that while there are no resources eligible for listing in the NHRP on or directly surrounding the project site, there is always a possibility that an unknown site may exist in the project area and could be discovered during grading, excavation, or construction.

Implementation of mitigation measure MM CUL-1: set forth below, which is hereby adopted and made a condition of approval, would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level by protecting the historical or cultural value of discovered resources through data recovery or preservation.

MM CUL-1: Prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities, the project proponent shall consult with the City and retain a qualified tribal monitor to observe ground disturbing activities. In addition, in the event that any prehistoric, historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources are discovered during grading/excavation, a professional (historian, archaeologist, and/or paleontologist, as determined appropriate and approved by the City) shall be hired to assess the significance of the find. Qualifications of the selected professional and tribal consultant(s) shall be submitted to the City for approval prior to any grading activities.

If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the City and the consulting professional shall determine, with the input of any traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribe, the appropriate avoidance measures, such as planning greenspace, parks, or other open space around the resource to preserve it and/or its context (while protecting the confidentiality of its location to the extent feasible) or other appropriate mitigation, such as protecting the historical or cultural value of the resource through data recovery or preservation.

In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting professional to mitigate impacts to cultural resources, the City shall determine whether avoidance is feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations.

If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures, such as data recovery, shall be instituted.

The resource shall be treated with the appropriate dignity, taking into account the resource’s historical or cultural value, meaning, and traditional use, as determined by a qualified professional or California Native American tribe, as is appropriate. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for cultural resources is carried out. All significant cultural materials recovered shall, at the discretion of the consulting professional, be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards.

At the City’s discretion, all work performed by the consulting professional shall be paid for by the proponent and at the City’s discretion, the professional may work under contract with the City. 44 Page | 18 ATTACHMENT 2
H. Impact CUL-2. The project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a previously undiscovered archaeological resource.

The EIR finds that the Project has the potential to cause archaeological resources to be discovered during construction excavation. Fifteen resources with an archeological component were identified in Plan Half Moon Bay (PHMB) Planning Area, including prehistoric shell middens and lithic scatters, historic debris scatters, habitation sites, and historic structural remnants. While no archaeological resources were observed or are known to be present on the project site or within a 0.25 mile radius, it is possible that resources meting the definition of a unique archaeological resource in Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code may be discovered during construction excavation. Implementation of mitigation measure MM CUL-1 would protect the historical or cultural value of unknown/discovered archaeological resources through data recovery or preservation through consultation with the appropriate professional.

Implementation of the mitigation measure MM CUL-1, set forth above, which is hereby adopted and made a condition of approval, would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

I. Impact CUL-4. The project has the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

The EIR finds that while the risk of encountering fossils on the project site is low based on the general lack of fossils in the City, grading has the potential to unearth previously undiscovered paleontological resources.

Implementation of the mitigation measure MM CUL-1, set forth above, which is hereby adopted and made a condition of approval, would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level
J. Impact CUL-5. The project has the potential to cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe as defined in PRC Sections 5020.1(k) or 5024.1.

The EIR finds that while no tribal cultural resources have been identified on the project site, the Project has the potential to cause a substantially adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. As requested by two representatives of tribes contacted during consultation, tribal monitors will be hired to monitor ground disturbing activities as specified in MM CUL-1.

Implementation of the mitigation measure MM CUL-1, set forth above, which is hereby adopted and made a condition of approval, would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level
45 Page | 19 ATTACHMENT 2
K. Impact CUL-4. The project has the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

The EIR finds that construction activities could unearth a previously undiscovered unique paleontological resource or site, or unique geological feature. The Draft EIR’s Geotechnical Investigation did not identify any unique geologic features at the project site, which is mostly flat and consists of an empty field. Similarly, there are no known paleontological resources identified on the project site. To the extent that construction activities could unearth previously undiscovered resources, implementation of mitigation measure MM CUL-1, would ensure their proper identification and treatment.

Implementation of mitigation measure MM CUL-1, set forth above, which is hereby adopted and made a condition of approval, would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

L. Impact G&S-1. The project would be located on soil that is unstable, resulting in on-site subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse
The EIR finds that the Proposed Project would be located on soil that is unstable, resulting in on-site subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. The project vicinity is mostly flat; therefore, structures on the site would not be threatened by landslides. Additionally, the project site and vicinity’s flat topography would prevent lateral spreading from posing a threat on or off-site.

The risk of liquefaction and seismic settlement at the project site would also be very low.

However, the presence of highly compressible surface soils, organic materials, potentially shallow groundwater, moderately expansive soils, and potentially corrosive soils at the site could undermine the stability of the project site.

Implementation of the mitigation measure MM GEO-1, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and made a condition of approval, would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level by incorporating recommendations from the Geotechnical Investigation into the project design.

MM GEO-1: The project design shall include all recommendations described in the Geotechnical Investigation including but not limited to:
• Over-excavation of surface soil layers, and addition of compacted fill • Use of non-expansive fill
• Shoring of utility trenches
• The retention of a corrosion engineering specialist for corrosion protection recommendations
• Retention of a licensed Geotechnical Engineer approved by the City to review geotechnical aspects of the project plans
• Geotechnical observation and testing during earthwork and foundation construction 46 Page | 20 ATTACHMENT 2
M. Impact G&S-2. The project would be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life and property
The EIR finds that moderately expansive soils occur across the project site, creating substantial direct or indirect risk to life and property. The presence of expansive soils at the project site would be addressed by mitigation measure MM GEO-1.

Implementation of mitigation measure MM GEO-1, set forth above, which is hereby adopted and made a condition of approval, would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level by incorporating recommendations from the Geotechnical Investigation into the project design.

N. Impact HAZ-1: The project would create a significant hazard to the public and environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment The EIR finds that the Proposed Project would create a significant hazard to the public and environment through the impacts related to soil and groundwater contamination. Historical aerial photographs of the project site reveal that it was used for agricultural purposes as late as 2013. Pesticides, herbicides, lead, and other agrichemicals may remain in or on the surface of the soil. Nearby sites may lead to polluted groundwater migrating onto the project site.

Mitigation measure MM HAZ-1 would reduce impacts related to soil and groundwater contamination by testing for contamination and prescribing methods for its containment, collection and disposal.

Implementation of mitigation measure MM HAZ-1, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and made a condition of approval, would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

MM HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Phase II environmental site assessment (Phase II ESA) shall be conducted and shall include water and soil testing at the project site. The project applicant and the contractor shall implement the prescribed avoidance and remediation measures to protect workers and the public from any hazardous materials found at the site as identified in the Phase II ESA and site testing results. A plan to remediate any contamination in excess of standards shall be submitted to the appropriate reviewing authority. The remediation areas shall also be indicated on grading plans. The remediation could include measures such as contaminated soil removal and disposal, dewatering and containment of polluted groundwater, and other containment and control measures to avoid exposure to concentrations of contaminants in excess of standards and in accordance with Department of Toxic Substances Control and Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards. Documentation for the implementation of any necessary remediation measures shall be transmitted to the City and the appropriate reviewing authority as proof of implementation of the remediation plan. 47 Page | 21 ATTACHMENT 2
O. Impact HAZ-2. Project construction would involve handling hazardous substances within one-quarter mile of an existing school.

The EIR finds that if contamination is detected on the project site, construction would involve handling hazardous substances within one-quarter mile of Sea Crest Elementary School.

Implementation of mitigation measure MM HAZ-1 includes measures to determine the existence of contamination at the site and identify strategies to protect the public from any hazardous materials found at the site. Such measures would be implemented by the project applicant and the contractor.

Implementation of mitigation measure MM HAZ-1, set forth above, which is hereby adopted and made a condition of approval, would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level P. Impact NOI-1a. The project would exceed thresholds for ambient noise levels as a result of construction and operation.

The EIR finds that the Proposed Project would result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity from project construction, increased traffic levels, and use mechanical equipment on site.

Construction noise impacts primarily result when construction activities occur during noisesensitive times of the day (e.g., early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses, or when construction lasts over extended periods of time. Construction activities generate considerable amounts of noise, especially during earth-moving activities when heavy equipment is used.

Project construction is projected to last for approximately 566 working days; the worst-case hourly average noise levels during construction would temporarily exceed 60 dBA Leq at residential land uses and 70 dBA Leq at commercial land uses, and would exceed ambient noise levels by 5 dBA Leq or more. Since construction is expected to last for a period of more than one year, this would be considered a significant impact. Mitigation measure MM NOI-1a would reduce construction noise levels emanating from the project site, minimizing disruption and annoyance during temporary construction activities.

Truck deliveries for the proposed hotel would also have the potential to generate noise. The Proposed Project would incorporate construction delivery times in mitigation measure MM NOI-1b to minimize disruption and annoyance during nighttime deliveries.

Implementation of mitigation measures MM NOI-1a and MM NOI-1b, set forth below, which are hereby adopted and made conditions of approval, would reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level.

MM NOI-1a: Construction Best Management Practices. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall develop a construction noise control plan meeting the approval of the City Manager or his/her designee and/or third-party peer review, including, but not limited to, the 48 Page | 22 ATTACHMENT 2
performance standards listed below. The applicant shall employ an acoustical consultant preapproved by the City Manager or designee, to ensure the efficacy of the noise control plan. The acoustical consultant shall conduct onsite checks during construction to ensure that nuisance noise is being reduced in accordance with the noise control plan. Monthly reports shall be submitted to City Manager’s office for the duration of construction or until such time that the City Manager or designee deems it no longer necessary.
• Installation of temporary sound barriers/blankets along the northern and western project boundary line adjacent to the single-family receivers. The temporary barriers/blankets shall have a minimum 5 dBA reduction. The temporary barriers/blankets will be of sufficient height to extend from the top of the temporary construction fence and drape on the ground or be sealed at the ground. The temporary barriers/blankets will have grommets along the top edge with exterior grade hooks, and loop fasteners along the vertical edges with overlapping seams, with a minimum overlap of 2 inches.
• Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. • Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines should be strictly prohibited. • Locate stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors or portable power generators, as far as possible from sensitive receptors as feasible. If they must be located near receptors, adequate muffling (with enclosures where feasible and appropriate) shall be used to reduce noise levels at the adjacent sensitive receptors. Any enclosure openings or venting shall face away from sensitive receptors. • Utilize "quiet" air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
• Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that will create the greatest distance between the construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. • Locate material stockpiles, as well as maintenance/equipment staging and parking areas, as far as feasible from residential receptors.
• Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site.
• As part of the Noise Control Plan the contractor shall prepare a detailed construction schedule for major noise-generating construction activities. The Plan shall identify a procedure for coordination with adjacent residential land uses so that construction activities can be scheduled to minimize noise disturbance, and will be reviewed by the City.
• Designate a "disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include in it the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule. 49 Page | 23 ATTACHMENT 2
MM NOI-1b: Nighttime Truck Delivery. To minimize the noise impact associated with truck deliveries, it is assumed that deliveries shall only occur between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Based on the size of the proposed land use, smaller delivery and vendors would be expected for the proposed project. These trucks typically generate maximum noise levels of 65 to 70 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. The noise levels due to deliveries at the nearest sensitive receptors would range from 60 to 65 dBA. Compared to the ambient noise environment, which has maximum instantaneous noise levels ranging from 67 to 107 dBA Lmax and hourly average noise levels ranging from 60 to 75 dBA Leq, truck deliveries would not be expected to increase the existing noise environment, assuming daytime deliveries only.

Q. Impact TRA-1: The project would conflict with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

The EIR finds that that the Proposed Project would conflict with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b), which requires projects to use Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the metric for determining the significance levels of transportation impacts of a project.

The hotel component and residential component of the Project are expected to generate approximately 572 trips per day. The transportation impacts of these trips are determined by assessing the increase in VMT that result from a project. Because the City has not yet adopted a standard of significance for evaluating VMT, guidance provided by the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) was used to evaluate VMT. The OPR Technical Advisory includes suggested VMT significance thresholds for residential, employment, and retail uses but does not address hotel or other visitor-based land uses, indicating that lead agencies may develop their own thresholds. The City has determined that a project which generates at least 15 percent less than the Proposed Project’s unmitigated VMT would have a less-than-significant impact. VMT associated with the hotel component of the Project, comprising employee trips, guest trips to and from the airport, and local guest trips, were anticipated to generate 3,965 daily VMT assuming peak room occupancy. Mitigation measure MM TRA-1 requires the project applicant to implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measure to reduce VMT to the City’s threshold. The expected VMT reductions associated with the TDM measures specified in the mitigation measure are estimated to reduce VMT to 3, 354 daily VMT, which would be a 15.4 percent reduction.

Implementation of mitigation measure MM TRA-1, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and made a condition of approval, would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level by reducing project VMT by at least 15%.

MM TRA-1: TDM Program and Monitoring
The applicant shall draft and implement a TDM Program with measures that would achieve an annual average VMT reduction of at least 15 percent. The hotel operator shall propose a TDM program that contains specific measures to achieve a 15 percent VMT reduction, which is necessary for compliance with the TDM Program. The TDM Program shall be updated from time 50 Page | 24 ATTACHMENT 2
to time, as deemed appropriate by the City, to reflect best practices in the field of Transportation Demand Management.

As part of the hotel operations, the hotel operator shall conduct mode split and VMT surveys each year to both make adjustments and use as marketing material. Guest and employee satisfaction surveys are also an effective way of ensuring a quality TDM program. The designated hotel Transportation Coordinator shall provide a copy of the updated TDM program to the City Manager and Traffic Engineer annually on the date of issuance of the use and occupancy/operating permit.

When preparing, adopting, or updating the TDM Program, the hotel operator shall implement the TDM plan with a single occupancy vehicle (SOV) mode-share reduction commitment of 15 percent.

VII. ALTERNATIVES
The Draft EIR analyzed three alternatives to the Original Project: the No Project Alternative, the Reduced Intensity Alternative, and the Multi-Family Residential Alternative, and compared them to the Original Project. Following circulation of the Draft EIR, the applicant submitted revised plans to the City indicating that Alternative 2 (with revisions, called Modified Alternative 2), is now the Proposed Project as explained in Section III, above. The Final EIR Volume analyzed all of these alternatives and compared them to the Original Project, which is analyzed in the Draft EIR, and to each other as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. The alternatives are briefly summarized below and described in Chapter 5.0 of the Draft EIR and Appendix 3.0-A of the Final EIR Volume (Text Revisions to Chapter 5.0). Brief summaries of the evaluated alternatives are provided below. As explained in Section XII below, the findings in this Section are based on the Draft EIR and the Final EIR, the discussion and analysis in which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference, and on the record as a whole.

A. No Project, Alternative 1
CEQA requires consideration of a no project alternative. Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6, the No Project Alternative assumes the continuation of existing plans and policies. Under the No Project Alternative, the project site could remain in its current undeveloped condition as a vacant lot, with little or no change.

The No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the project objectives or the City’s objectives, which are set forth in Section II, above. For example, it does not support Downtown vitality and the City’s economic development goals, meet the demand for more hotel rooms to support the city’s growing local tourist and agribusiness economies, establish a higher level of use on an underused parcel in the city, support the local job market by providing new employment opportunities, or provide an opportunity for the City to increase revenue stream.

For the foregoing reasons, the No Project Alternative is hereby rejected. 51 Page | 25 ATTACHMENT 2
B. Multi-Family Residential, Alternative 3
The Multi-Family Residential, Alternative 3, would involve the construction of residential units at the project site rather than a hotel. Alternative 3 would consist of 2 main buildings, a 2-story structure, and a 3-story structure with 58 multi-family units, which would encompass a building floor area of approximately 66,581 square feet. Alternative 3 also includes a parking lot on the east side of the project site with 116 parking spaces, 50 percent of which would be enclosed within a garage/carport. Alternative 3 would feature multi-family residential buildings that are approximately the same size and height as the hotel buildings proposed in the Modified Alternative 2 (the Proposed Project) and would also feature the same amount of open space as the project.

Alternative 3 would not meet several of the City’s and project applicant’s project objectives, which are generally framed to support the City’s growing local tourist and agribusiness economies. While Alternative 3 would provide multi-family residential units, it would not help meet the City’s demand for more hotel rooms, support the City’s economic development goals, support the local job market by providing new employment opportunities, or provide an opportunity for the City to maintain revenue stream.

Additionally, Alternative 3 would have a similar building footprint as compared to the project and would therefore have similar environmental impacts.

C. Environmentally Superior Alternative
On the basis of the analysis of the Draft EIR, the City finds that the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. The No Project Alternative would avoid all of the project’s significant impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), however, states that “if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” Therefore, the Proposed Project is the environmentally superior alternative, because it would result in lesser environmental impacts to some environmental resources and introduce incrementally greater impacts to others compared to Alternative 3 and the Original Project. Specifically, the Proposed Project would substantially reduce the aesthetic impacts associated with the Original Project by reducing the overall massing of the project as well as increasing building setbacks; as a result the protected view of the ridgeline would not be obstructed by the structures associated with the project. The Proposed Project would therefore not result in a significant and unavoidable impact to protected scenic vistas and visual resources within a scenic corridor in the Coastal Zone, making it the environmentally superior for this criterion. The Project would also result in fewer trips to and from the project site, substantially reducing the VMT associated with the hotel component of the Project, although the Proposed Project would have incrementally higher pollutant and GHG emissions than the Original Project. The Proposed Project would also best meet the City’s and project applicant’s primary project objectives, providing a development that balances the urban landscape with the natural elements of the coast, enhances the aesthetics of the Southern entry to the City, and would be designed contextually appropriate for the traditional development within the City. 52 Page | 26 ATTACHMENT 2
Alternative 3 would result in lesser environmental impacts to some environmental resources and introduce incrementally greater impacts to others compared to the Proposed Project and the Original Project. For example, Alternative 3 would result in fewer trips being generated than both the Proposed Project and the Original Project and a lesser amount of VMT. However, Alternative 3 would be similar in building floor area and result in similar aesthetic impacts as the Proposed Project and produce comparable air pollutant and GHG emissions. Although Alternative 3 would also result in lesser environmental impacts to some environmental resources, the Proposed Project better aligns with the City’s and project applicant’s primary project objectives, goals, and policies and is therefore the environmentally superior alternative.

VIII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
As set forth above, the City has found that some of the adverse environmental impacts of the Hyatt Place Project remain significant following adoption and implementation of mitigation measures described in the EIR and incorporated into the Proposed Project. Section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that when the decision of the public agency results in the occurrence of significant impacts that are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its actions. Having balanced the benefits of the Proposed Project against its significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, the City finds that the project’s benefits outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and that the adverse environmental effects are therefore acceptable. The City further finds that each of the Proposed Project benefits discussed below is a separate and independent basis for these findings. The reasons set forth below are based on the Final EIR and other information in the administrative record.

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 LowCost 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.

B. The Proposed Project will provide other no- and low-cost amenities including a publiclyaccessible bikeway and pedestrian pathway adjacent to SR-1. The site currently has no 53 Page | 27 ATTACHMENT 2
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 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.

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 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.

D. The Proposed Project will generate Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue for the City in support of 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.”
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.
54 Page | 28 ATTACHMENT 2
• 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.

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.

IX. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
These findings incorporate the text of the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Half Moon Bay Hyatt Place Project by reference and in their entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the comparative analysis of alternatives, the determination of the environmentally superior alternative, and the reasons for approving the Project in spite of the potential for associated significant and unavoidable adverse impacts.

X. RECIRCULATION NOT REQUIRED
No significant new information was added to the Draft EIR or the Final EIR Volume as a result of the public comment process. The Final EIR Volume responds to comments, and clarifies, amplifies, and makes insignificant modifications to the Draft EIR. It does not identify any new significant effects on the environment or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact requiring major revisions to the Draft EIR.

