PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF HALF MOON BAY AGENDA...AGENDA CITY OF HALF MOON BAY PLANNING COMMISSION...

Half Moon Bay EOC537 Kelly Ave.Half Moon Bay, CA 94019

James Benjamin, ChairSteve Ruddock, Vice ChairSara Polgar, Planning CommissionerRick Hernandez, Planning CommissionerBrian Holt, Planning Commissioner

AGENDA

CITY OF HALF MOON BAYPLANNING COMMISSION

TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 2020

7:00 PM

This agenda contains a brief description of each item to be considered. Those wishing to address thePlanning Commission on any matter not listed on the Agenda, but within the jurisdiction of the PlanningCommission to resolve, may come forward to the podium during the Public Forum portion of the Agendaand will have a maximum of three minutes to discuss their item. Those wishing to speak on an agenda itemare asked to fill out a speaker card. Speaker(s) will be called forward at the appropriate time during theagenda item in consideration.

Please Note: Please Provide a Copy of Prepared Presentations to the Clerk

Copies of written documentation relating to each item of business on the Agenda are on file in theOffice of the City Clerk at City Hall and the Half Moon Bay Library where they are available for publicinspection. If requested, the agenda shall be available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with adisability, 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 thismeeting can be obtained by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at 650-726-8271. A 48-hour notification willenable the City to make reasonable accommodations to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II).

http://hmbcity.com/

MEETING WILL CONCLUDE BY 10:30 PM UNLESS OTHERWISE EXTENDED BY SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE OF THEPLANNING COMMISSION.

1

http://hmbcity.com/

REMOTE MEETING / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATIONIn accordance with the San Mateo County Health Officer's March 16, 2020 Shelter-In-Place Order, all residents

must participate remotely. The meeting will be streamed live on Channel 27 and on www.pacificcoast.tv.

Members or the public are welcome to submit comments (in accordance with the three-minute per speaker

limit) via email to [email protected] prior to or during the meeting (before the close of public comments on

the item). The Recording Secretary will read all comments into the record. This meeting will be conducted

entirely by teleconference participation, in compliance with the Governor's Executive Order N-29-20 allowing

for deviation of teleconference rules required by the Ralph M. Brown Act.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND ROLL CALL

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Draft Minutes 03/10/2020PC_Minutes_03/10/2020

PUBLIC COMMENT

1. STUDY SESSION - MEASURE D ALLOCATION PROCESS AND RANKING

1.A Study Session regarding Measure D Allocation Process and RankingMEMO TO PC - AMENDMENT TO MEASURE D RANKINGS

STAFF REPORT - 2020 MEASURE D RANKING RATIFICATION

ATTACHMENT 1 - RESOLUTION

EXHIBIT A - MEASURE D RANKING SUMMARY

ATTACHMENT 2 - MEASURE D RANKING INTERPRETATIONS

DIRECTOR'S REPORT

PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS

ADJOURNMENT

2

http://www.pacificcoast.tv

mailto:[email protected]

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/559846/PC_Minutes_03.10.2020.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/559038/MEMO_TO_PC_AMENDMENT_TO_MEASURE_D_RANKINGS.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/559039/STAFF_REPORT_2020_MEASURE_D_RANKING_RATIFICATION.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/559040/ATTACHMENT_1_RESOLUTION_MEASURE_D_RATIFICATION_2020.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/559042/EXHIBIT_A__MEASURE_D_RANKING_SUMMARY.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/559043/ATTACHMENT_2_MEASURE_D_RANKING_INTERPRETATIONS.pdf

March 10, 2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4

MINUTES

CITY OF HALF MOON BAY PLANNING COMMISSION

TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2020

EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER (EOC) / 537 KELLY AVENUE Chair Benjamin called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM PRESENT: Chair Benjamin, Commissioners Ruddock, Polgar, Hernandez and Holt PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND ROLL CALL

