Half Moon Bay Planning Commission Meeting - August 9, 2022: Hyatt Place Hotel Draft EIR Public Hearing

This was a non-decision-making public hearing to receive comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Hyatt Place Hotel at the south end of Main Street. The meeting included presentations from city staff, CEQA consultants, and the applicant, followed by extensive public testimony and commission deliberation. The public comment period remains open until September 13, 2022.

Consent Calendar

• The Planning Commission approved the minutes from the July 26, 2022 meeting (motion by Commissioner Ruddock, second by Commissioner Gossett, approved 4-0-1, with Chair Gorn abstaining as he was not present at that meeting).

Public Comments & Testimony

• Kathy Kalanto (30+ year resident) expressed concern about parking (108 spaces for 102 rooms being insufficient given existing street parking demand), the building's design resembling other hotels, traffic safety at the new intersection, and the height of the structure. She preferred open space.
• Carly Ann Young asked about the height of the three-story building (not listed in the presentation) and raised concerns about evacuation capabilities for the mid-coast, citing a Lake County court case (Genoc project) that denied approval due to inadequate emergency evacuation planning. She requested that cumulative impacts of all coastside projects be considered.
• David Pasternak submitted a detailed statement on traffic, arguing the analysis omitted weekend afternoon gridlock and used counterintuitive assumptions. He urged the commission to consider the broader aesthetic impact on the community's gateway character.
• Judy Taylor praised the applicant's responsiveness and urged continued collaboration, noting that something will be built on the site and that the property owner cares about the community.
• Larry Gandleman (30+ year resident) supported the project, stating that traffic and emergency egress are inherent challenges of living on the coast, and that the applicant has made many changes over six years. He said the southern gateway needs improvement and the hotel would support Main Street merchants.
• Hazel Jonas (20-year resident) questioned the adequacy of the DEIR comment period, suggesting more public forums. She asked if the applicant is bound to the Hyatt Place brand, how the city determined it provides low-cost accommodations (noting Santa Cruz Hyatt Place rates of $419-$481), and whether additional feasible alternatives could avoid significant impacts.
• Rick Sutherland asked for clarification on significant and unavoidable impacts for alternative two (the 102-room hotel). He expressed sympathy for the applicant but suggested the project may not fit Half Moon Bay, and that the 16-to-32-foot building separation made an imperceptible difference.
• Leslie Hunt (30+ year resident) was surprised that only aesthetics were identified as significant, given major concerns about traffic, storm drainage, and sewage. She questioned current hotel occupancy rates and the need for another hotel, and called the design barracks-like.
• Brian Holt (13-year resident) supported the project, arguing that visual resources are subjective and that the site currently is a fallow field. He said the project would support an outdoor recreation economy and that the community has an obligation to welcome visitors sustainably.
• Paul McGregor (40+ year resident) supported alternative two, praising the applicant's efforts to lower and push back buildings. He said the development provides jobs, bike paths, and landscaping, and allows visitors to stay in Half Moon Bay instead of driving over the hill.
• Roy Solome supported the project, saying it draws visitor traffic south of Highway 92, alleviating congestion north of town. He felt alternative two looks appropriate and not out of scale.
• David Abloby (spoke as Half Moon Bay resident) supported the project, noting the applicant's commitment to using recycled materials. He argued that emergency egress concerns are irrelevant for 140 cars in a community-wide evacuation, and that the southern gateway needs an appropriate structure.
• Chad Hooker (AAC member speaking personally) stated that from his perspective at the highway median, the view of the upland hills is already largely blocked by street trees, the theater, and affordable housing, so the hotel's impact on the ridgeline is not significant.

Discussion Items

• Commissioner Benjamin focused on the scope of the DEIR. He noted that some public comments raised concerns about inconsistency with the Land Use Plan (LUP) and Coastal Act policies (e.g., 30251, 912) that may not be fully addressed in the aesthetics section. He urged including a land use compatibility analysis. He also asked for more analysis of alternative two, specifically the reasonably foreseeable development of the Seymour Street subdivision, and welcomed the inclusion of emergency evacuation and wildfire concerns in the final EIR.
• Commissioner Gossett requested an acronym appendix for the EIR and noted inconsistencies in acronym definitions. She asked about the proposed subdivision for alternative two, noting that a new wetland was found on the residential site, which conflicts with LUP policy. She also questioned whether the traffic study covered worst-case conditions (e.g., holidays, pumpkin season), and whether the analysis of schools, parks, and public facilities was complete (the question marks in the checklist were confusing).
• Commissioner Ruddock expressed interest in the proposed 32-foot building separation variant, but said the simulation slide was poor. He asked about wetland delineation confirmation from the 2021 biologist survey, the lack of street trees along Highway 1 in the plans, and data on heights of neighboring structures (e.g., fire station tower). He also noted that trees along Highway 1 could mitigate massing concerns.
• Vice Chair Hernandez emphasized clarity on the ridgeline impact for alternative two, noting that the EIR should state that alternative two does not have a significant unavoidable impact on ridgeline views (from viewpoints 2 and 3). He called for better context on the town boulevard concept (LUP policy 912) and Coastal Act obligations (30213, 30212.5) regarding public accommodations and lower-cost housing. He also requested that the executive summary clearly address public concerns about sewage, water, and traffic, making the document more accessible.
• Chair Gorn asked for clarification on whether the significant unavoidable impacts listed in table 2-1 apply to the proposed project or include alternative two. Staff confirmed that table 2-1 is for the proposed project only; alternative two's conclusions are in chapter 5. He also noted that the traffic analysis's counterintuitive result (improved service levels) could be explained by queueing theory, and urged that the scope of the traffic study cover the entire network. He expressed concern about certifying the EIR before the project is ready, and asked about the planning commission's role if a statement of overriding considerations is needed.

Key Outcomes

• No decisions were made. The meeting was for receiving comments on the DEIR.
• The public comment period remains open until 5:00 PM on September 13, 2022. Comments can be submitted via email (HyattHotel@hmbcity.com), mail, or in person at City Hall.
• Staff and CEQA consultants (Circle Point) will compile all comments and prepare responses in the Final EIR. The Final EIR will also include any corrections or clarifications.
• The applicant presented a variant of alternative two with a 32-foot building separation (instead of 16 feet). Staff noted this has not been studied and would be considered in the final EIR if directed.
• The Planning Commission will hold a future hearing to consider certification of the Final EIR and project approval (including potential findings of overriding considerations).
• The next Planning Commission meeting is in two weeks (August 23, 2022) and will include a Caltrans variable message sign item and a muramural proposal.