The alterations made to the project, which accompanied its change from the Original Project to the Proposed Project, would not result in any new impacts or substantial increase in the severity of impacts that were previously identified in the Draft EIR. Rather, compared to the Original Project the Proposed Project would reduce impacts to scenic vistas and resources, making two previously significant and unavoidable impacts (Impact AES-1 and Impact AES-2) less than significant. The Proposed Project is not substantially different from Draft EIR Alternative 2, which was analyzed in the Draft EIR, because the changes are limited to reduced square footage, a slightly longer breezeway between buildings, an adjusted parcel map of the proposed subdivision north of Seymour Street, and improved approaches to policy consistency with the Half Moon Bay LCLUP. These changes do not constitute “significant new information,” which would require recirculation of the Draft EIR. Therefore, recirculation of the EIR is not required.

XI. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Various documents and other materials related to the Project constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City bases its findings and decisions contained herein. Those documents and materials are located in the offices of the custodian for the documents and 55 Page | 29 ATTACHMENT 2
materials, which is the City of Half Moon Bay Community Development Department, 501 Main St., Half Moon Bay, CA, 94019.

XII. SUMMARY
A. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, the City has made one or more of the following Findings with respect to each of the significant effects of the Proposed Project:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or made a condition of approval of, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.

2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other public agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR that would otherwise avoid or substantially lessen the identified significant environmental effects of the Project.

B. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, the City determines that:

1. All significant effects on the environment due to the approval of the Proposed Project have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible.

2. Any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to the factors described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, above.
56 ATTACHMENT 3
Resolu�on No. C-2025-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY GRANTING THE APPEAL AND

APPROVING 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 CREATE FOUR RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON AN EXISTING PARCEL 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. (APN 065-012-030, 065-012-020, AND 064-352- 150), PDP-072-13
WHEREAS, an applica�on was submited by the applicant seeking approval of a Coastal Development Permit, Site and Architectural Review, and a Parking Excep�on for a 66,268 squarefoot, 102-room hotel; and a Tenta�ve Parcel Map to adjust the lot line between the hotel parcel and the adjacent James Ford auto dealership parcel and create four residen�al parcels on the north side of Seymour Street for future development of up to 16 residen�al dwelling units as allowed by the R2 zoning district development standards (collec�vely, the Proposed Project); and WHEREAS, the procedures for processing the applica�on have been followed as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed various itera�ons of the project at study and/or CEQA scoping sessions on October 25, 2016, March 27, 2018, October 9, 2018, and June 29, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Advisory Commitee (AAC) reviewed various itera�ons of the project on July 16, 2020 and at a Joint Study Session with the Planning Commission on June 29, 2021, and provided feedback on the project design; and
WHEREAS, the condi�ons of approval ensure that the Proposed Project will comply with the City’s requirements and will comply with the Mi�ga�on Monitoring and Repor�ng Program (MMRP) and are included as Exhibit B to this resolu�on; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted duly no�ced public hearings on October 9, 2024 and on October 22, 2024 on the Proposed Project, and reviewed and considered the Final EIR, writen reports, and other informa�on in the record, and at which time all those desiring to be heard on the matter were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all writen and oral tes�mony presented for considera�on; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did not approve the requested permits and denied the project, without taking ac�on on the EIR or Statement of Overriding Condi�ons, on October 22, 2024 by a 3-2 vote for the reasons set forth in the findings of the denial resolu�on; and WHEREAS, an applica�on for appeal was filed on November 4, 2024, appealing the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has made the required findings for granting the appeal and 57 ATTACHMENT 3
reverses the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly no�ced public hearing on January 30, 2025 on the Proposed Project, and reviewed and considered the complete EIR, which is comprised of the Dra� EIR, Final EIR, and errata, all of which were provided as links within, and as Atachment No. 9 to the January 30, 2025 City Council report, writen reports, and other informa�on in the record, and at which time all those desiring to be heard on the matter were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered all writen and oral tes�mony presented for considera�on; and
WHEREAS, the City Council made the required findings for approval of the project, set forth in Exhibit A to this resolu�on, a�er making all required CEQA findings and cer�fying the EIR and Statement of Overriding Considera�ons, by separate Resolu�on.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council:

Grants the appeal and approves the Proposed Project based upon the Findings in Exhibit A and subject to the Condi�ons of Approval contained in Exhibit B.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Half Moon Bay City Council at a duly no�ced public hearing held January 30, 2025.
***************************************************************** I, the undersigned, hereby cer�fy that the foregoing Resolu�on was duly passed and adopted on the 30th day of January 2025, by the City Council of Half Moon Bay by the following vote:

Ayes, Councilmembers:

Noes, Councilmembers:

Absent, Councilmembers:

Abstain, Councilmembers:

Atest: APPROVED:
___________________________ _____________________________ Jessica Blair, City Clerk Robert Brownstone, Mayor
58 ATTACHMENT 3

EXHIBIT A

FINDINGS AND EVIDENCE
City Council Resolu�on C-25-____
PDP-072-13
Coastal Development Permit – Findings for Approval
The required Coastal Development Permit for this project may be approved or condi�onally approved only a�er the approving authority has made the following findings per Municipal Code Sec�on 18.20.070:

1. Local Coastal Program – The development as proposed or as modified by conditions and as required by the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), conforms to the Local Coastal Program.

Compliance: The project consists of the construc�on of a 66,268 square-foot, 102-room hotel with associated site improvements. The proposed hotel consists of two main buildings—a north building (3 stories) and a south building (2 stories)—and a parking lot that faces Main Street. The north building consists of guestrooms on two levels and one level with guestrooms as well as employee and service areas. The south building houses the lobby and common spaces, with guestrooms on the second level. The hotel also includes a smaller, single-story building that would house a bicycle rental shop. The project also includes a four-lot parcel map allowing for future development of up to 16 dwelling units along Seymour Street and the expansion of the exis�ng car dealership parking area on the parcel at 100 Seymour Street. The hotel and residen�al sites are located where public services and infrastructure are available, including sewer, water, gas and electric u�li�es. The Project site is within the LCLUP designated Town Center area and is surrounded by exis�ng development and primary City streets and State Highway 1. The Project was reviewed and determined to be in compliance with the whole of the LCLUP. In par�cular, the policies of LCLUP Chapter 9 (Scenic and Visual Resources) are the most applicable to the project site. The relevant Scenic and Visual Resource policies with a statement of compliance are noted below:

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 loca�on of visual resource areas, including upland slopes, none of which occur on the project site. Policies addressing development on upland slopes do not apply to this project because no development on upland slopes is proposed. Other policies beter address development at lower eleva�ons for the protec�on of upland slopes.

Policy 9-2. Scenic Resource Protection. New development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean, to minimize the alteration of natural landform, to be visually compatible with the character of its setting, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.

Compliance: The Proposed Project does not block views to or along the ocean because such views are not available from the project site. The project will be developed on a rela�vely flat site and 59 ATTACHMENT 3
therefore would not substan�ally alter a natural landform. The si�ng, massing, and architectural treatments of the project are in scale with newer development in the South Downtown por�on of the Town Center and include materials and building forms compa�ble with exis�ng architectural structures such as board and baten siding, dormers, and weathered siding reminiscent of agricultural buildings such as barns, and as recommended by the Architectural Advisory Commitee. The project is below the maximum height as allowed by the zoning district.

Compliance: Implementa�on of this policy for preserving views of the upland slopes is further defined in Policies 9-12 and 9-23.

Policy 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.

Compliance: Visual simula�ons have been provided for four different viewpoints: Two from protected views (Viewpoints 2 and 3 show the Proposed Project from SR-1, a scenic corridor) and two from other vantage points around the site (Viewpoint 1 from Main Street and Viewpoint 4 from the Naomi Patridge Trail, a public trail parallel to SR-1). Project story poles have been installed on the site at various �mes, and were installed several weeks before the October 9, 2024 Planning Commission public hearing, in compliance City Council Resolu�on 66-11, which established the City’s current story pole requirement. The story poles have remained up since the Planning Commission hearings, although some of the flagging has been damaged by winter storms. The flagging has been restored prior to this City Council hearing. Both means noted in Policy 9-5 to make visual assessments of the proposed project have been provided. Design review by the Architectural Advisory Commitee and the Planning Commission was undertaken at several sessions, including at a no�ced and well-atended joint study session on June 29, 2021. Revisions have been incorporated into the project based on the Architectural Advisory Commitee, Planning Commission, and public comment design feedback provided.

Policy 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;
e. Clustering or distributing development;
f. Incorporating landscape elements and screening; and
g. Conformance with any adopted design guidelines.

Compliance: The project’s site planning and design includes several of the elements presented in Policy 9-6. The buildings have been sited to be as far back as possible from SR-1 (up to 139 feet) to ensure that the visibility of the buildings is reduced to the greatest degree possible (#a). The hotel 60 ATTACHMENT 3
mass has been broken up into mul�ple buildings (one three-story, one two-story, and one singlestory) and a 32’ wide single-story breezeway has been incorporated to connect the two buildings.

2.02 acres of open space and wetlands restora�on is included in the project, further buffering the development from public views. This allows a larger gap between the two buildings and the opportunity for longer-range views in between (#b and #e). The design employs weathered and coastal compa�ble colored siding and roofing to blend into the natural landscape (#c). The project is in conformance with the zoning district height requirements. There are no maximum site coverage or floor-area ra�o standards for this zoning district (#d). The project landscape elements are compa�ble with the wetlands on the west side of the project and consistent with the town’s streetscape patern on the east side of the site.

Policy 9-8. Land Divisions. Require land divisions, including lot line adjustments, to be designed in a manner that minimizes impacts to visual resources. Measures for minimizing visual impacts include the following:
a. Clustering the building sites to minimize site disturbance and maximize open space; b. Prohibiting land divisions and adjustments that would create lots with insufficient space for development, including to avoid the need for fuel modification, without impacting visual resources; c. Requiring new land divisions to provide sufficient park and open space areas; d. Prohibiting creation of new building sites above the 160-foot contour line within City limits; e. Minimizing the length and impermeability of access roads and driveways; f. Using shared or abutting driveways to access development on adjacent lots, where appropriate; g. Reducing the maximum allowable density in steeply sloping and visually sensitive areas; and h. Revegetating graded building pad areas, if any, with native plants.

Compliance: The site plan maximizes open space on the south between the proposed hotel improvements and the exis�ng City concrete monument signs and Main Street/Cabrillo Highway intersec�on, and west sides of the hotel property between the proposed hotel buildings and Cabrillo Highway, including space for an enhanced wetland buffer and habitat restora�on public use. The four-lot subdivision meets the standards of the R-2 zoning district and will allow for sufficient space for future residen�al development. The site is not located on a slope or above the 160-foot contour line. The project driveways are limited to those necessary to access and service the site along Main Street. Bicycle and pedestrian pathways will u�lize pervious materials. The site will include significant na�ve plan�ngs as part of the wetland conserva�on and landscaping plan.

Policy 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; b. Incorporates design standards such as screening of commercial parking areas and landscaping provisions; and
c. Is visually compatible with the surrounding land and development.

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, longest wall lines, minimum space between buildings, and streetscape design. 61 ATTACHMENT 3
Compliance: The Proposed Project does not impact views to the ocean, nor does it impact views to the historic Johnston House. Visual simula�ons from Viewpoints 2 and 3 simulate northbound views from the visually important South Gateway area across the project site toward the hillsides to the north and east. From these vantage points, the Proposed Project does not intrude into the view of the ridgeline, nor does it block views to the ocean or the Johnston House. The story poles erected on the site indicate that when passing by the proposed project site at certain points along SR-1, the proposed project will intrude into the ridgeline when viewed from either the northbound or southbound direc�on, as similarly experience with other recent and long-standing residen�al, commercial, and ins�tu�onal development within the SR-1 vicinity. To reasonably address this concern, the proposed project has been oriented on the site and designed with substan�al setbacks from SR-1 in an effort to minimize the intrusions into the ridgeline. Addi�onally, the two main buildings have been separated by 32 feet to allow a break in the building mass and introduce views beyond the buildings, as recommended by the Architectural Review Commitee. In addi�on, the proposed project development is clustered and set back from SR-1 and the intersec�on of SR-1 at South Main Street to allow for site lines across the substan�ally undeveloped por�on of the site (#a), and providing ample transi�on from the City’s recent concrete monument gateway and SR1/Main Street improvements. The proposed buildings screen the parking areas from SR-1 and landscaping will be installed to screen the parking areas from Main Street (#b). The project mass is broken up into mul�ple structures and building design and materials were selected to be visually compa�ble with agricultural building forms, colors and rough textures. Landscape elements align the two sides of the project to the context of each side of the site. On the west side of the site, landscaping includes wetland restora�on and use of na�ve plan�ngs found in nearby Wavecrest; on the east side of the site, landscaping includes street trees and frontage improvements consistent with the streetscape of Main Street and surrounding site character (#c).

Policy 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; and 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.

Compliance: The project site is located below the 160-foot contour line and is rela�vely flat (#a).

As noted in the compliance statement for Policy 9-12, the Proposed Project has a substan�al setback from SR-1 and is under the maximum height allowed in the zoning district, both of which contribute to minimizing the intrusions into the ridgeline. The rooflines of the two main buildings are designed to minimize building height and op�mize visual consistency with surrounding development and site character (#b). The other sec�on of the policy (#c) does not apply to this project.

Policy 9-30. Dark Night Skies. Protect dark night skies as part of Half Moon Bay’s scenic and visual character by preventing light pollution from development. Avoid impacts from exterior lighting on dark night skies, sensitive habitat areas, and agricultural operations by:
a. Limiting exterior lighting to low-intensity fixtures that are shielded, down-cast, and concealed so that the light source is not directly visible from public viewing areas, with the exception of traffic lights, 62 ATTACHMENT 3
navigational lights, and other similar safety lighting; b. Limiting installation and use of high-intensity perimeter lighting and lighting for sports fields, other private recreational facilities, or public facilities in scenic areas, with the exception of safety lighting provided that any high-intensity lighting is down-cast, shielded, and minimizes spillover; and c. Reducing light pollution from greenhouses as a condition of approval for new development through shielding and other practices that minimize light spillover.

Compliance: The Proposed Project has been designed and condi�oned to incorporate dark skies compa�ble light fixtures (#a). The other sec�ons of the policy (#b and #c) do not apply to this project.

Policy 9-31. Lighting Plan Review. Require submittal of lighting plans with applications for new development, including subdivisions, for review of lighting characteristics.

Compliance: Ligh�ng plan review with the building permit plans, which is a standard requirement of the building permit submital, will ensure conformance with this policy, as well as with Policy 9-30.

Sheet A-1 lists all relevant LCLUP policies beyond the Scenic and Visual Resource policies and describes project consistency with each.

With the implementa�on of the required condi�ons of approval and the MMRP, the project conforms to City requirements, will not impact coastal resources, and is consistent with the policies of the City’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP).

2. Growth Management System – The project will need to demonstrate consistency with the Measure D Growth Management System established in the Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance when the applicant proceeds with a CDP and Site/Architectural Review for residential development on the four newly-created lots as allowed by the R-2 zoning district.

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.

Compliance: The project conforms to the LCLUP (which provides policy direc�on that the project shall be found consistent with the Zoning Code designa�on un�l compliant revisions can be made) as well as all other relevant provisions of the Zoning Code.

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.

Compliance: The site is an infill site with exis�ng dry and wet u�lity connec�ons. The Project will be served with water, sewer, and road facili�es and is located in an area that will not require infrastructure enhancements to accommodate the Project.

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 Chapter3 of the California Coastal Act. 63
ATTACHMENT 3
Compliance: The Project site is not located between the sea and the first public road parallel to the sea, and thus this provision does not apply. Nonetheless, the project would not restrict public access or recrea�on opportuni�es because the site is on the opposite side of Highway 1 from any public beach. Adequate public access and recrea�on opportuni�es are available to the west to the Coastal Trail and beaches. The project was reviewed for conformance with the relevant policies in the Coastal Act – Chapter 3 in par�cular, which addresses Coastal Resources Planning and Management Policies. Sheet A-2 to this exhibit lists all relevant Coastal Act policies and iden�fies project consistency. The Project would be built on an already-developed site; would not impact environmentally sensi�ve 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.

General Plan Housing Element – Findings
Compliance: The Seymour Street residen�al lot proposed to be subdivided into 4 parcels is iden�fied as a Housing Opportunity Site in the City Dra� 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element.

Site and Architectural Review – Findings
The required Architectural and/or Site and Design Review for this project may be approved or condi�onally approved only a�er the approving authority has made the findings per Municipal Code Sec�on 14.37.040. In making these findings, the Planning Commission has considered the design approval criteria set forth in Municipal Code Sec�on 14.37.035.

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.

Compliance: The proposed improvements have been designed to meet the requirements of the Commercial - General zoning district. The various itera�ons of the proposed hotel architecture and site design have been reviewed by the Planning Commission and Architectural Advisory Commitee at several mee�ngs and has never been referred to as obnoxious or unsightly by the members of these bodies.

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
Compliance: The project is compa�ble with the scale and character of development in the vicinity and will contribute to the economic value of the land and surrounding area. The proposed hotel is on a main collector street in the City and is in conformance with the Commercial – General zoning district allowed uses, lot coverage and height standards, has generous setbacks from SR-1 to minimize visual impacts, and would provide over 40% of the site as publicly-accessible open space. The building design has been refined to reflect community character and be sensi�ve to neighborhood context based on input from the Planning Commission and Architectural Advisory Commitee over the course of several mee�ngs. 64 ATTACHMENT 3

3. The project has been designed in conformance and consistency with the single-family residential design guidelines (where applicable).

Compliance: Not applicable.

Tenta�ve Parcel Map – Finding of Conformance
Municipal Code Chapter 17.26 states that “[t]he Planning Commission shall at a public hearing determine whether the tentative parcel map is in conformity with the general plan and its elements, the local coastal plan, the zoning ordinance, the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, and this title as to design, drainage, utilities, road improvements and offers of dedication or deed.” In making this finding, the Planning Commission has considered the requirements set forth in Municipal Code Chapter 17.26 and the determination of the Public Works Director.

Compliance: The City’s Public Works Director has reviewed this Tenta�ve Parcel Map and has determined that the map is in conformance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, and that the design meets the requirements of the City. The parcel map was not cited by the Planning Commission in the denial findings for the project.

Parking Excep�on – Finding for Approval
Municipal Code Section 18.36.085 allows that in the case of “practical difficulties and unusual hardships, exceptions to the parking requirements set forth may be granted.” In making this finding, the Planning Commission has considered the analysis provided by the applicant and concurs with the conclusion that the provided parking will be sufficient based on the characteristics of the parking demand demonstrated.

Compliance: The applicant has submited a Parking Load Analysis that demonstrates the peak parking �mes for hotel guests and the peak parking �mes for hotel employees based on condi�ons at a similarly-sized Hyat Place hotel project in Santa Cruz. This analysis shows that despite having a lesser amount of on-site parking than required by the City, there is typically enough parking on site to meet the project need due to the actual parking demand at the site during different �mes of the day. The need for employee parking peaks at the same �me the demand for guest parking is reduced, and therefore the 108 parking spaces provided is expected to be sufficient for the 102-room hotel with up to 25 employees. 65 ATTACHMENT 3
EXHIBIT B:

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
City Council Resolu�on C-25-____
PDP-072-13
A. The following General Condi�ons shall apply to the project:

1. CONFORMANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS. Development of the project shall conform to the approved plans en�tled “Hyat Place Half Moon Bay” atached to the January 30, 2025 City Council staff report, except for any revisions required by the conditions of approval, as amended by the City Council on January 30, 2025. The Community Development Director and City Engineer shall review any change in impervious surface area; and the Director shall review and may approve any devia�on from the approved plans that is determined minor in nature. Any other change shall require the submital of a major modifica�on applica�on and fees and shall be subject to a public hearing as required by Title 18. (Planning)

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

3. MITIGATION MEASURES INCLUDED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. All measures shown in the Mi�ga�on Monitoring and Repor�ng Program (MMRP), adopted as part of the cer�fica�on of the project Environmental Impact Report, are included by reference in these condi�ons of approval.

4. CONFORMANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. The Community Development Director shall review and may approve any devia�on from the Condi�ons of Approval that is determined minor in nature. Any other change shall require the submital of a major modifica�on applica�on and fees and shall be subject to a public hearing as required by Title 18. (Planning)

5. PAYMENT OF AGRICULTURAL MITIGATION FEE. The applicant shall pay an in-lieu Agricultural Mi�ga�on Fee of $38,400 for loss of 3.0-acres of the hotel site designated as Prime Agricultural Land. The fee will be paid to an en�ty selected by the City of Half Moon Bay and the California Coastal Commission. Verifica�on of fee payment shall be provided to the Community Development Director in advance of issuance of a building permit for the hotel por�on of the project.

6. PROVISION OF LOW-COST VISITOR ACCOMMODATIONS. The applicant shall meet LCLUP Policy 5- 71 to provide lower cost accommoda�ons by reserving six (6) rooms as lower-cost overnight accommoda�ons at $148.02 or lower per night. The project file (PDP-072-13) contains a detailed explana�on and jus�fica�on of how the daily room rate was developed, how the number of rooms was calculated, and confirma�on that the Coastal Commission agreed with the analysis and agreed that the approach meets the intent of the policy and is in compliance with the LCP. The $148.02 low-cost room rate is based on current 2023 data. The low-cost room rate is calculated using the “Visit California” statewide average daily rate (ADR) for August (peak season) at htps://industry.visitcalifornia.com/research/researchdashboard. In 2023, the peak season daily rate is $197.37 for standard, double occupancy rooms. 75% of the statewide average daily rate is $148.02, and 75% is the discount at which the rate is considered lower cost. The daily rate can be adjusted annually allowed to increase at no more than the annual Consumer Price Index each year.

The daily rate shall be inclusive of all service and other fees (e.g., cleaning, resort, administra�ve) but exclusive of any government-mandated fees (e.g., sales tax, transient occupancy taxes). The applicant may provide more low-cost on-site rooms than the minimum iden�fied herein.

7. MONITORING REPORTS FOR LOW-COST ACCOMMODATIONS. The applicant/owner shall provide an annual report (with the first report due by December 31st of the first year of project occupancy, 66 ATTACHMENT 3
and subsequent reports due by December 31st of subsequent years) to the Community Development Director for review and approval. The monitoring reports shall include, at a minimum, the average daily rate charged each month during the preceding year for the low-cost unit; occupancy rates for the low-cost units for each applicable month; a descrip�on of proposed low-cost rates for the upcoming year (which shall be allowed to increase at no more than the annual Consumer Price Index each year), and an assessment of compliance with the terms and condi�ons of this CDP regarding the low-cost units. The ul�mate intent of this repor�ng requirement is that the applicant/owner will make necessary changes as iden�fied in any approved monitoring report as required by the Community Development Director to maintain consistency with the terms and condi�ons of this CDP.

B. The following Condi�ons shall apply to ongoing project opera�on:

1. LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE. The applicant/owner shall ensure that all landscaped areas are con�nuously maintained, and all plant material is maintained free of refuse and in a healthy growing condi�on. The percent cover of non-na�ve species, and invasive plant species with a Cal-IPC Inventory ra�ng of High will not exceed 5 percent at any �me during the 5- year monitoring period, respec�vely. Addi�onally, the percent cover of planted (i.e., not seeded) na�ve species within mi�ga�on areas will equal or exceed 50 percent by the end of the 5-year monitoring period. Bare ground/mulch and non-na�ve drought tolerant species can comprise the remaining cover. (Planning – required by Standard Condi�on of Approval BIO-4 from the EIR)

2. LIGHTING. All exterior ligh�ng shall be fully shielded so that no light source is visible from outside the property, except as otherwise expressly approved. (Planning)

3. SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE AND LIABILITY. It shall be the duty of the Property Owner(s) to maintain all sidewalks along the project frontage in a safe and non-dangerous condi�on. Sidewalk maintenance shall include removal and replacement of concrete to eliminate tripping hazards; and pruning and trimming of trees, shrubs, ground cover and other landscaping within the public rightof-way. The Property Owner has the primary and exclusive duty to fund and perform such maintenance and repair, whether the City has no�fied the property owner of the need for such maintenance or repairs or has performed similar maintenance or repairs in the past, pursuant to §12.18.020 and §12.18.030 of the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code. (Engineering). The Property Owner is not responsible for maintaining any sidewalks in Caltrans ROW along SR-1 unless a separate agreement has been reached between the Property Owner and Caltrans to do so.

C. The following Condi�ons shall be fulfilled prior to the issuance of building permits:

1. SIGNED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. The Applicant shall submit a signed copy of the condi�ons of approval to the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit. (Planning)

2. ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS. A qualified acous�cal specialist shall prepare a detailed analysis of interior hotel noise levels resul�ng from all exterior sources during the design phase pursuant to requirements set forth in the State Building Code. Treatments would include, but are not limited to, sound-rated windows and doors, sound-rated wall and window construc�ons, acous�cal caulking, protected ven�la�on openings, etc. The specific determina�on of what noise insula�on treatments are necessary shall be conducted on a room-by-room basis in the hotel or a unit-byunit basis in the residen�al units during final design of the project. Results of the analysis, including the descrip�on of the necessary noise control treatments, shall be submited to the City, along with the building plans and approved design, prior to issuance of a building permit.

The implementa�on of these noise insula�on features would reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA or less and 55 dBA Lmax or less. (Planning) 67
ATTACHMENT 3

3. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES. Development impact fees are applicable and will need to be paid prior to the issuance of the building permit. Note that addi�onal building permit fees may apply.

The fees due will correspond to the Master Fee Schedule for in effect when the building permit is ready to be issued.

4. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT. If the lot line adjustment between the hotel and auto dealership parcels needs to be recorded prior to the Tenta�ve Parcel Map for the crea�on of four residen�al parcels, an applica�on for a lot line adjustment shall be submited, approved, and recorded with the County of San Mateo Recorder’s Office prior to issuance of building permits. (Engineering)

5. PARCEL MAP. The subdivider shall submit a Final Parcel Map in substan�al conformance with the Tenta�ve Parcel Map and Title 17 of the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code to the sa�sfac�on of the City Engineer. (Engineering)

6. LOT RETIREMENT. Prior to the issuance of residen�al building dwelling permits, the applicant shall demonstrate that three poten�ally developable lots within the city limits, in a PD area have either been purchased and deed restricted to ex�nguish development rights in perpetuity or the lots have been transferred to an open space trust or other appropriate land management en�ty as determined by the City. (Planning)

7. SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT. A subdivision improvement agreement is required to be in place as part of the Parcel Map phase. (Engineering)

8. PARK AND RECREATION LAND DEDICATION. Prior to recorda�on of the Final Parcel Map, the applicant shall comply with Chapter 17.48 of the City Subdivision Ordinance by paying a fee for the purpose of providing park and recrea�on facili�es to serve the residents of Half Moon Bay.

The amount of the fee shall be calculated pursuant to the sa�sfac�on of the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. (Engineering)

9. EXPIRATION. The Tenta�ve Map shall expire two years from the date of their approval if a final or parcel map has not been recorded during that �me. The Planning Commission may approve one-year extensions of the Tenta�ve Map based on a writen request and fee submited to the Director prior to the expira�on of the Tenta�ve Map. (Engineering)

10. TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT PLAN. Permit Required for Major Pruning or Removal of a Heritage Tree. Prior to the removal of any heritage trees the project applicant shall obtain a major tree pruning or removal permit and the appropriate replacement species will be replanted as determined by the tree permit condi�ons as required by the City’s Tree Ordinance. The tree replacement plan will need to comply with the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance to the sa�sfac�on of the Community Development and Public Works Directors and will be approved prior to issuance of a building permit. (Planning – required by Standard Condi�on of Approval BIO-3 from the EIR).

11. CONSTRUCTION PLANS. File Number PDP-072-13, the Mi�ga�on Measures adopted with the project, and the Condi�ons of Approval for this project shall be provided on the cover page of the building permit applica�on plan submital. Construc�on plans submited for building permit(s) shall include a plan sheet showing u�lity connec�ons, trench restora�on details, driveway apron (driveway apron width, spacing between driveways, slopes, etc.), and other improvements in the public right-of-way mee�ng City standards. (Engineering)

12. TITLE REPORT.
a. Submit a copy of the current �tle report with hyperlinks including a separate sheet iden�fying the legal descrip�on of the subject site. Your current �tle report can be obtained from a local Title Report Company. 68
ATTACHMENT 3
b. Note that addi�onal comments may arise based on the submited Title Report. (Engineering)

13. CALTRANS COORDINATION. The proposed Class I Bike Lane is subject to Caltrans review and approval due to a por�on of it being within Caltrans ROW. Addi�onally the applicant shall coordinate with Caltrans upcoming SHOPP project. (Engineering)

14. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.
a. A separate site improvements plan will need to be submited by a registered civil engineer as part of the Final Map phase.
b. Public improvements may include the following:
• On Main Street, new sidewalk, curb and guter, new pavement on at least half of the street, new trees, mid-block crossing with rectangular rapid flashing beacons, new ramps, etc. These improvements are required to be installed as part of the Building Permit Phase for the Hyat Hotel.
• On Seymour Street, new sidewalks, curb and guter, new pavement new ramps, etc.

These improvements will be required to be installed as part of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement in tandem with the Parcel Map phase. The improvements may be phased, and any phasing shall be detailed in the Agreement. • Sewer main infrastructure upgrades downstream as necessary. (Engineering)

15. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS. The applicant shall implement the recommenda�ons set forth in the Traffic Impact Study for the project dated July 13, 2020 created by W-Trans. (Engineering)

16. CITY STANDARD DETAILS. All work within the Public Right of Way shall comply with the following City Standard Details. Please update those City Standard Details on Sheet C9.1 with the atached updated details. Atach the following City Standard Details to the plans: (Engineering) a. SI-2 Curbs and Guters
b. SI-3 Sidewalk Detail (Monolithic)
c. SI-4 shall remain on the plans as is.
d. SI-5 and SI-5A – Residen�al Driveway Approach with Curb e. SI-7 – Typical Sec�on of Residen�al Streets
f. SI-11 – Red Curb Pain�ng
g. SS-3 – Type I Manhole
h. SS-7 – Standard Sewer Lateral and Cleanout
i. SS-11 – Sewer Tee Detail
j. UT-1 – U�lity Trench Detail

17. ADDITIONAL DETAILS REQUIRED.
a. The building permit plans shall have a detail of the proposed bridge along the western side of the project subjected to Caltrans approval. (Engineering) b. All bicycle and pedestrian pathways in the 100 foot wetland buffer shall be pervious pavement, as required by LCLUP, to minimize natural water flow and recharge. (Engineering) 69
ATTACHMENT 3

18. DRIVEWAY APPROACH. All proposed driveway approaches shall be designed to comply with both ADA Standards and City Standards. (Engineering)
a. In order to comply with ADA Standards, the driveway approach will need to have a minimum of 3 feet wide accessible ADA path of travel that is at most 2% flat slope. b. The street side por�on of the approach would need to be ramped that conforms to the flater 2% sloped por�on that will act as the ADA accessible path of travel. The flat 2% por�on must be 3’ minimum in order to comply with ADA standards. c. Adjust the plans to reflect this ADA requirement.

19. STORMWATER REGULATED PROJECT & SWPPP.
a. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a Stormwater Pollu�on Preven�on Plan to the State Water Board due to the size of the project. b. Submit a C.3 and C.6 Development Review Checklist. Please see the atached. c. An Opera�ons & Maintenance (O&M) Agreement must be recorded with the County of San Mateo prior to finalizing the Building Permit. Please see the atached. Areas highlight in Green and Yellow are items that will need to be addressed in the O&M Agreement. (Engineering)

20. LANDSCAPING. Design landscaping area to adequately retain stormwater on-site. (Engineering)

21. DRAINAGE PLANS. Show all loca�ons of proposed downspouts on the proposed structures. Using arrows, show the direc�on of surface runoff throughout the property. (Engineering)

22. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a geotechnical recommenda�on produced by a licensed geotechnical engineer regarding the stabiliza�on of the drainage bank during installa�on of the new driveway and barrier. (Engineering)

23. WATER CONSERVATION IN LANDSCAPING. The Applicant shall submit landscape and irriga�on plans and an Outdoor Water Efficiency Checklist that demonstrate compliance with the City’s Water Conserva�on in Landscaping Ordinance (Chapter 13.04 of the Municipal Code) prior to issuance of building permits to the sa�sfac�on of the Community Development Director. (Planning)

24. REFINEMENT TO CONCEPT GRADING PLANS FOR PERMIT SUBMITTAL (Engineering):
a. Grading plans shall verify that there will be no drainage issues throughout the property and in the Public ROW.
b. Grading permit will need to be reviewed and approved priorto the issuance of building permit. Include the sheet that has the grading plan in the grading permit submital.

Grading plans shall include the following:
• Eleva�ons to confirm that there will be no off-lot drainage issues. • Cross-sec�ons of the en�re proposed lot and structure. • Proposed contour lines as well.
c. Grading work shall not start un�l the City of Half Moon Bay has received the contractor’s informa�on.
d. The Contractor for this work shall be a minimum a Class A or a Class B Licensed Contractor.
e. Once the contractor’s informa�on has been obtained, submit the Contractor’s 70 ATTACHMENT 3
Cer�ficate of Insurance and Endorsement naming the City of Half Moon Bay as addi�onally insured and naming the City of Half Moon Bay as the Cer�ficate Holder. f. Once the contractor’s informa�on has been obtained, ensure that the contractor has an ac�ve business license with the City of Half Moon Bay.

25. STRIPING PLAN. Include a complete striping plan with the building permit submital. (Engineering)

26. STORMWATER OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT. Required to be approved prior to issuance of building permits and recorded prior to final of the building permit. (Engineering)

27. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT (Engineering):
a. Encroachment permit to be submited and approved for all work in the City’s ROW, including, but not limited to sidewalk, curb and guter, paving, u�li�es, driveways, etc.

The encroachment permit applica�on can be submited shall be submited in tandem with the building permit submital. See the atached street encroachment permit applica�on.
b. Work within the Public ROW shall not start un�l the City of Half Moon Bay has received an issue encroachment permit with the contractor’s informa�on. • The Contractor for this work shall be a minimum a Class A Licensed Contractor. • Once the contractor’s informa�on has been obtained, submit the Contractor’s Cer�ficate of Insurance and Endorsement naming the City of Half Moon Bay as addi�onally insured and naming the City of Half Moon Bay as the Cer�ficate Holder. • Once the contractor’s informa�on has been obtained, ensure that the contractor has an ac�ve business license with the City of Half Moon Bay. c. Since Trenching will occur within the Public ROW, Traffic Control Plans will be required as part of the submital of the encroachment permit.

28. SCHOOL IMPACT FEES. School Impact Fees may apply for this permit. If so, the applicant shall provide proof of payment of required School Impact Fees to Cabrillo Unified School District prior to issuance of building permits.

29. SURVEY REQUIRED. Submit a detailed topographic/site boundary survey cer�fied by a licensed surveyor with building applica�on plans. The survey shall include a baseline eleva�on datum point on, or close to the construc�on site, indica�ng exis�ng grade of the datum. This datum point shall be permanent, marked, shall remain fixed in the field, and shall not be disturbed throughout the building process. Examples of datum points include: fire hydrants, manhole covers, survey markers, and street curbs. This datum point shall be shown on all site plans including revised/resubmited plans. The survey must show the footprint and roof plan of the proposed residence and iden�fy the exis�ng grade eleva�ons at the corners and roof ridgeline of the residence. (Building)

30. EVIDENCE OF SEWER CONNECTION CAPACITY. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the permitee shall provide a “will-serve” leter from the City of Half Moon Bay indica�ng there is adequate treatment capacity and that there is adequate capacity in the sewer main serving the project. (Building)

31. SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE AND LIABILITY. It shall be the duty of the Property Owner(s) whose property is adjacent to any por�on of a public street or place to maintain any sidewalks along the project frontage in a safe and non-dangerous condi�on. Sidewalk maintenance shall include removal and replacement of concrete to eliminate tripping hazards; and pruning and trimming of 71 ATTACHMENT 3
trees, shrubs, ground cover and other landscaping within the public right-of-way. The Property Owner has the primary and exclusive duty to fund and perform such maintenance and repair, whether the City has no�fied the property owner of the need for such maintenance or repairs or has performed similar maintenance or repairs in the past, pursuant to §12.18.020 and §12.18.030 of the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code.

32. LOT GRADING, MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLE STORAGE. No lot site grading, prepara�on, storage, or placement of construc�on materials, equipment, or vehicles shall take place prior to issuance of a building permit. Any earth movement on or off the site in excess of 50 cubic yards shall require the submital of a grading plan for review by the City Engineer and issuance of a grading permit. Lot grading includes, but is not limited to, any leveling, scraping, clearing, or removal of lot surface area. Materials, equipment and vehicles include, but are not limited to:
a. All masonry, wood, and steel construc�onmaterials;
b. All construc�on-related equipment and storage containers; and c. All construc�on-related vehicles, including temporary trailers. (Engineering)

33. At the �me of Building Permit submital, the permitee shall submit a detailed plan including, but not limited to planned scaffolding, equipment storage and material storage/laydown for the project. (Building)

34. LOT DRAINAGE PLAN AND ON-SITE DETENTION. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a Lot Drainage Plan shall be submited showing how the surface runoff is retained on the site and the remainder is drained to the public right-of-way. Plans shall include suppor�ng calcula�ons for storm water deten�on on the site for the addi�onal run-off from a ten-year frequency storm of two-hour dura�on. Plans shall show how the rear and side yards will properly drain to an approved BMP facility, and how the finished grades on the property relate to the exis�ng grades on adjacent property. The Plan shall include pad eleva�on, finished floor eleva�on, site high and low points, drainage swales, area drains, and exis�ng grade at adjacent property. The permitee shall provide appropriate measures to discharge the flood waters from any unfinished floor areas. (Engineering)

35. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL. Prior to the issuance of building permits, an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submited that shows effec�ve Best Management Prac�ces (BMP) and erosion and sediment control measures for the site. Construc�on plans shall also include the “construc�on best management prac�ces” plan sheet. (Engineering)

36. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES/SERVICES. Electric, telecommunica�on, and cable and u�lity service to the property shall be through underground service connec�ons only. No overhead u�li�es are allowed for new service. Show loca�ons of all u�lity service connec�ons: sanitary sewer, storm drain, water (domes�c and fire), cable television, telephone, electrical, and gas. a. All exis�ng infrastructure shall be verified and shown on plan prior to the submital of the building permit plans. Based on findings, easement documents may need to be recorded with the County of San Mateo prior to issuance of building permits. b. All sewer infrastructure shall be a minimum of 10’ separa�on from any proposed bioreten�on areas.
c. Curb drains are prohibited. The applicant shall propose a different conveyance for stormwater runoff for the parcel map phased build out. (Engineering)

37. STREET/PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY CUTS FOR UTILITY CONNECTIONS. Street cuts for u�lity connec�ons that are less than twenty (20) feet apart shall be repaired with a single patch. Asphalt 72 ATTACHMENT 3
repair and overlay shall be in accordance with the City Standard Details. Two or more street cuts in the frontage road for u�lity connec�ons will require a single 2-inch thick asphalt concrete overlay patch on exis�ng pavement across the property frontage.(Engineering) COASTSIDE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT CONDITIONS.

