Half Moon Bay Planning Commission Special Meeting – October 24, 2024

The Half Moon Bay Planning Commission held a special meeting on October 24, 2024, to continue the public hearing on the Hyatt Place Hotel project (initially heard on October 9, 2024). After extensive discussion, the commission voted 3-2 to deny the project, citing inconsistencies with the Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) on scenic and visual resource policies. The meeting, originally scheduled to end by 10:30 PM, was extended to 11:00 PM by a simple majority vote.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of Minutes: The commission unanimously approved the minutes from the October 9, 2024 meeting with no changes.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Linda Mead (Half Moon Bay resident): Expressed concern about the hotel's height and visual impact, stating that the town should preserve its character and that a 15% reduction in vehicle trips is unrealistic. She opposed the project.
• Ann Maury: Questioned the project's benefit to residents' quality of life and urged a citywide vote. She also expressed concern about relying on hotel tax revenue and suggested earmarking funds for recreation.
• Brent Turner (Half Moon Bay resident): Agreed with previous speakers, citing traffic and existing hotel occupancy issues, and urged preservation of the town's feel.
• Naomi Patridge (former city councilmember): Strongly supported the project, noting that Half Moon Bay is designated as a visitor-serving community and that the city faces a $4 million deficit. She argued the hotel is needed for revenue and downtown vitality.
• Crystalin (Coastside Chamber of Commerce): Supported the project, stating that only 530 of 586 hotel rooms are available, with many at the Ritz-Carlton being out of reach for average tourists. She stressed the need for mid-range rooms for midweek corporate groups.
• Hal Bagner (resident): Raised concerns about the economic analysis, questioning whether the hotel would increase TOT or cause price reductions. He also objected to the combined hotel and residential subdivision as separate projects and noted visual impacts from the Naomi Patridge Trail.
• Julie McHenry: Criticized the project for overriding the LCLUP's visual corridor protections and asked for more discussion on parking for the meeting space. She also urged separating the residential component from the hotel project.
• Michael Adler (resident): Supported the project, praising the staff's work and the applicant's efforts. He argued that the overriding considerations outweigh the single view corridor impact and that the project will revitalize South Main Street.
• Paul McGregor (coastside resident): Supported the project, noting that the hotel's setbacks minimize view impacts compared to a nearby building (555 Poplar). He opposed NIMBYism and said the hotel will bring life to downtown.
• Tom Carey (Half Moon Bay resident): Supported the project, emphasizing that the applicant has made significant modifications over eight years and that the hotel will help struggling downtown businesses.
• Jim Mercurto (former mayor): Supported the project, urging the commission to say “yes” and praising the staff's detailed work.
• David Klein (coastside resident): Supported the project, stating that similar objections were raised about the Boys & Girls Club in 1994, yet it became a great asset. He noted the minimal view impact and the need for business on the south end of Main Street.
• Greg Jamison (applicant/owner): Thanked the commission and emphasized his long-term commitment to the community, modifications made, and the project's benefits: jobs, a beautiful gateway, and minimized parking intrusion.
• Carrie Burke (online speaker): Supported the project, highlighting its visitor-serving accommodations, low-cost options, jobs, and walkable connection to downtown.
• Jay Schmidt (online speaker): Opposed the project, citing obstruction of views from the story poles, parking concerns, and the need to prioritize residents' quality of life over tourism.

Discussion Items

• Staff Presentation: Contract Planner Kristi Bascom and Interim Community Development Director Steve McHarris presented additional information on policy conformance with the LCLUP, transportation demand management (TDM), parking management, statement of overriding considerations, cumulative impacts, lot retirement, use permit clarification, TOT data, and the existing auto dealership use permit. Staff recommended certification of the Final EIR and approval of the project.
• Commissioner Questions and Deliberation:
  • Commissioner Gorn questioned the CEQA finding of “substantial degradation” of visual character and the statement of overriding considerations. He expressed concern that the overriding considerations were not sufficiently supported by substantial evidence, noting that the main benefits were TOT revenue and visitor-serving purpose, which he felt were more policy matters for the city council.
  • Vice Chair Joannes asked detailed questions about the TDM calculation (15% VMT reduction) and the assumption of airport trips. She also raised concerns about the economic analysis, the in-lieu fee for prime agricultural soils ($38,000 for 2.55 acres), and the lack of a formal economic study for the hotel. She questioned the adequacy of the statement of overriding considerations, particularly regarding the TOT benefit and the lack of commitment to affordable housing in the residential component.
  • Commissioner Hernandez discussed the visual impact, noting that from certain angles (e.g., Naomi Patridge Trail) the obstruction is not fleeting, and that the project's height and mass interfere with views of the ridgeline. He also questioned the zoning status (PUD vs. CG) and the legal implications of using the 1996 LUP standards.
  • Commissioner Ruddock argued that the view intrusion is minimal and fleeting for drivers, and that the project's benefits (economic vitality, TOT revenue, bike/pedestrian path, transition gateway) outweigh the small visual impact. He noted that 17 other structures along Highway One have similar or greater impacts.
  • Chair Gossett expressed concern about the visual impact from the Naomi Patridge Trail and the crown of the road, and about setting a precedent for future projects. She also questioned the statement of overriding considerations, feeling it was not robust enough.
• LCLUP Policy Discussion: The commission focused on policies 9-3, 9-12, and 9-23 regarding scenic and visual resources. Staff argued that the project complies because the visual resources (upland slopes) are not on the site itself, but commissioners noted that the project blocks views of those resources. After extensive debate, the commission could not reach consensus on compliance, leading to a motion to deny.

Key Outcomes

• Motion to Deny: Commissioner Gorn made a motion to deny the project (PDP-072-13) based on inconsistencies with the LCLUP. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Joannes.
• Findings for Denial: The commission adopted the following findings as part of the denial resolution:
  • Policy 9-3: The project does not preserve and enhance Half Moon Bay's unique visual quality because its height and mass interfere with expansive views of upland slopes from the coastal terrace.
  • Policy 9-12: The project, which is in close proximity to and visible from Highway 1, does not protect views to upland slopes as seen from Highway 1.
  • Policy 9-23: The project does not 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.
• Vote: The motion to deny passed 3-2. Voting in favor: Commissioner Gorn, Vice Chair Joannes, Chair Gossett. Voting against: Commissioner Ruddock, Commissioner Hernandez.
• Meeting Adjourned: The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:00 PM after the vote.