38. All fire condi�ons and requirements must be incorporated into building plans prior to building permit issuance. It is the applicant’s responsibility to no�fy contractor, architect and engineer of these requirements.

39. Review is not construed as encompassing the structural integrity of the facility nor abroga�ng more restric�ve requirements by other agencies having responsibility. Final acceptance is subject to field inspec�on and necessary tests.

40. FIRE CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS. The permitee shall comply with all applicable fire and building codes and standards rela�ng to fire and panic safety as iden�fied by the Coastside Fire Protec�on District during the building permit process.

41. ADDRESS NUMBERS:
a. Building iden�fica�on shall be conspicuously posted and visible from the street. (TEMPORARY ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL BE POSTED PRIOR TO COMBUSTIBLES BEING PLACED ON SITE). The leters/numerals for permanent address numbers shall be of 6- inch height with a minimum 1/2-inch stroke and of a color, which is contras�ng with the background. Such leter/numerals shall be illuminated and facing the direc�on of access.

Distance from Road Address No.

Size 0-50 feet6-inch
50-100 feet 8-inch
100-150 feet 10-inch
150+ feet 12-inch
with a corresponding increase in stroke width.
b. Address numbers and direc�onal signs may be required at the entrance to the driveway/access road, road forks, and intersec�ons. When located on the street the numbers shall be visible from each direc�on of travel. This remote signage shall consist of a 6 inch by 18-inch green reflec�ve metal sign with 3-inch reflec�ve Numbers/ Leters similar to Hy-Ko 911 or equivalent.

42. FIRE HYDRANT. An approved fire hydrant (Clow 2065) must be located within 500 feet of all por�ons of the building measured by way of drivable access from the proposed project. The hydrant must have a minimum flow of 1500 gpm at 20 psi. Fire flow required at �me of issuance of permit.

43. An Automa�c Fire Sprinkler System will be required and must have an NFPA 13R classifica�on or higher. Sec�on 903.2.8 of the 2022 CFC.

44. Fire Alarm systems that meet the 2022 NFPA 72 will be required.

45. Occupancy Load Signs were required 2022 CFC Chapter.10.

46. Elevator to comply with Chapter 30 of the 2022 CBC.

47. All doors in corridors shall have a % fire rated door & jamb with closer and smoke gasket. 2106 CFC Sec.1020

48. Provide Penetra�on protec�on in all membranes through fire rated assemblies (ie dampers, fire 73 ATTACHMENT 3
caulking)

49. Opening between floors shall comply with Sec.1009.3 of the 2022 CFC

50. Unobstructed fire sprinkler coverage: shall extend to all areas in the occupancy. Any areas crea�ng compartmentaliza�on due to new walls shall have addi�onal sprinkler heads installed to provide unobstructed coverage. Any heat producing appliances that are hooked up to an electrical power source, natural or propane gas, and are opera�onal shall not have sprinkler heads located within their respec�ve heat zones.

51. Clearly iden�fy fire service line on plans and verify that the line meets minimum size for fire sprinkler hydraulic calcula�ons.

52. Provide complete General Informa�on Sign, placed at the riser on plans (NFPA 13 sec�on 25.6.2).

53. Fire Sprinkler Hardware: Along with the automa�c fire sprinkler system, this project is required to install all related fire sprinkler hardware (Post Indicator Valve, Fire Department Connec�on and Exterior Bell). You will not be issued a building permit un�l plans have been submited, reviewed and approved by the fire district. Please submit plans showing the loca�on of all required fire sprinkler hardware to the Building Department of Half Moon Bay.

54. Fire Access Roads -The applicant must have a maintained asphalt surface road for ingress and egress of fire apparatus. The City of Half Moon Bay Department of Public Works, the Coastside Fire District Ordinance 2023-01, and the California Fire Code shall set road standards. As per the 2022 CFC, dead-end roads exceeding 150 feet shall be provided with a turnaround in accordance with Coastside Fire District specifica�ons. As per the 2022 CFC, Sec�on Appendix D, road width shall not be less than 20 feet. Fire access roads shall be installed and made serviceable prior to combus�bles being placed on the project site and maintained during construc�on. Approved signs and painted curbs or lines shall be provided and maintained to iden�fy fire access roads and state the prohibi�on of their obstruc�on. If the road width does not allow parking on the street (20-foot road) and on-street parking is desired, an addi�onal improved area shall be developed for that use.

55. A plan and profile of the driveway/ roadway will be needed. Add to the plans.

56. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this sec�on and shall extend to within 150 feet (45 720 mm) of all por�ons of the facility and all por�ons of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. An AM&MR will be required of the building can’t meet this requirement.

57. “No Parking - Fire Lane” signs shall be provided on both sides of roads 20 to 26 �. wide and on one side of roads 26 to 32 �. wide. CFC D103.6.

58. Approved fire hydrant (Clow 2065) must be located within 500 feet measured by way of drivable access from the proposed project. The hydrant must have a minimum flow of 1,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for a minimum of 2 hours. If you have not already done so, please submit a site plan showing all underground piping to the San Mateo County Building Department or City of Half Moon Bay for review and approval. Show loca�ons of hydrants on site plan.

59. Exit Doors: Exit doors shall be of the pivoted type or side hinged swinging type. Exit doors shall swing in the direc�on of exit when serving an occupant load of 50 or more. a. Special Doors: Revolving, sliding and overhead doors shall not be used as required exits.

Power operated doors complying with CBC Standard No. 10-1 may be used for exit purposes.
b. Addi�onal Doors: When addi�onal doors are provided for egress purposes, they shall 74 ATTACHMENT 3
conform to all the provisions of CBC chapter 10.

60. Exit Door Hardware: Exit door(s) shall be operable from the inside without the use of a key, special knowledge or effort. Excep�on: Main exit doors may be equipped with a keyed-locking device if there is a readily visible sign on or adjacent to the door sta�ng “THIS DOOR TO REMAIN UNLOCKED WHENEVER THE BUILDING IS OCCUPIED". The leters in the sign shall not be less than 1-inch in height.

61. Exit Illumina�on: Signs shall be internally or externally illuminated by two electric lamps or shall be of an approved self-luminous type. Power Supply: Current supply to one of the lamps for exit signs shall be provided by the premises wiring system. Power to the other lamp shall be from storage of bateries or an on-site generator set. Include exit illumina�on with electrical plans and submit to the San Mateo County Building Department or City of Half Moon Bay for review and approval.

62. Exit Signage: Where required: When more exits from a story are required by Chapter 10 of the CBC, exit signs shall be installed at stair enclosures, horizontal exits and other required exits from the story. When 2 or more exits are required from a room or area, exit signs shall be installed at the required exits from the room or area and where otherwise necessary to clearly indicate the direc�on of egress. Excep�on: Main exit doors, which obviously are clearly iden�fiable as exits (glass door). Show exit plans on plans submited to the San Mateo County Building Department or City of Half Moon Bay for review and approval.

63. When exit signs are required by Sec�on 1013.2 /1013.7 of the CBC, addi�onal approved low-level exit signs, which are internally or externally illuminated, photo luminescent or self-luminous, shall be provided in all interior rated exit corridors serving guest rooms of hotels in Group R, Division 1 Occupancies, and other occupancies as determined by the code.

64. Exit signs shall be internally illuminated with approved emergency ligh�ng.

65. Provide exit access travel distance from all areas to exits demonstra�ng they meet Sec�on 1016.

66. Exi�ng Plan: Provide an Exi�ng plan with appropriate code compliant exits and hardware to accommodate the calculated live loads of the building. The Exi�ng plan must meet Chapter 10 (Means of Egress) requirements of the 2019 CFC. Detailing - Show all proposed walls, and doors. - Show all door loca�ons, fire-ra�ng (if applicable), direc�on of swing, self-closing mechanisms, width, etc.

67. Exits sign and Egress Illumina�on shall meet the Sec�on 1005,1008 & 1013 of the CFC 2019.

68. Occupancy Load Sign: Any room having an occupant load of 50 or more where fixed seats are not installed, and which is used for classroom, assembly or similar purpose, shall have the capacity of the room posted in a conspicuous place.

69. Building occupancy group is B,R-1,A Provide an analysis on mixed use and area as iden�fied in Sec�on 504.2 and 504.4 of the 2022 CBC that it complies with these sec�ons.

70. As per Coastside Fire District Ordinance 2019-03, the roof covering of every new building or structure, and materials applied as part of a roof covering assembly, shall have a minimum fire ra�ng of Class “B” or higher as defined in the current edi�on of the California Building Code.

71. Vegeta�on Management (LRA) The Coastside Fire District Ordinance 2023-01, the 2022 California Fire Code 304.1.2
a. A fuel break of defensible space is required around the perimeter of all structures to a distance of not less than 30 feet and may be required to a distance of 100 feet or to the property line. This is neither a requirement nor an authoriza�on for the removal of living trees. 75
ATTACHMENT 3
b. Trees located within the defensible space shall be pruned to remove dead and dying por�ons, and limbed up 6 feet above the ground. New trees planted in the defensible space shall be located no closer than 10’ to adjacent trees when fully grown or at maturity.
c. Remove that por�on of any exis�ng trees, which extends within 10 feet of the outlet of a chimney or stovepipe or is within 5’ of any structure. Maintain any tree adjacent to or overhanging a building free of dead or dying wood.

72. Emergency Building Access: The proposed project will require the installa�on of “Knox Boxes” These emergency key boxes are required when access to or within a structure or an area is unduly difficult because of secured openings or where immediate access is necessary for life saving or firefigh�ng purposes. The Fire Dept, will determine the loca�on for the key box and provide an authorized order form. All security gate systems controlling vehicular access shall be equipped with a “Knox”; key operated emergency entry device. For applica�on and instruc�ons please email [email protected]

73. A Knox padlock or key switch will be required if there is limited access to property. CFC 506.1. For applica�on and instruc�ons please email [email protected]

74. Gates shall be a minimum of 2 feet wider than the access road/driveway they serve. Overhead gate structures shall have a minimum of 15 feet of ver�cal clearance. Locked gates shall be provided with a Knox Box or Knox Padlock. Electric gates shall have a Knox Key Switch. Electric gates shall automa�cally open during power failures. CFC 503.6, 506. For applica�on and instruc�ons please [email protected]

75. Fire Alarm System: This project is required to have installed an approved NFPA 72 Fire Alarm System throughout. The system is to monitor any flow through the required automa�c fire sprinkler system, any fire sprinkler valve tamper and all heat and smoke detectors. The system will also include an exterior bell and interior horn/strobes, which are required to be wired to the alarm system and the flow switch for the fire sprinkler system. The FACP shall be protected with a smoke detector as per NFPA 72, Sec�on 1-5.6 and a manual pull sta�on. A wiring inspec�on is required to be conducted by the Fire District prior to covering walls and ceiling areas. All systems and components must be tested per manufacturer's specifica�ons and NFPA 72. Batery backup shall meet or exceed requirements for amp-hour ra�ng and must be tested as per manufacturer’s specifica�on and NFPA 72.

76. FOR FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM: Engineered fire suppression system and hood and duct: The kitchen cooking area shall be protected as required by a UL-300 compliant engineered fire suppression system and a hood and duct grease laden vapor extrac�on system. Submit plans to the San Mateo County Building Department or City of Half Moon Bay for approval by the Fire District. In addi�on, the kitchen area shall have a minimum of at least one 40-pound “K” rated fire ex�nguisher mounted in the path of egress.

77. Fire Ex�nguishers: There must be at least one 2A10BC fire ex�nguisher for each 3,000 square feet, travel distance not to exceed 75 feet with at least one ex�nguisher per floor per Title 19, California Code of Regula�ons. Show loca�on of ex�nguishers on plans.

78. Elevator to comply with Chapter 30 of the 2019 CBC.

79. Solar Photovoltaic Systems: These systems shall meet the requirements of the 2022 CFC Sec�on 1204.2.1

80. Traffic calming devices shall be prohibited unless approved by the fire official. CFC 2019 sec�on 503.4.1. 76
ATTACHMENT 3

81. The project is located in an area that to date there are no documented fire flows. In order to determine required fire flows, please provide informa�on on Building Classifica�on including Type of Construc�on, Occupancy Classifica�on and Mixed occupancy use.

82. A dry standpipe system will be required to meet the requirements in the 2022 CFC Chapter 5, that requires mul�ple access points that may differ from plans. Actual loca�ons to be determined by the Fire District.

83. Community Facili�es District: The Fire District requires the forma�on of a Mello-Roos Community Facili�es District fCFD) for all new construc�on of three or more residen�al units. Please contact the Fire District administra�on office for more details. Please be advised that the forma�on of a CFD takes approximately three months. The forma�on of a CFD is a condi�on of development and required to be completed prior to Fire District final approval and sign-off on the project.

COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (CCWD):

84. CCWD REGULATIONS. The project shall comply with all applicable regula�ons and requirements of the Coastside County Water District. Water service shall not be in the same trench as other u�li�es. (WaterDistrict)

85. EVIDENCE OF WATER CONNECTION CAPACITY. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the permittee shall submit a letter from Coastside County Water District certifying that the subject site has an adequately-sized water connection and the project will be served by CCWD.

D. The following condi�ons shall be implemented prior to and duringconstruc�on:

1. ARCHAEOLOGY-DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS. Pursuant to Sec�on 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and Sec�on 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California, in the event of the discovery of human remains during construc�on, there shall be no further excava�on or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. In the event of the accidental discovery or recogni�on of any human remains in any loca�on other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps shall be taken: (Planning – required by Standard Condi�on CUL-2 of the EIR)
a. There shall be no further excava�on or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains un�l:
i. The coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered must be contacted to determine that no inves�ga�on of the cause of death is required, and ii. If the coroner determines the remains to be Na�ve American:
• The coroner shall contact the Na�ve American Heritage Commission within 24 hours;
• The Na�ve American Heritage Commission shall iden�fy the person or persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Na�on American;
• The most likely descendent may make recommenda�ons to the landowner or the person responsible for the excava�on work for means of trea�ng or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Sec�on 5097.98; or
b. Where the following condi�ons occur, the landowner or his authorized representa�ve shall rebury the Na�ve American human remains and associated grave goods with 77 ATTACHMENT 3
appropriate dignity on the property in a loca�on not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
i. The Na�ve American Heritage Commission is unable to iden�fy a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommenda�on within 24 hours a�er being no�fied by the Commission;
ii. The iden�fied descendant fails to make a recommenda�on; or iii. The landowner or his authorized representa�ve rejects the recommenda�on of the descendant, and the media�on by the Na�ve American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

1. ARCHAEOLOGY-DISCOVERY OF RESOURCES. If subsurface historic or archaeological resources are uncovered during construc�on, all work shall stop, the applicant shall no�fy the Community Development Director and retain a qualified archaeologist to perform an archaeological reconnaissance and iden�fy any mi�ga�on measures required to protect archaeological resources.

Subsurface excava�on shall not resume un�l expressly authorized by the Director. (Planning)

2. NESTING BIRD SURVEY. If construc�on commences during the nes�ng season (February 1 to August 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct a breeding bird survey of the site. If nes�ng birds are discovered, construc�on may commence only if avoidance measures can be incorporated as advised by the qualified biologist or would otherwise need to be postponed un�l young birds have fledged. (Planning)

3. CONSTRUCTION TRAILERS. Temporary construc�on trailers are permited as accessory uses in conjunc�on with the development of this site, subject to the followingcondi�ons (Planning):
a. The construc�on trailer shall be used as a temporary construc�on officeonly. b. Neither sanita�on facili�es nor plumbed water is permited within the trailer. c. No overnight inhabitance of the construc�on trailer ispermited. d. No construc�on trailers are permited on site prior to building permitissuance. e. The construc�on trailer shall be removed prior to issuance of a cer�ficate of occupancy.

4. AIR QUALITY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. The project shall implement the following standard BAAQMD dust control measures during all phases of construc�on on the projectsite. During any construc�on period ground disturbance, the applicant shall ensure that the project contractor implements measures to control dust and exhaust. Implementa�on of the measures as specified in the BAAQMD Basic Construc�on Mi�ga�on Measures, would reduce the air quality impacts associated with grading and new construc�on to a less-than-significant level. Addi�onal measures specified by BAAQMD are iden�fied to reduce construc�on equipment exhaust emissions. (Planning – Required by Standard Condi�on AQ-1 from the EIR):
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two �mes per day. b. All haul trucks transpor�ng soil, sand, or other loose material offsite shall be covered. c. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). d. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible a�er grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
e. Idling �mes shall be minimized either by shu�ng equipment off when not in use or 78 ATTACHMENT 3
reducing the maximum idling �me to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Sec�on 2485 of California Code of Regula�ons [CCR]).

Clear signage shall be provided for construc�on workers at all access points. f. All ac�ve construc�on areas shall be watered twice daily or more o�en if necessary.

Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15milesper-hour. g. Pave, apply water three �mes daily, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads and parking and staging areas at construc�on sites. h. Cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, and any other materials that can be windblown.

Trucks transpor�ng these materials shall be covered.
i. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day or as o�en as necessary to keep them free of dust and debris associated with site construc�on. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
j. Subsequent to clearing, grading, or excava�ng, exposed por�ons of the site shall be watered, landscaped, treated with soil stabilizers, or covered as soon as possible.

Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inac�ve construc�on areas and previously graded areas inac�ve for 10 days or more.
k. Installa�on of sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
l. Replan�ng of vegeta�on in disturbed areas as soon as possible a�er comple�on of construc�on. Idling �mes shall be minimized either by shu�ng equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling �me to five minutes. Clear signage shall be provided for construc�on workers at all access points.
m. All construc�on equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifica�ons. All equipment shall be checked by a cer�fied mechanic and determined to be running in proper condi�on prior to opera�on. n. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Half Moon Bay regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take correc�ve ac�on within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regula�ons.

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 regula�ons of the San Mateo County of Health. (Building)

6. COMPLIANCE WITHCBC. Allstructuresshall be constructed in compliancewith the standards of the City adopted California Codes of Regula�ons Title 24, including Building Code, Residen�al Code, Administra�ve Code,Mechanical Code, Plumbing Code, Electrical Code, Energy Code, Fire Code and Green Building Code to the sa�sfac�on of the Building Official.(Building)

7. FIRST FLOOR HEIGHT VERIFICATION. Prior to below floor framing or concrete slab steel reinforcement inspec�on, a stamped and signed building height verifica�on leter shall be submited to the City from a licensed land survey cer�fying that the first-floor height as constructed is at an eleva�on of at least 60 feet. (Building and Public Works Department)

8. OVERALL PROJECT HEIGHT. The maximum overall height of the project, including any grading, founda�on, pad, and building eleva�onsshall be calculated using the eleva�on pointsindicated on 79 ATTACHMENT 3
the topographic survey map submited at the �me of applica�on. The approved height of all projects developed in the City will be measured from the exis�ng grade as indicated on the submited topographical survey. (Building)

9. COMPLETION OF UTILITIES. Any public u�li�esrequiring reloca�on as a result ofthe construc�on of the building(s) or improvements under this permit shall be relocated at the owner’s expense. (Building)

10. CONSTRUCTION HOURS. Construc�on ac�vi�es on the site shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Monday through Saturday. Construc�on-related staging and mobiliza�on may commence no earlier than 7:00 AM and cease no later than 7:00 PM. No construc�on is allowed on Sundays and holidays, except as expressly authorized by the City Engineer in conformance with Sec�on 14.40.020 of the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code. See condi�on below for prohibi�on on construc�on ligh�ng during winter months. (Engineering)

11. CONSTRUCTION LIGHTING. Appropriate light and glare screening measures, including the use of dark skies compa�ble light fixtures and downward cast ligh�ng, shall be used in construc�on, staging, and laydown areas. In addi�on, during winter construc�on �mes where ligh�ng would be required, construc�on shall cease at 5:00 pm from November 1 through January 31 and nigh�me construc�on shall be prohibited. (Planning – Standard Condi�on AES-1 from Hyat Place EIR)

12. NOTICE OF DISRUPTION. The permitee shall provide writen no�ce to affected property and business owners and a copy of such no�ce to the City Engineer a minimum of two business days prior to any planned disrup�on of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, parking, or public service facili�es. (Engineering)

13. CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL STORAGE. Construc�on material shall not be stored in the street rightof-way without prior approval from the City Engineer and issuance of an applicable encroachment permit. (Engineering)

14. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN. Prior to the start of construc�on ac�vi�es, the contractor will prepare and submit a detailed construc�on management plan for City approval. The construc�on management plan will indicate the days and �mes of construc�on, the dura�on of the phase of construc�on, where workers will park, truck haul routes, the number and type of trucks that will access the site during each phase, and other details. The City will require that adequate access for all transporta�on modes, especially emergency vehicles, be maintained during construc�on. (Building and Engineering)

15. COPPER BUILDING ELEMENTS. Prior to issuance of building permits, the building plans shall specify that all copper building elements will be pre-pa�nated at the factory, or if pa�na�on will occur on the site, the plans shall iden�fy best management prac�ces in conformance with the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program Requirements for Architectural Copper, to the sa�sfac�on of the City Engineer. (Engineering)
E. The following condi�onsshall be implemented priorto issuance of an occupancy permit:

1. A cer�ficate of comple�on for Fire Sprinkler System requirement at final. (Fire)

2. A cer�ficate of comple�on for Fire Alarm required at final. (Fire)

3. A cer�ficate of comple�on for Fire Suppression System required at final – if applies. (Fire)

4. A cer�ficate of comple�on for Underground required at final. (Fire)

5. EXTERIOR COLORS AND MATERIALS. Exterior building colors and materials shall be in substan�al 80 ATTACHMENT 3
conformance with those shown on the approved color and materials sheet provided in the October 9, 2024 Planning Commission staff report and on the project color and material board on file at City Hall. Conformance will be determined by the Director of Community Development. (Planning)

6. SCREENING OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. Mechanical equipment and u�lity meters shall be screened from view from public rights-of-ways. Screening materials may have evenly distributed openings averaging 50% of the surface area as long as the equipment is not visible from a street or adjoining lot. (Planning)

7. LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE. All landscaping shall be installed in conformance with the approved landscape plan prior to issuance of a cer�ficate of occupancy. (Planning)

8. OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION EASEMENT. An open space/conserva�on easement shall be recorded over the 2.02 acres iden�fied on the project site plan (Sheet G0.01) as within the wetland buffer and further iden�fied as area “A”. The easement shall specify that the 2.02 acres will remain in conserva�on and will be publicly accessible. The Applicant shall provide proof of recorda�on prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the hotel. An open space/conserva�on easement shall also be recorded over the wetland buffer/setback area for future residen�al Lot 4 iden�fied in area “E” on Sheet G0.01. The Applicant shall provide proof of recorda�on prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for any residen�al use on Lot 4. (Planning)

9. C/CAG TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) PROGRAM. (Engineering) a. Project is subject to the Commute.org cer�fied development program. The cer�fica�on process can be found at htps://commute.org/resources/developers/ b. Project is subjected to requirements men�oned in the C/CAG TDM Program. Provide a TDM Checklist: htps://ccagtdm.org/tdm-checklist/.

F. Validity and Expira�on of Permits:

1. EFFECTIVE DATE. This site is located within the California Coastal Commission’s Appeals Jurisdic�on. This permit shall take effect a�er expira�on of the Coastal Commission appeal period, or if the permit is appealed to the Coastal Commission during the appeal period, it shall take effect a�er final Coastal Commission ac�on. (Planning)

2. ACCURACY OF APPLICATION MATERIALS. The permitee shall be responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and material submited for this applica�on. Any errors or discrepancies found therein may be grounds for the revoca�on or modifica�on of this permit and/or any other City approvals. (Planning)

3. PERMIT EXPIRATION. The Coastal Development Permit and Architectural Review shall expire one year from its date of final approval if development plans for a Building Permit have not been submited. Once a Building Permit is issued, the CDP shall be deemed in effect. If plans for a Building Permit are submited within the one-year expira�on period, and a Building Permit is not issued, the expira�on of the CDP shall coincide and run concurrently with the Building Permit plan submital/applica�on as long as due diligence is pursued in the opinion of the Building Official in obtaining the Building Permit. (Planning)

4. PERMIT EXTENSION. The Community Development Director may, at their discre�on, approve a single one-year extension of this permit based on a writen request and fee submited to the Director prior to expira�on of the permit. Any other extension shall require approval of a Permit Amendment prior to expira�on of the permit. Any Amendment Applica�on to extend the permit shall be filed a minimum of ninety (90) days prior to permit expira�on to ensure adequate processing �me. (Planning) 81
ATTACHMENT 3

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

6. HOLD HARMLESS. To the fullest extent allowed by law, the permitee agrees as a condi�on of approval of this applica�on 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 any and all liabili�es, claims, ac�ons, causes of ac�on, proceedings, suits, damages, judgments, liens, levies, costs and expenses of whatever nature, including without limita�on reasonable atorneys’ fees, experts’ fees and disbursements (collec�vely, “Claims”) arising out of or in any way rela�ng to the approval of this applica�on; any ac�ons taken by the City related to this en�tlement; any review by the California Coastal Commission conducted under the California Coastal Act, Public Resources Code Sec�on 30000 et seq.; or any environmental review conducted under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sec�on 21000 et seq. for this en�tlement and related ac�ons. This indemnifica�on shall include any Claims that may be asserted by any person or en�ty, including the permitee, arising out of or in connec�on with the approval of this applica�on, whether or not there is passive or ac�ve negligence on the part of the City, and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents. The permitee’s duty to defend the City shall not apply in those instances when the permitee has asserted the Claims, although the permitee shall s�ll have a duty to indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City. (City Atorney)
OWNER’S/PERMITTEE’S CERTIFICATION:

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

DEVELOPER/APPLICANT:
(Signature) (Date)
82 1 0 0 0 B R A N N A N S T R E E T
S A N F R A N C I S C O, C A 9 4 1 0 3
w w w . a x i s g f a . c o m
T 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 0
F 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 1
S U I T E 4 0 4

SHEET NUMBER

ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING

HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED

WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE

DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN

CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT

PROJECT NUMBER

DESCRIPTION
DATE
SCALE

PROJECT NAME

AS SHOWN

OWNER NAME NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
6/1
9/2
0 2
3 4:3
5:0
5 P
M
G0.00

COVER SHEET

HYATT PLACE

HALF MOON BAY
1191 MAIN ST.

HALF MOON BAY, CA
94019

21.010
HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019

RGJC SOUTH, LLC

HYATT PLACE HALF MOON BAY
MAIN ST...................

HALF MOON BAY, CA
94019
G0.00 - COVER SHEET
A1.01 - SITE PLAN
A1.21 - SITE SECTION
A2.00 - FLOOR PLANS - LEVELS 1-3
A4.01 - BUILDING ELEVATIONS
A5.01 - BUILDING SECTIONS

SHEET INDEX
NO. DATE ISSUES & REVISIONS

SEE SITE PLAN FOR SETBACK DIMENSIONS
1 0 0 0 B R A N N A N S T R E E T
S A N F R A N C I S C O, C A 9 4 1 0 3
w w w . a x i s g f a . c o m
T 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 0
F 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 1
S U I T E 4 0 4

SHEET NUMBER

ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING

HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED

WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE

DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN

CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT

PROJECT NUMBER

DESCRIPTION
DATE
SCALE

PROJECT NAME

AS SHOWN

OWNER NAME NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
6/1
9/2
0 2
3 4:3
5:0
5 P
M
G0.00

COVER SHEET

HYATT PLACE

HALF MOON BAY
MAIN ST.

HALF MOON BAY, CA
94019

21.010
HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019

RGJC SOUTH, LLC

HYATT PLACE HALF MOON BAY
1191 MAIN ST.

HALF MOON BAY, CA
94019
G0.00 - COVER SHEET
A1.01 - SITE PLAN
A1.21 - SITE SECTION
A2.00 - FLOOR PLANS - LEVELS 1-3
A4.01 - BUILDING ELEVATIONS
A5.01 - BUILDING SECTIONS

SHEET INDEX
NO. DATE ISSUES & REVISIONS

SEE SITE PLAN FOR SETBACK DIMENSIONS
G0.00

COVER SHEET
2023-09-14 PLANNING REVIEW REVISION
2024-01-23 PLANNING REVIEW REVISION
1 2
3 4
COAST HIGHWAY-STATE ROUTE 1
[160' WIDE]
COAST HIGHWAY-STATE ROUTE 1
[160' WIDE]
S 06%%d12'26" E
N 24%%d25'24" W 897.87'
= 161%%d54'55"
R = 60.00'
L = 169.56'
N83%%d47'34"E

9.44'
163.46'
N 80%%d44'09" E
439.95' N 80%%d44'09" E
443.84'

12.02'

12.43'
N 24%%d25'24" W 150.37'
S 80%%d44'09" W
326.79'

SEYMOUR STREET
388.78'
158.00'
366.12'
145.11'

MAIN STREET
50' Buffer from Wetlands
Conservation Easement
100' Wetland Buffer
South Building
North Building
Bike/Maint. Patio
Existing - Property Line
New - Lot Line Adjustment
Hallway
Seasonal Wetlands
Seasonal Wetlands
Seasonal Wetlands
52'
81'
75'
139'
47'
Structure
12'
Patio
32'
52''
389' +/-

SETBACKS
91'

REVISION TABLE

NUMBER DATE REVISED BY DESCRIPTION
SHEET:

SCALE: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:

DATE:
9/14/2023

HYATT PLACE HALF MOON BAY

PICTURE
OF
HOTEL
2024-06-14 PLANNING REVIEW REVISION
L-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN
L-2 BIOFILTER SYSTEM

LANDSCAPE
2024-07-25 PLANNING REVIEW REVISION
83 1 0 0 0 B R A N N A N S T R E E T
S A N F R A N C I S C O, C A 9 4 1 0 3
w w w . a x i s g f a . c o m
T 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 0
F 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 1
S U I T E 4 0 4

SHEET NUMBER

ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING

HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED

WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE

DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN

CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT

PROJECT NUMBER

DESCRIPTION
DATE
SCALE

PROJECT NAME

AS SHOWN

OWNER NAME NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
6/1
9/2
0 2
3 4:3
5:0
5 P
M
G0.00

COVER SHEET

HYATT PLACE

HALF MOON BAY
MAIN ST.

HALF MOON BAY, CA
94019

21.010
HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019

RGJC SOUTH, LLC

HYATT PLACE HALF MOON BAY
1191 MAIN ST.

HALF MOON BAY, CA
94019
G0.00 - COVER SHEET
A1.01 - SITE PLAN
A1.21 - SITE SECTION
A2.00 - FLOOR PLANS - LEVELS 1-3
A4.01 - BUILDING ELEVATIONS
A5.01 - BUILDING SECTIONS

SHEET INDEX
NO. DATE ISSUES & REVISIONS

SEE SITE PLAN FOR SETBACK DIMENSIONS
G0.01

CONCEPTUAL PHASING
PLAN
1 2
3 4
COAST HIGHWAY-STATE ROUTE 1
[160' WIDE]
COAST HIGHWAY-STATE ROUTE 1
[160' WIDE]
S 06%%d12'26" E
N 24%%d25'24" W
897.87'
= 161%%d54'55"
R = 60.00'
L = 169.56'
N83%%d47'34"E

9.44'
163.46'
N 80%%d44'09" E
439.95' N 80%%d44'09" E
443.84'

12.02'

12.43'
N 24%%d25'24" W
150.37'
S 80%%d44'09" W
326.79'

SEYMOUR STREET
388.78'
158.00'
366.12'
145.11'

MAIN STREET
A
C
D
B
E
50' Buffer from Wetlands
Conservation Easement
PARCEL 1
PARCEL 2
100' Wetland Buffer
Wetlands
Wetlands

REVISION TABLE

NUMBER DATE REVISED BY DESCRIPTION
SHEET:

SCALE: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:

DATE:
8/22/2023

PROPOSED PHASING PLAN PROPOSED PHASING PLAN PROPERTY DIVISION PROPERTY DIVISION APN 065-012-030
(PARCEL 1) APN 065-012-020
APN 064-352-150
(PARCEL 2) APN 065-012-020
1). OBTAIN NECESSARY APPROVALS
- HOTEL SITE
- LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ADDING LAND TO AUTO DEALERSHIP
- PARCEL MAP CREATING 4 LOTS NORTH OF SEYMOUR ST.
2). BUILD HOTEL (18-24 MONTHS FOLLOWING APPROVALS)
- INCLUDES BIKE PATH, WALKING PATH, BIOSWALES, BUFFER ZONE 3). LAND ADDED TO DEALERSHIP (ADDITIONAL 2 MONTHS)
- SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS TO PARK VEHICLES
4). LAND NORTH OF SEYMOUR (ADDITIONAL 12 MONTHS)
- INTEND TO DEVELOP LOT 1 WITH FOUR - RENTAL HOUSING UNITS EACH UNIT CONSISTING OF 1 OR 2 BEDROOMS

GOAL IS FOR EMPLOYEES OF EITHER THE JAMES FORD AUTO

DEALERSHIP OR THE PROPOSED HOTEL TO HAVE PRIORITY
- MAINTAIN USING LOTS 2, 3, AND 4 AS PARKING FOR THE AUTO DEALERSHIP THAT

EVENTUALLY WILL BE DEVELOPED AS HOUSING IN THE FUTURE
88,296 SF 2.02 ACRES OPEN SPACE (A) WITH WETLAND CONSERVATION EASEMENT 111,026 SF 2.55 ACRES HOTEL LOCATION (B)
19,730 SF 0.45 ACRES ADD LAND TO AUTO DEALERSHIP (C)
219,052 SF 5.02 ACRES EXISTING VACANT PARCEL (A, B & C) 65,377 SF 1.50 ACRES EXISTING AUTO DEALERSHIP (SOUTH OF SEYMOUR ST.) PARCEL 1 (D) +19,730 SF 0.45 ACRES ADD LAND TO AUTO DEALERSHIP (C) WITH THE LOT LINE ADJ. 85,107 SF 1.95 ACRES AFTER LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT IS NEW PARCEL 1 (C+D) + 5,303 SF 0.12 ACRES PARCEL 2 (D) 12' STRIP SOUTH SIDE OF SEYMOUR ST. 90,410 SF 2.07 ACRES TOTAL FOR AUTO DEALERSHIP (C+D ON SOUTH OF SEYMOUR ST.) +50,280 SF 1.15 ACRES EXISTING AUTO DEALERSHIP (NORTH OF SEYMOUR ST.) (E) 140,690 SF 3.22 ACRES TOTAL AUTO DEALERSHIP (C, D & E)
- 50,280 SF 1.15 ACRES CREATE 4 LOTS (NORTH OF SEYMOUR ST.) (E) 90,410 SF 2.07 ACRES AUTO DEALERSHIP (C&D) AFTER DEVELOPING NORTH OF SEYMOUR ST. (E) PROPOSED LOTS NORTH OF SEYMOUR ST. PROPOSED LOTS NORTH OF SEYMOUR ST. 10,158 SF 0.23 ACRES LOT 1
10,158 SF 0.23 ACRES LOT 2
10,159 SF 0.23 ACRES LOT 3
19,805 SF 0.45 ACRES LOT 4 (INCL.7,297SF CONSERVATION EASEMENT) 50,280 SF 1.15 ACRES TOTAL (E) APN 064-352-150
082223 1201a 081424 931p
082223 1201a
082223 1201a
082223 1201a
2023-09-14 PLANNING REVIEW REVISION
2024-01-23 PLANNING REVIEW REVISION
2024-08-14 PLANNING REVIEW REVISION
84 C
C
A
V
E
C
C
A
VE
VE
VE
VE
V
E

NO PARKING FIRE
LANE
2 A1.21
1 A1.21
MAIN ST.

COAST

HIGHWAY-STATE
ROUTE
1 TRASH

SEASONAL

WETLANDS
CLASS
I
BIKE
PATH
100'
WET
LAND

SETBACK
25' SETBACK
10'

SETBACK
REAR SETBACK 10' - 0"

FRONT SETBACK
25' - 0"
897'
-
10"
25' SETBACK
10'

SETBACK
8 5
3' -
1 0
"

SEASONAL

WETLANDS

SEYMOUR STREET
(E) BUILDING
(E) BUILDING

86.46 EXISTING

GRADE AT RIDGE
LINE

88.12 EXISTING

GRADE AT RIDGE
LINE
1 0 0 0 B R A N N A N S T R E E T
S A N F R A N C I S C O, C A 9 4 1 0 3
w w w . a x i s g f a . c o m
T 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 0
F 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 1
S U I T E 4 0 4

SHEET NUMBER

ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING

HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED

WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE

DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN

CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT

PROJECT NUMBER

DESCRIPTION
DATE
SCALE

PROJECT NAME

AS SHOWN

OWNER NAME NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
9 1/ 5 2/ 023 1:32 3: 9 PM
A1.01

SITE PLAN

HYATT PLACE

HALF MOON BAY
MAIN ST.

HALF MOON BAY, CA
94019

21.010
HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019

RGJC SOUTH, LLC
NO. DATE ISSUES & REVISIONS
0 0 15' 2' 4' 8' 30' 60' 120' 16'
SCALE: 1" = 60'-0"
2 A1.01

SITE PLAN
2024-01-23 PLANNING REVIEW REVISION
85 C
C
A
V
E
C
C
A
V
E
V
E
V
E
V
E
V
E
2 A5.01
4 A5.01
2 A1.21
MAIN ST.

COAST

HIGHWAY-STATE
ROUTE
1 WET
LAND

AREA CLASS
I
BIKE
PATH
100'
WET
LAND

SETBACK
25' SETBACK
REAR SETBACK 10' - 0"

FRONT SETBACK
25' - 0"
52' - 6"
389' - 4"
10'

SETBACK
415' - 8"
91' - 8"

TO FACE OF STRUCTURE
79' - 8"

TO FACE OF STRUCTURE
74' - 2"

TO ROOFLINE
68' - 10"

TO ROOFLINE
71' - 11"
1 0 0 0 B R A N N A N S T R E E T
S A N F R A N C I S C O, C A 9 4 1 0 3
w w w . a x i s g f a . c o m
T 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 0
F 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 1
S U I T E 4 0 4

SHEET NUMBER

ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING

HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED

WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE

DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN

CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT

PROJECT NUMBER

DESCRIPTION
DATE
SCALE

PROJECT NAME

AS SHOWN

OWNER NAME NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
9 1/ 5 2/ 023 1:33 0: 7 PM
A1.02

ENLARGED SITE PLAN -
SOUTH

HYATT PLACE

HALF MOON BAY
MAIN ST.

HALF MOON BAY, CA
94019

21.010
HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019

RGJC SOUTH, LLC
NO. DATE ISSUES & REVISIONS
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"
1 A1.02

SITE PLAN - SOUTH
2024-01-23 PLANNING REVIEW REVISION
86 NO PARKING FIRE
LANE
3 A5.01
1 A5.01
1 A1.21
TRASH

LOADING
10'

SETBACK
REAR SETBACK 10' - 0"

FRONT SETBACK
25' - 0"
8' - 6"
388' - 9"
25' SETBACK
12'
-
0"
4 8' -
1 0
"
52' - 0"
75' - 0"
OF STRUCTURE 151'-0'' TO FACE
OF PATIO 139'-0'' TO EDGE

TO FACE OF BUILDING
81' - 0"
1 0 0 0 B R A N N A N S T R E E T
S A N F R A N C I S C O, C A 9 4 1 0 3
w w w . a x i s g f a . c o m
T 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 0
F 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 1
S U I T E 4 0 4

SHEET NUMBER

ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING

HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED

WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE

DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN

CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT

PROJECT NUMBER

DESCRIPTION
DATE
SCALE

PROJECT NAME

AS SHOWN

OWNER NAME NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
9 1/ 5 2/ 023 1:33 1: 6 PM
A1.03

ENLARGED SITE PLAN -
NORTH

HYATT PLACE

HALF MOON BAY
MAIN ST.

HALF MOON BAY, CA
94019

21.010
HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019

RGJC SOUTH, LLC
NO. DATE ISSUES & REVISIONS
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"
1 A1.03

SITE PLAN - NORTH
2024-01-23 PLANNING REVIEW REVISION
87 LEVEL 2, BLDG 1
EL +105' - 0"
RIDGE, BLDG 1
EL +122' - 2"
LEVEL 1, BLDG 1
EL +90' - 0"

PROPERTY LINE
100' WETLAND SETBACK

PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING GRADE LINE

PARKING AREA
34' ABOVE EXISTING GRADE

MAIN STREET

WETLANDS BIKE PATH

PEDESTRIAN
PATH COAST HIGHWAY-STATE ROUTE 1

EXISTING GRADE LINE

88.12 EXISTING GRADE AT RIDGE LINE
8' LANDSCAPE STRIP 5' SIDEWALK
LEVEL 1, BLDG 2
EL +88' - 8"
LEVEL 2, BLDG 2
EL +98' - 6"
LEVEL 3, BLDG 2
EL +107' - 10"
RIDGE, BLDG 2
EL +122' - 5"

PROPERTY LINE
100' WETLANDS SETBACK

PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING GRADE LINE

PARKING AREA
36' ABOVE EXISTING GRADE
COAST HIGHWAY-STATE ROUTE 1 WETLANDS BIKE PATH

PEDESTRIAN
PATH
MAIN ST.

EXISTING GRADE LINE

NOTE REGARDING SURVEY DATA
SURVEY PERFORMED BY: BGT LAND SURVEYING
www.bgtsurveying.com
DATE OF FIELD SURVEY: JUNE, 2012
JOB NUMBER: 12-042

SEE TOPO FOR COMPLETE SITE DATA

86.46 EXISTING GRADE AT RIDGE LINE
8' LANDSCAPE STRIP
5' SIDEWALK
1 0 0 0 B R A N N A N S T R E E T
S A N F R A N C I S C O, C A 9 4 1 0 3
w w w . a x i s g f a . c o m
T 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 0
F 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 1
S U I T E 4 0 4

SHEET NUMBER

ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING

HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED

WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE

DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN

CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT

PROJECT NUMBER

DESCRIPTION
DATE
SCALE

PROJECT NAME

AS SHOWN

OWNER NAME NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
9 1/ 3
2/ 0
2 3 10
3: 3
4: 6
A
M
A1.21

SITE SECTIONS

HYATT PLACE

HALF MOON BAY
MAIN ST.

HALF MOON BAY, CA
94019

21.010
HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019

RGJC SOUTH, LLC
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 2
A1.21

SITE SECTION - SOUTH BLDG
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 1
A1.21

SITE SECTION - NORTH BLDG
NO. DATE ISSUES & REVISIONS
0 4' 8' 16' 32'
0 4' 8' 16' 32'
2024-01-23 PLANNING REVIEW REVISION
88 NO PARKING FIRE
LANE
2 A5.01
3 A5.01
LOUNGE 1 005
VESTIBULE - 000
LOBBY 001
GRAB-N-GO 003

BUSINESS
CENTER 009
HOST/BAR/CAFE 004
CHECK-IN 002
GM
OFFICE
011
LUGG.
012
STAIR #1
LOUNGE 2 006
GUEST DINING 007
GUEST

KITCHEN
008
FOOD PREP 042

STORAGE
044

DISHWASHING
043
SALES 018
WORK ROOM 017

COMPUTER
019

MEETING
ROOM

STORAGE
016

MEETING
ROOM 015

BREAKOUT
013
FITNESS 036
TOILET
035
CORRIDOR 032 CORRIDOR 032
HSKP
232
ELEV.

LOBBY 234

WOMEN'S
040
MEN'S 041
STAIR # 2
PATIO

DELIVERY ACCESS
ELEC.

MECH.

QUEEN
-
QB
KING
-
KA

ELEVATOR LOBBY

LAUNDRY
QUEEN
-
QA
QUEEN
-
QB
QUEEN
-
QB
QUEEN
-
QA
STAIR
4 CHUTE
ELEC
.

KING
ACC
TUB
.

SUTIE
-
KE
QUEEN
-
QA
QUEEN
-
QA
QUEEN
-
QB
QUEEN
-
QA
QUEEN
-
QA
QUEEN
-
QA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
QUEEN
-
QA
QUEEN
ACC
.

RIS
-
QC

LINEN STORAGE
DRYER
WASHER
JAN
.

EMPLOYEE
AREA
TOILET
VEST
.

CORRIDOR
STAIR
3 QUEEN
-
QB
KING
-
KA
TRASH
KING
ACC
.

RIS
-
KC
KING
-
KA
1 A5.01
4 A5.01
88' - 8"
90' - 0"
2 A1.21
1 A1.21
25' - 3" 176' - 9"
32' - 0"
224'
-
10"
70' - 3"
6' - 10" 64' - 9" 4' - 4"
6 4' -
5 "

BIKE SHOP
MECH. MAINTENANCE

KING - KA KING - KA KING - KA
KING MOD.

KING - KA

ELEVATOR
LOBBY
ELEC.

HSKP
CHUTE
ICE

KING - KA KING - KA KING - KA

KING - KA KING - KA KING - KA KING - KB
KING MOD. ACC
STOR. QQ ACC. TUB - QCQUEEN - QB QUEEN - QA QUEEN - QA
QUEEN
-
QB
KING
-
KB

ELEVATOR LOBBY ICE
QUEEN
-
QA
HSKP
QUEEN
-
QA
QUEEN
-
QB
QUEEN
-
QB
QUEEN
-
QA
QUEEN
-
QA
QUEEN
-
QA
STAIR
4 CHUTE
ELEC
.

QUEEN
-
QA
QUEEN
-
QA
QUEEN
-
QB
QUEEN
-
QA
QUEEN
-
QA
QUEEN
-
QA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
QUEEN
-
QA
STAIR
3 CORRIDOR
STOR
.

KING
ACC
.

TUB
-
KC

KING - KA
STAIR # 2

KING - KA KING - KA KING - KA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
QUEEN
-
QB
QUEEN
-
QB
KING
-
KA
QUEEN
-
QB
KING
ACC
TUB
.

SUTIE
-
KE
25' - 3" 176' - 9"
32' - 0"
224'
-
10"
6 4' -
5 "
21' - 8" 64' - 9" 6' - 10"
10' - 10"
5' - 11"

ELEVATOR LOBBY ICE
HSKP
CHUTE
ELEC
.

KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
STAIR
4 STAIR
3 CORRIDOR
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
STOR
.

KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
KING
-
KA
ATTIC
ATTIC
ATTIC
224'
-
10"
59' - 3"
ATTIC
ATTIC
1 0 0 0 B R A N N A N S T R E E T
S A N F R A N C I S C O, C A 9 4 1 0 3
w w w . a x i s g f a . c o m
T 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 0
F 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 1
S U I T E 4 0 4

SHEET NUMBER

ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING

HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED

WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE

DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN

CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT

PROJECT NUMBER

DESCRIPTION
DATE
SCALE

PROJECT NAME

AS SHOWN

OWNER NAME NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
9 1/ 3 2/ 023 10 3: 3 5: 3 AM
A2.00
FLOOR PLANS - LEVELS 1-3

HYATT PLACE

HALF MOON BAY
MAIN ST.

HALF MOON BAY, CA
94019

21.010
HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019

RGJC SOUTH, LLC
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"
1 A2.00
LEVEL 1
NO. DATE ISSUES & REVISIONS
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"
2 A2.00
LEVEL 2
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"
3 A2.00
LEVEL 3
0 32' 64' 128' 10' 20' 40' 0 32' 64' 128' 10' 20' 40' 0 32' 64' 128' 10' 20' 40' 2024-01-23 PLANNING REVIEW REVISION
89 LEVEL 1, BLDG 2
EL +88' - 8"
LEVEL 2, BLDG 2
EL +98' - 6"
LEVEL 3, BLDG 2
EL +107' - 10"
RIDGE, BLDG 2
EL +122' - 5"
9' - 10" 9' - 4" 14' - 7"
33' - 9"

86.46 EXISTING GRADE AT RIDGE LINE
LEVEL 1, BLDG 2
EL +88' - 8"
LEVEL 2, BLDG 2
EL +98' - 6"
LEVEL 3, BLDG 2
EL +107' - 10"
RIDGE, BLDG 2
EL +122' - 5"
14' - 7" 9' - 4" 9' - 10"
33' - 9"

86.46 EXISTING GRADE AT RIDGE LINE

NOTE REGARDING SURVEY DATA
SURVEY PERFORMED BY: BGT LAND SURVEYING
www.bgtsurveying.com
DATE OF FIELD SURVEY: JUNE, 2012
JOB NUMBER: 12-042

SEE TOPO FOR COMPLETE SITE DATA
LEVEL 1, BLDG 2
EL +88' - 8"
LEVEL 2, BLDG 2
EL +98' - 6"
LEVEL 3, BLDG 2
EL +107' - 10"
RIDGE, BLDG 2
EL +122' - 5"
14' - 7" 9' - 4" 9' - 10"
33' - 9"

86.46 EXISTING GRADE AT RIDGE LINE
1 0 0 0 B R A N N A N S T R E E T
S A N F R A N C I S C O, C A 9 4 1 0 3
w w w . a x i s g f a . c o m
T 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 0
F 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 1
S U I T E 4 0 4

SHEET NUMBER

ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING

HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED

WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE

DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN

CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT

PROJECT NUMBER

DESCRIPTION
DATE
SCALE

PROJECT NAME

AS SHOWN

OWNER NAME NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
1 2/ 3 2/ 024 11 4: 5 0: 0 AM
A4.01

BUILDING ELEVATIONS -

NORTH BUILDING

HYATT PLACE

HALF MOON BAY
MAIN ST.

HALF MOON BAY, CA
94019

21.010
HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019

RGJC SOUTH, LLC
NO. DATE ISSUES & REVISIONS
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
2 A4.01

WEST ELEVATION - NORTH BUILDING
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
3 A4.01

NORTH ELEVATION - NORTH BUILDING
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
1 A4.01

EAST ELEVATION - NORTH BUILDING
2024-01-23 PLANNING REVIEW REVISION
90 LEVEL 2, BLDG 1
EL +105' - 0"
RIDGE, BLDG 1
EL +122' - 2"
LEVEL 1, BLDG 1
EL +90' - 0"
32' - 2"
17' - 2" 15' - 0"

88.12 EXISTING GRADE AT RIDGE LINE
LEVEL 2, BLDG 1
EL +105' - 0"
RIDGE, BLDG 1
EL +122' - 2"
LEVEL 1, BLDG 1
EL +90' - 0"
15' - 0" 17' - 2"
32' - 2"
20' - 10"

88.12 EXISTING GRADE AT RIDGE LINE
LEVEL 2, BLDG 1
EL +105' - 0"
RIDGE, BLDG 1
EL +122' - 2"
LEVEL 1, BLDG 1
EL +90' - 0"
17' - 2" 15' - 0"
32' - 2"

NOTE REGARDING SURVEY DATA
SURVEY PERFORMED BY: BGT LAND SURVEYING
www.bgtsurveying.com
DATE OF FIELD SURVEY: JUNE, 2012
JOB NUMBER: 12-042

SEE TOPO FOR COMPLETE SITE DATA

88.12 EXISTING GRADE AT RIDGE LINE
1 0 0 0 B R A N N A N S T R E E T
S A N F R A N C I S C O, C A 9 4 1 0 3
w w w . a x i s g f a . c o m
T 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 0
F 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 1
S U I T E 4 0 4

SHEET NUMBER

ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING

HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED

WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE

DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN

CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT

PROJECT NUMBER

DESCRIPTION
DATE
SCALE

PROJECT NAME

AS SHOWN

OWNER NAME NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
1 2/ 3 2/ 024 11 4: 4 0: 0 AM
A4.02

BUILDING ELEVATIONS -

SOUTH BUILDING

HYATT PLACE

HALF MOON BAY
MAIN ST.

HALF MOON BAY, CA
94019

21.010
HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019

RGJC SOUTH, LLC
NO. DATE ISSUES & REVISIONS
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
1 A4.02

EAST ELEVATION - SOUTH BUILDING
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
2 A4.02

WEST ELEVATION - SOUTH BUILDING
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
3 A4.02

SOUTH ELEVATION - SOUTH BUILDING
2024-01-23 PLANNING REVIEW REVISION
91 LEVEL 2, BLDG 1
EL +105' - 0"
RIDGE, BLDG 1
EL +122' - 2"

CHECK IN LOBBY
GUEST

CORRIDOR

GUEST DINING

GUESTROOM
LEVEL 1, BLDG 1
EL +90' - 0"

GUESTROOM

VESTIBULE

PORTE COCHERE
15' - 0"
10' - 0"
MAX ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT 36' - 0'' / PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT 34'-0'' ABOVE EXISTING GRADE

EXISTING GRADE
17' - 2"
32' - 2"
5' - 8"
18' - 3"
1' - 11"
3' - 0"

88.12 EXISTING GRADE AT RIDGE LINE
LEVEL 2, BLDG 1
EL +105' - 0"
RIDGE, BLDG 1
EL +122' - 2"
LEVEL 1, BLDG 1
EL +90' - 0"

CORRIDOR MEETING ROOM

GUESTROOM GUEST

CORRIDOR
15' - 0"

FITNESS
MAX ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT 36' - 0'' / PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT 34'-0'' ABOVE EXISTING GRADE

EXISTING GRADE
17' - 2"

GUESTROOM
32' - 2"
3' - 0" 3' - 0"
3' - 0" 7' - 9"
122.17' Ridge Line (122'-2")
- 88.12' Existing Grade

34.05' Building Height from Existing Grade

88.12 EXISTING GRADE AT RIDGE LINE
LEVEL 1, BLDG 2
EL +88' - 8"
LEVEL 2, BLDG 2
EL +98' - 6"
LEVEL 3, BLDG 2
EL +107' - 10"
RIDGE, BLDG 2
EL +122' - 5"

GUESTROOM

GUESTROOM
GUEST

CORRIDOR
GUEST

CORRIDOR
14' - 7" 9' - 4" 9' - 10"
MAX ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT 36' - 0'' / PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT 36'-0'' ABOVE EXISTING GRADE

EXISTING GRADE

GUESTROOM

GUESTROOM
33' - 9"

86.46 EXISTING GRADE AT RIDGE LINE
LEVEL 1, BLDG 2
EL +88' - 8"
LEVEL 2, BLDG 2
EL +98' - 6"
LEVEL 3, BLDG 2
EL +107' - 10"
RIDGE, BLDG 2
EL +122' - 5"
14' - 7" 9' - 4" 9' - 10"
GUEST

CORRIDOR

GUESTROOM GUESTROOM

ATTIC ATTIC
GUEST

CORRIDOR
GUEST

CORRIDOR
MAX ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT 36' - 0'' / PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT 36'-0'' ABOVE EXISTING GRADE

EXISTING GRADE
33' - 9"
6' - 5" 6' - 5"
122.42' Ridge Line (122'-5")
- 86.46' Existing Grade

35.96' Building Height from Existing Grade

SHEET NUMBER

ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING

HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED

WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE

DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN

CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT

PROJECT NUMBER

DESCRIPTION
DATE
SCALE

PROJECT NAME

AS SHOWN

OWNER NAME NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
9 1/ 3
2/ 0
2 3 10
3: 4
0: 2
A
M
A5.01

BUILDING SECTIONS

HYATT PLACE

HALF MOON BAY
MAIN ST.

HALF MOON BAY, CA
94019

21.010
HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019

RGJC SOUTH, LLC
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2
A5.01

SECTION - SOUTH BLDG
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 4
A5.01

SECTION - SOUTH BLDG
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1
A5.01

SECTION - NORTH BLDG
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 3
A5.01

SECTION - NORTH BLDG
0 2' 4' 8' 16' 32' 0 2' 4' 8' 16' 32'
0 2' 4' 8' 16' 32' 0 2' 4' 8' 16' 32'
NO. DATE ISSUES & REVISIONS
2024-01-23 PLANNING REVIEW REVISION
92 ACC
EV
ACC

EV EV EV EV EV

NO PARKING FIRE LANE
Know what'sbelow.

Callbefore you dig.

R
SAN

FRANCISCO
BAY

PACIFIC
OCEAN 255 SHORELINE DRIVE SUITE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 (650) 482-6300 www.bkf.com 93 255 SHORELINE DRIVE SUITE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 (650) 482-6300 www.bkf.com 94 APN 065-012-030
Know what'sbelow.

Callbefore you dig.

R 255 SHORELINE DRIVE SUITE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 (650) 482-6300 www.bkf.com 95 APN 064-352-150
APN 065-012-020
Know what'sbelow.

Callbefore you dig.

R 255 SHORELINE DRIVE SUITE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 (650) 482-6300 www.bkf.com 96 ACC
EV
ACC

EV EV EV EV EV
N24°25'34"W 800.41'
N06°12'26"W 815.60'
Know what'sbelow.

Callbefore you dig.

R 255 SHORELINE DRIVE SUITE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 (650) 482-6300 www.bkf.com 97 NO PARKING FIRE LANE N64°28'28"E 227.05' N83°47'34"E 143.53' N24°25'24"W 150.37' N09°15'51"W 145.11'
N09°15'51"W 145.11'
N09°15'51"W 145.11'
N09°15'51"W 145.11' N80°44'25"E 70.00' N80°44'25"E 70.00' N80°44'09"E 70.00' N80°44'09"E 70.00' N80°44'09"E 70.00' N80°44'25"E 70.00' N80°44'25"E 156.12' N80°44'09"E 116.79' N24°25'24"W 97.46' N06°12'26"W 38.21'
Know what'sbelow.

Callbefore you dig. R 255 SHORELINE DRIVE SUITE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 (650) 482-6300 www.bkf.com 98 ACC
EV
ACC

EV EV EV EV EV
N24°25'34"W 800.41'
N06°12'26"W 815.60'
Know what'sbelow.

Callbefore you dig.

R 255 SHORELINE DRIVE SUITE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 (650) 482-6300 www.bkf.com 99 NO PARKING FIRE LANE N64°28'28"E 227.05' N83°47'34"E 143.53' N24°25'24"W 150.37' N09°15'51"W 145.11'
N09°15'51"W 145.11'
N09°15'51"W 145.11'
N09°15'51"W 145.11' N80°44'25"E 70.00' N80°44'25"E 70.00' N80°44'09"E 70.00' N80°44'09"E 70.00' N80°44'09"E 70.00' N80°44'25"E 70.00' N80°44'25"E 156.12' N80°44'09"E 116.79' N24°25'24"W 97.46' N06°12'26"W 38.21'
Know what'sbelow.

Callbefore you dig. R 255 SHORELINE DRIVE SUITE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 (650) 482-6300 www.bkf.com 100
ACC
EV
ACC

EV EV EV EV EV
N24°25'34"W 800.41'
N06°12'26"W 815.60'
Know what'sbelow.

Callbefore you dig.

R 255 SHORELINE DRIVE SUITE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 (650) 482-6300 www.bkf.com 101
NO PARKING FIRE LANE N64°28'28"E 227.05' N83°47'34"E 143.53' N24°25'24"W 150.37' N09°15'51"W 145.11'
N09°15'51"W 145.11'
N09°15'51"W 145.11'
N09°15'51"W 145.11' N80°44'25"E 70.00' N80°44'25"E 70.00' N80°44'09"E 70.00' N80°44'09"E 70.00' N80°44'09"E 70.00' N80°44'25"E 70.00' N80°44'25"E 156.12' N80°44'09"E 116.79' N24°25'24"W 97.46' N06°12'26"W 38.21'
Know what'sbelow.

Callbefore you dig. R 255 SHORELINE DRIVE SUITE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 (650) 482-6300 www.bkf.com 102
ACC
EV
ACC

EV EV EV EV EV
N24°25'34"W 800.41'
N06°12'26"W 815.60'
Know what'sbelow.

Callbefore you dig.

R 255 SHORELINE DRIVE SUITE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 (650) 482-6300 www.bkf.com 103
NO PARKING FIRE LANE N64°28'28"E 227.05' N83°47'34"E 143.53' N24°25'24"W 150.37' N09°15'51"W 145.11'
N09°15'51"W 145.11'
N09°15'51"W 145.11'
N09°15'51"W 145.11' N80°44'25"E 70.00' N80°44'25"E 70.00' N80°44'09"E 70.00' N80°44'09"E 70.00' N80°44'09"E 70.00' N80°44'25"E 70.00' N80°44'25"E 156.12' N80°44'09"E 116.79' N24°25'24"W 97.46' N06°12'26"W 38.21'
Know what'sbelow.

Callbefore you dig. R 255 SHORELINE DRIVE SUITE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 (650) 482-6300 www.bkf.com 104
ACC
EV
ACC

EV EV EV EV EV

NO PARKING FIRE LANE
Know what'sbelow.

Callbefore you dig.

R 255 SHORELINE DRIVE SUITE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 (650) 482-6300 www.bkf.com 105
ACC
EV
ACC

EV EV EV EV EV
N24°25'34"W 800.41'
N06°12'26"W 815.60'
Know what'sbelow.

Callbefore you dig.

R 255 SHORELINE DRIVE SUITE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 (650) 482-6300 www.bkf.com 106
NO PARKING FIRE LANE N64°28'28"E 227.05' N83°47'34"E 143.53' N24°25'24"W 150.37' N09°15'51"W 145.11'
N09°15'51"W 145.11'
N09°15'51"W 145.11'
N09°15'51"W 145.11' N80°44'25"E 70.00' N80°44'25"E 70.00' N80°44'09"E 70.00' N80°44'09"E 70.00' N80°44'09"E 70.00' N80°44'25"E 70.00' N80°44'25"E 156.12' N80°44'09"E 116.79' N24°25'24"W 97.46' N06°12'26"W 38.21'
Know what'sbelow.

Callbefore you dig. R 255 SHORELINE DRIVE SUITE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 (650) 482-6300 www.bkf.com 107
Know what'sbelow.

Callbefore you dig.

R 255 SHORELINE DRIVE SUITE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 (650) 482-6300 www.bkf.com 108
255 SHORELINE DRIVE SUITE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 (650) 482-6300 www.bkf.com 109
255 SHORELINE DRIVE SUITE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 (650) 482-6300 www.bkf.com 110
N24°25'24"W 150.37'
N09°15'51"W 145.11'
N09°15'51"W 145.11'
N09°15'51"W 145.11'
N09°15'51"W 145.11' N80°44'25"E 70.00' N80°44'25"E 70.00' N80°44'09"E 70.00' N80°44'09"E 70.00' N80°44'09"E 70.00' N80°44'25"E 70.00' N80°44'25"E 156.12' N80°44'09"E 116.79' Know what'sbelow.

Callbefore you dig.

R 255 SHORELINE DRIVE SUITE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 (650) 482-6300 www.bkf.com 111
P

REVISION TABLE NUMBER DATE REVISED BY DESCRIPTION
SHEET:

DATE:

L-1 MWS Consulting 130 Mono Ave. Fairfax, CA 94530 [email protected] Tel: 415. 938.6340 LANDSCAPE PLAN 09/21/23 HYATT PLACE HOTEL MAIN STREET, HALF MOON BAY CALIFORNIA MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 2 No Scale
112

REVISION TABLE NUMBER DATE REVISED BY DESCRIPTION
SHEET:

DATE:

L-2 MWS Consulting 130 Mono Ave. Fairfax, CA 94530 [email protected] Tel: 415. 938.6340 BIOFILTER SYSTEM HYATT PLACE HOTEL MAIN STREET, HALF MOON BAY CALIFORNIA 09/22/23
No Scale MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 2 DRAINAGE PLAN
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
1 Applicant/Owner Greg Jamison
P.O. Box 426
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
[email protected]
October 31, 2024
Hon. Mayor Joaquin Jimenez and Council Members
Half Moon Bay City Hall
501 Main Street
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
Attn: Steve McHarris, CDD Director
Project: City File #PDP 072-13 – Appeal from Planning Commission Location:

Vacant Parcel (5.02 acres), 1100 Block of Main St. (West Side), APN 065-012-030 James Ford Auto Dealership, 100 Seymour St. (South Side), APN 065-012-020 James Ford Parking Area, 101 Block of Seymour St. (North Side), APN 064-352-150 Dear Mayor and members of the City Council:

On October 22, 2024, the proposed development for PDP-072-13 was denied approval by the City of Half Moon Bay Planning Commission. The denial was based on three policies found in the City of Half Moon Bay LCLUP. Policies 9-3, 9-12, and 9-23. Attached as Exhibit A.

Here is a ‘Transcript’ obtained from the video of the Planning Commission meeting held October 22, 2024, listing the ϐindings read by the City Attorney to the Planning Commissioners to support a motion for a denial. (PC Video 4:39:03).
9-3 "The project does not preserve and enhance Half Moon Bay’s unique visual quality because the projects height and mass interferes with expansive views of upland slopes from the coastal terrace.”
9-12 “The project which is in close proximity to and visible from Hwy 1 does not protect views to upland slopes as seen from Hwy 1.”
9-23 “The project does not protect broad views of upland slopes and prominent ridgelines from the Hwy 1 scenic corridor because it is not sited and designed to minimize intrusions into the ridgeline through the application of appropriate height and setback restrictions.” Roll Call: Vote 3-2 in favor of a motion approved for a denial resolution. Meeting Adjourned.

I am the applicant representing the above-mentioned project and disagree with the ϐindings.

Through the eight public hearings going back to 2016, all policies have been followed as the proposed development plan has gone through several revisions in response to input from the City Staff, Planning Commission, Architectural Advisory Committee, the California Coastal Commission, public input, and implementing design elements into the plan in response to environmental concerns from the various studies that have been completed on the subject property. The project complies and is consistent with all local and state codes, policies, regulations and conditions. 125
2 Analysis of the Planning Commission Meeting held October 22, 2024 Regarding Aesthetics
During deliberations it was clear that all ϐive commissioners supported the design of the hotel. Comments made during the meeting are as follows:

Commissioner Gorn, “so as a point of discussion, I would say, my personal opinion, is that this is a beautiful project, it’s a really nice-looking hotel, in a place where a hotel would be good, where the TOT is not insignificant. Like I see the benefit to us.” PC Video at 2:11:38.

Commissioner Ruddock, “first of all I agree with Commissioner Gorn, that I personally find that this to be a beautiful project. I think more importantly the reason that the aesthetics are not being debated anymore is partly due to very positive and helpful impact from the public and also our architectural advisory committee made up of three professional architects who have given an awful lot to the city on this project and many others over the years.” PC Video at 2:21:30.

Commissioner Hernandez, “I agree with a lot of the comments my colleagues have made. I do think after, I guess this is eight meetings now, that have been public, we’ve ended up with a much better looking project that fits in, uses coastal resources, and I think it satisfies the policy concerns I have about a gateway location from an aesthetics perspective, I think it does, the setback in particular and the inclusion of native plants species that are coastal scrub and other plants and some native trees, does create a transition into the urban setting and it’s consistent with the policies and that stuƯs pretty clear.” PC Video at 2:26:24.

Chair Gossett, “the hotel itself is beautiful, I think the design is lovely, but the other thing, so I do want to compliment the applicant on bringing forward something that beautiful.” PC Video at 2:49:48.

Vice Chair Joanes, “I’m not saying I don’t want a hotel there. I am just saying that this hotel as designed, it’s a beautiful place, but as designed, how do we resolve this visual quality.

That’s what I’m saying. The hotel is beautiful, the hotel is needed. The hotel will give us a lot of, you know, possible financial revenues. There is no question about that. Were tasked with this policy and how do we figure this out. And this is what I am saying.” PC Video at 3:58:17.

Regarding Policies 9-3, 9-12, 9-23 of Chapter 9, Scenic and Visual Resources of the LCLUP During this October 22, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting, three of the Planning Commissioners could not see how the CEQA Guidelines and the LCLUP Policies could apply to the proposed project in such a way to approve the development.

The following provides a history of what has been accomplished over the years from the previous City meetings to address the concerns for these policies:
126
3 June 29, 2021, a Special Meeting, Joint Study Session Planning Commission with the Architectural Advisory Committee was held. Alternative 2 was introduced as a reduced plan containing 102 guestrooms. This plan shifted the hotel buildings further to the north and east to create more Open Space along the south end and west side of the hotel to protect the Viewpoints from the southern Gateway area and to reduce visual impacts from the Naomi Patridge Trail west of Hwy 1 when viewing to the east towards the hotel. During the review of Alternative 2 that evening, it was suggested to see if we could create additional space between the two hotel buildings to open up that area more for even better views.

August 9, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting. (This meeting was held during circulation of the DEIR. The public review period is 60 days from July 15, 2022, ending September 13, 2022). In response to comments from the June 29, 2021, meeting, the applicant offered to increase the space between the two hotel buildings, by doubling the space from 16 feet to 32 feet apart. The change offered during this meeting was welcomed.

September 9, 2022, The California Coastal Commission (CCC) provided a letter to the City of Half Moon Bay. This letter was issued by CCC in response to the DEIR 60-day public review period and in response to the Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 2022. The California Coastal Commission letter is attached as Exhibit B. A Quote from the letter states the following:

3. Visual Impact. The proposed development has several impacts to visual resources in the area. The project site is adjacent to Highway 1, which is not oƯicially designated as a scenic corridor in the LUP, but is described in the LUP as providing “a large share of the visual impression of the City.” In addition, Highway 1 contains long-range views of the ridgelines north and east of the project location. As a result, the DEIR states that the City has expressed intent to treat Highway 1 corridor as a visual resource area. In addition, the project is located at the southern entrance of the City of Half Moon Bay and is essentially the gateway to the downtown area. Therefore the project has a greater potential to impact the character of the surrounding area and the first impressions of the City. The selection of Alternative 2 addresses many of these concerns by increasing the setbacks from Highway 1, the Southern Gateway, and Main Street, both reducing the impact to the view of the ridgelines from Highway 1, and the view of the proposed hotel from the southern entrance to the City. In addition, based on communication with the applicant, and from the option presented in the August 9th, 2022 Half Moon Bay Planning Commission Meeting by the project architect, StaƯ understands that the applicant intends to further break up the building massing, roughly doubling the space between the two proposed buildings to further reduce the impact on view lines inland from Highway 1. StaƯ is supportive of the selection of Alternative 2 and the planned design changes. Per LUP Policy 9-6 “Site Planning and Design for New Development”, please ensure that the development is sited and designed to protect and be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area, particularly with respect to the view from the southern entrance of Half Moon Bay as shown in Viewpoint 2 in Figure 5-9 of the DEIR.
127
4 Viewpoint Map of the Site
Attached is Exhibit C, which is a copy of the Viewpoint Map, Figure 4.1-2 from the EIR that shows the “Project” as 129 guestrooms. For your convenience, an Overlay of “Modiϐied Alternative 2” (from Figure 5-1, of the EIR) as 102 guestrooms has been added. Modiϐied Alternative 2 includes the increase in space between the two buildings from 16 feet to 32 feet apart. Seeing both plans on the same page shows the major reduction in the footprint of the structures that Modiϐied Alternative 2 provides with how it is positioned on the site and how these changes increased substantially the views from various locations.

Comments
All the Commissioners had comments regarding these policies, but one that was speciϐically interesting came from Commissioner Gorn as shown on PC Video 2:11:38 to 2:19:32.

Commissioner Gorn, “So as a point of discussion, I would say, my personal opinion, is that this is a beautiful project, it’s a really nice-looking hotel, in a place where a hotel would be good, where the TOT is not insignificant. Like I see the benefit to us. Personally. I see that.

This 3,965 daily VMT trip miles travelled thing, somehow, cutting down to 3,354 is like, I just don’t believe that’s happening. But those other benefits of having that project in, you know I could overlook the VMT thing, I could overlook the parking variance, this lot line adjustment, this parcel division, this approving the project with a housing component that is not actually a part of the project but is a part of the approval, ok, you know, maybe but so to me there is two things that standout that are not, personal opinion that we have to deal with as facts and those are the two big problems with this project. And one of them is the view and where the view is and how that view meets LCP standards. And I don’t see LCLUP, I see so many spots where it’s a problem. Where I wouldn’t want to overrule that. I think if I was on City Council and I was trying to make a decision about, you know, policy, then maybe I would, you know, somehow overlook that. But as a Planning Commissioner and what were supposed to look at is the LCLUP I think that is pretty-pretty serious.” PC Video 2:11:38 to 2:14:02.

Conclusion
As the record demonstrates, City review for this proposed development has spanned over eight years. We have made substantial modifications to the proposed development to provide a project that includes a major reduction in size through structural clustering and is in line with the city standards, policies, and regulations. When viewing the site from Hwy 1 looking east, only about 50% of the site has structures. The proposed development provides Low-Cost Visitor Serving elements that comply with the City of Half Moon Bay and the California Coastal Commission policies. These features provide new public access to this area that includes two acres of open space with bike paths, walking paths, park benches, educational signage and environmental restoration. This development is a substantial benefit to our community by providing Transient Occupancy Tax Revenues, creating new jobs, supporting the local shops and restaurants, anchoring the south end of Main Street, and enhancing our Southern Gateway to the City. 128
For reasons clearly identified, I request that the City Council follow City Staff recommendations for approval of this development as is defined in the City Staff Report and Supplemental Documents that are part of the Agenda Packet for the Planning Commission Meeting held on October 9, 2024 and the continuation to the Planning Commission Meeting held on October 22, 2024, including the additional Supplemental Information provided and all agenda packet information as it relates to City File #PDP 072-13.

It is time for the applicant's reasonable expectation of the proposed development plan to be realized, and for the City Council to reverse and override the Planning Commission and approve the project.

Thank you for your consideration.

Very truly yours,
Greg Jamison
5 129
Exhibit A
Listed are the Policies as written in the LCLUP, adopted by Half Moon Bay City Council Resolution No. C-2020-94 October 20, 2020, and Certified by the California Coastal Commission LCP Amendment No. LCP-2-HMB-20-0081-2 April 15, 2021, are as follows:

Policies - General
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, bluƯs, ocean, and upland slopes. 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;
b. Incorporates design standards such as screening of commercial parking areas and landscaping provisions; and
c. Is visually compatible with the surrounding land and development.

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

NORTH CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
45 FREMONT STREET, SUITE 2000
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
PHONE: (415) 904-5260
FAX: (415) 904-5400
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
Th22a
Appeal Filed: 5/20/2016
49th Day: Waived
Staff: P.Foster - SF
Staff Report: 7/28/2016
Hearing Date: 8/11/2016

APPEAL STAFF REPORT

SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE DETERMINATION
Appeal Number: A-2-HMB-16-0058
Applicant: Coastside Fire Protection District
Appellant: Citizens for Preserving Rural Half Moon Bay
Local Decision: Approved with conditions by the Half Moon Bay City Council (CDP Application Number PDP-15-046)
Project Location: 1191 Main Street, Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County (APN: 064-370-050)
Project Description: Construction of a prefabricated fire training tower 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.

Staff Recommendation: No Substantial Issue
Important Hearing Procedure Note: This is a substantial issue only hearing. Testimony will be taken only on the question of whether the appeal raises a substantial issue. Generally and at the discretion of the Chair, testimony is limited to 3 minutes total per side. Please plan your testimony accordingly. Only the applicant, persons who opposed the application before the local government (or their representatives), and the local government shall be qualified to testify.

Others may submit comments in writing. If the Commission determines that the appeal does raise a substantial issue, the de novo phase of the hearing will occur at a future Commission meeting, during which it will take public testimony.
137
A-2-HMB-16-0058 (Coastside FPD Tower)
2 SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Half Moon Bay City Council approved a coastal development permit (CDP) to allow for the construction of a new four-story prefabricated fire training tower, approximately 45 feet in height and 4,497 square feet in floor area, on a lot previously developed with an existing fire station and fire training yard, just east of Highway 1, on the southwest corner of Main Street and Higgins Canyon Road.

The Appellant contends that the City-approved project would visually degrade the City's southern gateway based on lack of conformance with the visual resource policies and standards of the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP), which require protection of scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas, including the City’s eastern hillsides and ridgelines.

After reviewing the local record, Commission staff recommends that the Commission find that the City’s CDP action does not raise a substantial issue with respect to the City-approved project’s conformance with the Half Moon Bay LCP. Although the City’s action raises some questions regarding its consistency with LCP visual policies, staff does not believe that the approved development results in significant visual resource problems. The project would result in a fairly large structure inland of the highway, but its effect on public views is tempered by the presence of the existing fairly large fire station and surrounding development, and the screening provided by existing vegetation along Main Street. Staff believes that the intent of the LCP policies in this regard is adequately respected by the City’s action in this case, and that the development can be found visually compatible with the character of the viewshed at this location.

As a result, staff recommends that the Commission determine that the appeal contentions do not raise a substantial issue with respect to the grounds on which the appeal has been filed, and that the Commission decline to take jurisdiction over the CDP for this project. The single motion necessary to implement this recommendation is found on page 4 below. 138
A-2-HMB-16-0058 (Coastside FPD Tower)
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. MOTION AND RESOLUTION ............................................................................................ 4 II. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS .................................................................................... 4 A. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ 4 B. APPEAL PROCEDURES .......................................................................................................... 5 C. SUMMARY OF APPEAL CONTENTIONS .................................................................................. 6 D. SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE DETERMINATION ................................................................................. 6 E. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 12

EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 – Project Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Approved Project Design
Exhibit 3 – Approved Project Renderings
Exhibit 4 – City’s Final Local Action Notice
Exhibit 5 – Appeal of Half Moon Bay’s CDP Approval
Exhibit 6 – City’s Final Approving Resolution (No. C-2016-34) Exhibit 7 – Still Images from Applicant’s Simulation Video Exhibit 8 – Correspondence
139
A-2-HMB-16-0058 (Coastside FPD Tower)
4 I. MOTION AND RESOLUTION
Staff recommends that the Commission determine that no substantial issue exists with respect to the grounds on which the appeal was filed. A finding of no substantial issue would mean that the Commission will not hear the application de novo and that the local action will become final and effective. To implement this recommendation, staff recommends a YES vote on the following motion. Passage of this motion will result in a finding of No Substantial Issue and the local action will become final and effective. The motion passes only by affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present.

Motion: I move that the Commission determine that Appeal Number A-2-HMB-16-0058 raises no substantial issue with respect to the grounds on which the appeal has been filed under Section 30603, and I recommend a yes vote.

Resolution: The Commission finds that Appeal Number A-2-HMB-16-0058 does not present a substantial issue with respect to the grounds on which the appeal has been filed under Section 30603 of the Coastal Act regarding consistency with the certified Local Coastal Program and/or the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act.

II. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS
The Commission finds and declares as follows:

A. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is a new four-story prefabricated fire training tower, which would be approximately 45 feet in height and 4,497 square feet in floor area, on an 86,463 square foot lot previously developed with an existing fire station and fire training yard. The subject property is located at 1191 Main Street in Half Moon Bay, just east of Highway 1, on the southwest corner of Main Street and Higgins Canyon Road (Exhibit 1).

As depicted in the project plans (Exhibit 2), the training tower is to be located north of the existing fire station, and set back in the northeast corner of the property in the area of the site currently used as a fire training yard. The tower consists of four enclosed but unconditioned floors, topped by an open training platform. The City-approved structure is 45 feet at its highest point, the top of the stairwell railing, and 40.5 feet to the top of the enclosed portion of the structure. The top floor training platform is designed as a "clear story" with no roof and an open railing instead of a solid parapet. No exterior lighting is included on the building. Small signs are included on doors and walls for field location purposes.

The exterior finish will include brick combined with painted metal siding, including muted red brick on the front facade facing Main Street, metal siding painted tan on the sides, and dark brown trim (Exhibit 3).

The Applicant indicates that the purpose of the project, including the tower’s design, is to provide a variety of training opportunities for firefighters under realistic and emergent circumstances. The tower includes doors, windows, stairwells, balconies, roof areas, and interior 140
A-2-HMB-16-0058 (Coastside FPD Tower)
5 spaces that simulate building conditions firefighters encounter in actual emergency situations, including multi-story building rescue scenarios. In addition, the facility provides fire hose connections, burn rooms/areas, a theatrical smoke distribution system, rappelling anchors, moveable interior wall partitions, and operable shutters that facilitate a variety of training activities, as well as a fan to dissipate smoke from burn rooms.

The approved construction site is located within the LCP’s Public Service (P-S) zoning district on land designated in the LUP as Public Facilities and Institutions. The LUP designation is intended to provide for educational, governmental and institutional uses not feasibly accommodated in the general commercial area, and supports such uses as schools, public works and utility yards, maintenance buildings, fire stations, and hospitals. Surrounding uses at the site include a non-profit repertory theatre to the north, agricultural land to the east and south, and an undeveloped lot to the west of Main Street fronting Highway 1 (i.e., between Main Street and Highway 1. The site itself is approximately 100 yards inland from Highway 1, and is thereby situated within a scenic corridor, designated by both LUP Policy 7-1 and Implementation Plan (IP) Section 18.37.020(A)(1) as extending for 200 yards on either side of the Highway. In addition, inland hillsides lie eastward of the site, which are identified as both an important visual resource and major attribute of the City’s setting by IP Section 18.01.010(G) and the LCP’s Upland Slopes discussion.

Half Moon Bay CDP Approval
On May 3, 2016, the City of Half Moon Bay City Council approved coastal development permit (CDP) PDP-15-046 for the above-described project. The City’s notice of final local action was received in the Coastal Commission’s North Central Coast District office on May 6, 2016 (Exhibit 4). The Coastal Commission’s ten-working day appeal period for this action began on May 9, 2016 and concluded at 5 p.m. on May 20, 2016. One valid appeal, from Citizens for Preserving Rural Half Moon Bay, was timely received (see below and see Exhibit 5).

B. APPEAL PROCEDURES
Coastal Act Section 30603 provides for the appeal to the Coastal Commission of certain CDP decisions in jurisdictions with certified LCPs. The following categories of local CDP decisions are appealable: (a) approval of CDPs for development that is located (1) between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea or within 300 feet of the inland extent of any beach or of the mean high tide line of the sea where there is no beach, whichever is the greater distance, (2) on tidelands, submerged lands, public trust lands, within 100 feet of any wetland, estuary, or stream, or within 300 feet of the top of the seaward face of any coastal bluff, and (3) in a sensitive coastal resource area if the allegation on appeal is that the development is not in conformity with the implementing actions of the certified LCP; or (b) for counties, approval of CDPs for development that is not designated as the principal permitted use under the LCP. In addition, any local action (approval or denial) on a CDP for a major public works project (including a publicly financed recreational facility and/or a special district development) or an energy facility is appealable to the Commission. The City’s approval is appealable because the approved development constitutes a major public works project.

The grounds for appeal under Section 30603 are limited to allegations that the development does not conform to the certified LCP or to the public access policies of the Coastal Act. Section 141
A-2-HMB-16-0058 (Coastside FPD Tower)
6 30625(b) of the Coastal Act requires the Commission to conduct a de novo CDP hearing on an appealed project unless a majority of the Commission finds that “no substantial issue” is raised by such allegations. Under Section 30604(b), if the Commission conducts a de novo hearing and ultimately approves a CDP for a project, the Commission must find that the approved development is in conformity with the certified LCP. If a CDP is approved for a project that is located between the nearest public road and the sea or the shoreline of any body of water located within the coastal zone, Section 30604(c) also requires an additional specific finding that the development is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. This project is not located between the nearest public road and the sea, and thus the additional public access and recreation finding is not needed if the Commission were to approve a project following a de novo hearing.

The only persons qualified to testify before the Commission on the substantial issue question are the Applicant, persons who made their views known before the local government (or their representatives), and the local government. Testimony from other persons regarding substantial issue must be submitted in writing. Any person may testify during the de novo CDP determination stage of an appeal.

C. SUMMARY OF APPEAL CONTENTIONS
The Appellant group, Citizens for Preserving Rural Half Moon Bay, contends that the Cityapproved project would visually degrade scenic views of the City’s eastern hills as seen from Highway 1 based on lack of conformance with LCP visual resource policies and standards, including LCP IP Chapter 18.37 that details standards relating to protection of scenic and visual qualities of the City’s coastal areas. Please see Exhibit 5 for the full appeal document.

D. SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE DETERMINATION
The term “substantial issue” is not defined in the Coastal Act or in its implementing regulations.

In previous decisions on appeals, the Commission has generally been guided by the following factors in making substantial issue determinations: the degree of factual and legal support for the local government’s decision; the extent and scope of the development as approved or denied by the local government; the significance of the coastal resources affected by the decision; the precedential value of the local government's decision for future interpretations of its LCP; and, whether the appeal raises only local issues as opposed to those of regional or statewide significance. Even when the Commission chooses not to hear an appeal, appellants nevertheless may obtain judicial review of a local government’s CDP decision by filing a petition for a writ of mandate pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.5.

In this case, and for the reasons discussed further below, the Commission exercises its discretion and determines that the development approved by the City does not raise a substantial issue with regard to the Appellant’s contentions.

Visual Impacts
Applicable Policies
The LUP includes a series of policies designed to protect the City’s scenic qualities, including with respect to the hillsides along the City’s eastern boundary, and require structures to be designed and sited to follow the natural landscape without intruding into the skyline. These 142
A-2-HMB-16-0058 (Coastside FPD Tower)
7 policies also designate as a scenic corridor areas within at least 200 yards of Highway 1 on either side. Applicable policies include:

LUP Chapter 7 (pg. 90) – Upland Slopes
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… Any new development should be sited and designed to maintain the natural character of the landscape and to avoid substantial cuts and fills.

LUP 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 in new developments. The City will establish and map scenic corridors for Highway 1 to guide application of the policies of this chapter. Minimum standards shall include all areas within 200 yards of State Highway 1 which are visible from the road.

LUP Policy 7-10
New development on upland slopes visible from Highway 1 and Highway 92 as indicated on the Visual Resources Overlay Map, shall not involve grading or building siting which results in a significant modification of the hillscape; where trees must be removed for building purposes, reforestation shall be provided as a part of any new development to maintain the forested appearance of the hillside. 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.

The following IP provisions, specifically cited by the Appellant, require that permitted structures remain visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area, while conserving and enhancing important visual resources, including the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas, by not intruding or projecting above the ridgeline of hillsides at the eastern edge of the City, as seen from Highway 1:

IP Section 18.01.010 – Purpose and Intent
More specifically the zoning ordinance is intended to:
(G) Conserve and enhance important visual resources within the city, including...views of the inland hillsides at the eastern edge of the city.

IP Section 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.
(E) Allow development only when it is visually compatible with the character of the surrounding areas.

IP Section 18.37.035 – Upland Slopes Standards
New development shall meet the following criteria:
143
A-2-HMB-16-0058 (Coastside FPD Tower)
8 (C) Structures shall be sited so as to not intrude or project above the ridge line skyline as seen from Highways One and 92.

In addition, the following IP visual resource provisions also apply:

IP Section 18.37.020 – Visual Resource Areas
The community development director shall prepare and maintain maps of all designated visual resource areas within the city, based upon the visual resources overlay map contained in the city’s local coastal program land use plan. Visual resource areas within the city are defined as follows:
(A) Scenic Corridors. Visual resource areas along the Highway One corridor and scenic beach access routes, defined as follows: (1) Highway One Corridor. Located on both sides of Highway One, for a distance of two hundred yards in those areas where Highway One is designated as a scenic highway by the state of California and in those areas shown on the visual resources overlay map in the city’s local coastal program land use plan. …
(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 which are located: 1) East of the proposed Foothill Boulevard, comprising portions of Carter Hill and Dykstra Ranch properties. (2) Southeast of Pilarcitos Creek and east of Arroyo Leon, comprising a portion of land designated as open space reserve in the land use plan. (3) East of the Sea Haven Subdivision, being a portion of the Gravance property designated urban reserve in the land use plan. (4) East of the Nurseryman’s Exchange properties and lower Hester-Miguel lands, comprising all of the upper Hester-Miguel lands designated as open space reserve in the land use plan. … IP Section 18.37.030 – Scenic Corridor Standards
Public views within and from scenic corridors shall be protected and enhanced, according to the following standards: …
(A)(3) Within the mapped area of the visual resources overlay map, building height shall not exceed one story or fifteen feet, unless an increase in height would not obstruct public views to the ocean from the highway or would facilitate clustering of development which would result in greater view protection. The building height may be increased upon approval by the planning commission, if findings are made that greater view protection will result or public views will not be obstructed, but in no case shall building height exceed a height of twenty-eight feet.
(B) Development within the Highway One corridor…In general, structures shall be:
(1) Situated and designed to protect any views of the ocean and scenic coastal areas.

Where appropriate and feasible, the site plan shall restore and enhance the scenic quality of visually degraded areas.
(2) Located where least visible from the public view. Development shall not block views of the shoreline from scenic road turnouts, rest stops or vista points. 144
A-2-HMB-16-0058 (Coastside FPD Tower)
9 (5) Designed to maintain a low height above natural grade, unless a greater height would not obstruct public views.

Analysis
The Appellant contends the City-approved development does not adequately protect public views consistent with the LCP, including specifically that it fails to protect scenic views of the eastern hills because the 45-foot fire training tower will project above the ridgeline as seen from Highway 1. The LUP’s Upland Slopes section (in LUP Chapter 7) recognizes the hillsides along the City’s eastern boundary as a “major attribute of the City’s setting,” and indicates the need for development to be “sited and designed to maintain the natural character of the landscape.” In addition, LUP Policy 7-1 requires the City to establish regulations to protect the scenic corridor of Highway 1, including all areas within 200 yards of the Highway, in order to guide application of the visual resource policies contained in Chapter 7 of the LCP. Finally, LUP Policy 7-10 requires structures to be subordinate in appearance to the natural landform, designed to follow the natural contours of the landscape, and sited so as not to intrude into the skyline as seen from public viewing places.

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. With respect to development within scenic corridors, including 200 yards on either side of Highway 1, the IP requires development to remain at or below twenty-eight feet in height (subject to specific findings), protect any views of scenic coastal areas, be located where least visible from the public view, and be designed to maintain a low height above natural grade (see IP Sections 18.37.030(A)(3) and (B)(1), (2) and (5) above).

The City determined that the project is consistent with all applicable policies and development standards of the LCP. With regard to the overall stated purpose and intent of the IP, the City found that the fire tower adequately conserved views of the eastern hillside, as required by Section 18.01.010(G), despite being visible from Highway 1, because it:
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 side of Main Street, and the effective use of materials and color which blends with the background.1 In terms of the stated purpose and intent of the IP’s visual resource protection standards, the City determined the development would protect the scenic and visual qualities of the area and would be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area, as required by IP Sections

18.37.010(A) and (E). The City states:

1 See Exhibit 6, Resolution No. C-2016-34, Exhibit A.
145
A-2-HMB-16-0058 (Coastside FPD Tower)
10 …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 40.2
In addition, the City explained the tower would blend with the varying architectural styles of buildings in the vicinity of the project site because its industrial look would not contrast abruptly with the existing fire station or the adjacent theater building to the north (housed in a re-purposed industrial building), and the site design “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” (Exhibit 4, pp. 10, 15). Thus, the City made findings based on the fairly broad purpose and intent of the IP.

However, the City did not analyze other more objective visual standards established in the IP and LUP as discussed above, because it found that IP Section 18.37.035 and related provisions of the LUP, such as Policy 7-10, only apply to “upland slopes” areas, which the City asserted do not describe the subject site. Specifically at issue is the requirement that new development be sited so as to not intrude or project above the City’s eastern ridgeline as seen from Highway 1 (see IP Section 18.37.035(C)). IP Section 18.37.020(B) identifies upland slopes as scenic hillsides visible from Highway 1 and 92, “as indicated on the visual resources overlay map”, including “hillside areas above the one hundred sixty foot elevation contour line”. LUP Policy 7-10 is a little broader in terms of ridgeline question, stating that “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” (emphasis added).

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.

LCP Policy 7-1 states that “The City will establish and map scenic corridors for Highway 1 to guide application of the policies of this chapter. Minimum standards shall include all areas within 200 yards of State Highway 1 which are visible from the road.” The clear intent of such policy is that, at a minimum, any mapping program needs to take into account the area within 200 yards of Highway 1. However, the current visual resource area map does not show the 200 yard area, for some reason. Notwithstanding this omission, it is clear the LCP intent is to protect this area, mapped or not. Indeed, the use of “shall” in the last sentence clearly establishes intent to protect the scenic qualities of this corridor. Furthermore, IP Section 18.37.020(A)(1) defines

2 See Exhibit 6, Resolution No. C-2016-34, Exhibit A.
146
A-2-HMB-16-0058 (Coastside FPD Tower)
11 the Highway 1 corridor as a visual resource area for a distance of 200 yards on both sides of the Highway.

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.

According to a video provided by the Applicant which simulates the visual impact of the Cityapproved development with a 43-foot crane erected onsite, as viewed from north and southbound lanes of Highway 1, it appears that the 45-foot fire tower will not only be visible from Highway 1, but will also momentarily protrude into the ridgeline view from Highway 1 as travelers look east of the City toward the hillside (Exhibit 7). Therefore, the approved project is inconsistent with the standards set forth in LCP Policy 7-10 and IP Section 18.37.035(C), both of which require structures to be sited so as not to intrude into, or project above the eastern ridgeline as seen from Highway 1. However, in the southbound view from Highway 1 demonstrated in the Applicant’s video, the 43-foot crane remains entirely below the ridgeline, without intruding above it (see Exhibit 7, page 2). It is also important to note the final approved design of the fire tower only has solid walls up to 40.5 feet, with a clear top story and railing up to 45 feet, further ensuring the tower will remain beneath the ridgeline from this perspective.

Further, the existing fire station often appears to be higher than the proposed fire tower relative to the eastern ridgeline as seen from various viewpoints along Highway 1. Utilizing the Applicant’s video demonstration, from a northbound perspective the view of the crane is initially blocked by the on-site fire station itself because the tower is setback in the rear northeast corner of the property, 138 feet from Main Street (see Exhibit 7, page 3). Once past the fire station, the crane breaks the ridgeline looking east from Highway 1, but at this point a northbound passenger would likely only notice the tower in their peripheral vision (see Exhibit 7, page 4).

Additionally, Highway 1 does not serve as a common path for coastal hikers, so visual intrusions into the ridgeline from the standpoint of a person walking alongside the highway is not a significant concern in that respect. Consequently, although this development will obstruct some limited existing views to the eastern ridgeline from Highway 1, it does so only in a fleeting 147
A-2-HMB-16-0058 (Coastside FPD Tower)
12 manner for drivers headed north along the freeway, and will remain subordinate to the ridgeline for southbound drivers.

In essence then, the City-approved project is technically inconsistent with the ridgeline view protection policies and some of the Highway 1 corridor protection policies. However, the inconsistency is not substantial, and the impact to visual resources is fairly minimal in this case, and is compatible with the character of the surrounding development. In terms of Highway 1 views in general, the project would result in a fairly large structure inland of the highway, but its effect on public views is tempered by the presence of the existing fairly large fire station and surrounding development, and the screening provided by existing vegetation along Main Street.

As such, again, while technically inconsistent with LCP Highway 1 corridor policies, the intent of the LCP policies in this regard is adequately respected by the City’s action in this case, and the development can be found visually compatible with the character of the viewshed at this location.

E. CONCLUSION
When considering a project that has been appealed to it, the Commission must first determine whether the appeal of the approved development raises a substantial issue of LCP conformity, such that the Commission should assert jurisdiction over a de novo CDP for such development.

As described above, the Commission has been guided in its decision of whether the issues raised in a given case are “substantial” by the following five factors: the degree of factual and legal support for the local government’s decision; the extent and scope of the development as approved or denied by the local government; the significance of the coastal resources affected by the decision; the precedential value of the local government’s decision for future interpretations of its LCP; and, whether the appeal raises only local issues as opposed to those of regional or statewide significance. In this case, these five factors, considered together, support a conclusion that this project does not raise a substantial issue of LCP conformance.

First, the City provided sufficient factual and legal support for its decision. As described above, the appeal contentions relate to the project’s consistency with various policies of the City’s certified LUP and Zoning Code. The City’s approval appropriately considers general visual resource requirements and the approved project’s conditions are designed to ensure consistency with these provisions. Although the City did not adequately analyze visual intrusions into the eastern ridgeline or policies that generally apply to the named 200 yards out from Highway 1 scenic corridor, their analysis on the matter was thorough, and the ultimate visual impacts affecting these protected areas will not be substantial. Thus, there is adequate factual and legal support for the City’s decision.

Second, the extent and scope of the approved development is fairly minor. Although a fairly large structure, the approved project fits the scope and size of surrounding development in the vicinity of the project site. The project will remain visually compatible with the adjacent theatre and fire station and adds training capacity to an existing fire station in a Public Service Zoning District.

Third, the significance of the coastal resources affected by the project is less than significant as the impacts to visual resources are low; furthermore, no views of the ocean are impacted. The approved development is designed and conditioned to avoid significant visual impacts, and to limit what impacts there are. In addition, the training tower is sited within the property’s current 148
A-2-HMB-16-0058 (Coastside FPD Tower)
13 training yard that itself is located inland of both Highway 1 and Main Street in an area that does not affect significant public access, and the project will therefore have no impacts to coastal access or other coastal resources.

Fourth, the approved project does not present an adverse precedent for future interpretations of the LCP, as the visual impacts here are specific to this site. Additionally, the findings above provide guidance regarding visual impact assessment for further development within the corridors of Highway 1 and/or that affects ridgeline views. Finally, the City’s approved project raises only local issues as opposed to those of regional or statewide significance due to the scale of the project and the lack of any significant coastal resource impacts.

Therefore, although the City’s action raises some questions regarding its consistency with LCP visual policies, the Commission finds that the approved development does not result in significant visual resource problems inconsistent with the LCP’s intent in this case. That is not to say that such a conclusion would apply to any development affected by these policies that is proposed where it could impact ridgeline and Highway 1 views, rather that in this case the impacts are not significant. Thus, the Commission here exercises its discretion to find no substantial issue with the City’s action, and the Commission declines to take jurisdiction over the CDP application for this project.
149
A-2-HMB-16-0058
EXHIBIT 1

Page 1 of 1 ends

Half Moon Bay City CouncilJanuary 30, 2025

Half Moon Bay City Council
January 30, 2025