Chair Benjamin led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes: February 11, 2020 M/S: Holt/Ruddock Approved: 3-0-2 (Polgar and Hernandez abstained, as they were absent at the February 11, 2020 meeting.) PUBLIC COMMENT None ITEM 1.A –An application for a Coastal Development Permit, Use Permit, Parking Exception, and Architectural Review to allow the demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new 4,280 square-foot two-story mixed-use building with two ground floor office spaces, two upper story dwelling units, and associated site improvements on a 5,076 square-foot lot in the C-D zoning district. LOCATION: 631 Mill Street APN: 056-161-040 CITY FILE #: PDP-19-004 APPLICANT/OWNER: Chris Ridgway/Eddie Bandini PROJECT PLANNER: Brittney Cozzolino Brittney Cozzolino, Associate Planner, presented project to the Planning Commission. 3


Planning Commission Clarifying Questions Q: Do we know any more about the drainage issues that neighbor has brought to our attention? A: This is a Public Works maintenance need; staff has gone out there on heavy rainy days and it appeared the drains were clean, as the water was flowing and not clogging; we encourage neighbors in this area to contact City staff immediately to clean out drains to prevent such flooding issues. Q: Confirming that the only electric charging station is for private use inside garage only? A: Correct, private only. Q: Do we have an electric charging station condition? A: Yes, see 2B Chris Ridgeway, Project Architect gave overview of the project. Hired civil engineer to look over the site drainage; there is insufficient space for swale; C-D zoning allows mixed use, project extends Downtown core; residents will be there to keep an eye on the site; live/work can take cars off the street; did not want to propose a 3-story building to accommodate required parking; kept low height as possible; worked with neighbor to the North when revising plans. PUBLIC COMMENT

1) Dr. David Maahs, DDS, neighbor across the street – corner on his side of street floods a few times every year; had to reduce his building size to accommodate parking; followed all parking rules, but don’t apply now, not fair or equitable; had to go through many hoops when applying to build his building 20 years ago.

Staff Comments – From the 1998 staff report for the dentist office, it appears that the project did require a parking exception. Comparing the dentist project and the proposed project to the current and new parking code, this is a similar situation and a reasonable parking exception. The dentist office was used as a reference for the new parking code. Staff also heard concerns from neighbor to the north about solar access and conducted a preliminary shade study. Findings were substantially similar to the applicant’s shade study. Winter solstice was used to present worst-case scenario, which shows minor shading of the neighbor’s roof in the winter in the morning and afternoon, but not any shading at noon. Planning Commission Clarifying Questions Q: Is there solar impact from the wall, or just the roof? A: The roof. Q: This project will contain drainage on site? A: Yes, public right-of-way is outside of the site project and it is not an impact. Q: Is the site improved, same or worse with drainage?

4


A: Can assume net benefit because the site is currently constructed with impervious surfaces and the project must include a low impact design components. Q: Does striping mean paving or striping with paint? A: Painting striping only Planning Commission Comments

Great project design

Meeting our housing goals – mixed use in downtown

Working to modernize our downtown parking, need to be flexible to support City’s vision and help the housing gap

Improvement to site drainage

Projects 20 years ago had lots of challenges, similar challenges in today’s code

Parking – struggles are occurring all over the state with the same old codes like our city

Include language of concrete wall with added flexibility to staff to use their judgement

Appreciate the applicant taking the Planning Commission feedback at previous meeting and working with it

Planning Commission tries to establish consistency while evolving our policies to respond to changing conditions and City Council direction and priorities

Would like feedback from City staff about drainage in this area

Nature of the project does not make the drainage or parking condition worse

Solar – was well studied; impact pretty minimal

State law protects solar access from trees, not buildings

Zoning code says “shall” for the concrete wall. Staff report does a good job allowing options – in future to get relief later

Motion made as written in the Staff Report with changes written in the Memo to Planning Commissioners (02.10.2020), those will be added to the Final Resolution, Conditions and Findings. M/S: Holt/Hernandez VOTE: 5-0 PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS 2019 HOUSING ELEMENT ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT - Confirm receipt of Housing Element Annual Progress Report. Motion made acknowledging the receipt of the 2019 Housing Element Annual Report M/S: Hernandez/Polgar Vote: 5-0 DIRECTOR REPORT 5


PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT

M/S: Ruddock/Hernandez Meeting adjourned at 8:22pm

Respectfully Submitted: Approved: ____________________________ _________________________________ Bridget Jett, Planning Analyst James Benjamin, Chair

6

Community Development Department

Jill Dever Ekas, AICP, Director

Date: March 20, 2020

To: Honorable Chair and Planning Commissioners

From: Jill Ekas, Community Development Director

Subject: Amendment to Measure D Allocation Rankings – All January Applications to Receive

Certificates

Following completion of the ranking process for the 2020 Measure D allocations, staff received written

notice from an applicant that they have decided to withdraw their application for allocations. The

project involves seven multi-family units which ranked highly and were likely to receive allocations.

Because there had been seven more applications than allocations for Measure D certificates, this change

means that all of the remaining applications received in January 2020 will be granted allocation

certificates. The staff report cites five projects, for a total of seven allocations that will not receive

certificates. This is no longer the case.

A staff report, resolution, ranking matrix, and detailed interpretations were prepared for the

Commission’s consideration on March 24. These materials remain relevant for the sake of holding a

discussion about this matter. While this circumstance may be fortuitous for these applicants, it does not

resolve what staff believes will be an on-going challenge. In fact there are several applicants currently

waiting to apply for certificates this year in hopes that City Council will transfer certificates from

Downtown to outside Downtown in September.

Thus, staff has proposed to keep this item before the Planning Commission on March 24, 2020 for the

sake of discussion in a study session format. It is likely that some of the applicants who went through

the ranking process will have helpful input. We also note that we had intended to sit down with each

applicant in advance of the session; however, the current shelter mandate caused us to fall behind in

preparing these materials and does not allow for personal meetings. We look forward to answering any

questions our applicants may have and considering their input about this challenging process.

7

BUSINESS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT

For meeting of: March 24, 2020

TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commissioners

FROM: Jill Ekas, Community Development Director Douglas Garrison, Senior Planner Scott Phillips, Associate Planner

TITLE: Ratification of the 2020 Measure D Allocation Ranking for Residential Projects Outside of Downtown

______________________________________________________________________________

NOTE TO THE READER: Following completion of this staff report and attachments, an application was withdrawn. All January 2020 applications for Measure D allocations outside the Downtown will receive certificates. The staff report and attachments are provided to the Planning Commission as originally prepared for the sake of informing a discussion in study session format. The Commission is no longer requested to ratify the Community Development Director’s allocation ranking.

RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution P-20-XXX ratifying the January 2020 Measure D allocations for residential units outside of downtown, based upon the scores, rankings and ordinance interpretation as determined by the Community Development Director and as required by Subdivision Ordinance, Section 17.06 Residential Dwelling Unit Building Permit Allocation System.

BACKGROUND In 1999, the voters of Half Moon Bay adopted Measure D, a population growth control measure that restricted the number of new dwelling units the City could permit in any given year and divided these dwelling units between the “Downtown Area” (Downtown) and the rest of the City. Downtown is the area designated as the Downtown Half Moon Bay Redevelopment Survey Area in City Resolution No. C-91-98, November 3, 1998. Measure D further provided that the City allocate Measure D Certificates (Certificates) on the basis of the existing allocation system in the municipal code “or a subsequently modified allocation system.” The allocation system is set forth in Chapter 17.06 of the Municipal Code.

The maximum number of Measure D Certificates, which represent allocations, is based on a maximum annual population increase of 1 percent over current population. Chapter 17.06 provides specific requirements for processing Measure D applications when the number of

Supers

eded

All Jan

aury

2020

Alloca

tions

will be G

ranted

8

Planning Commission Agenda Report Page 2 of 7 March 24, 2020

applications received between January 1 and January 31 is greater than the number of allocations available. In that situation, the Community Development Director must give each application a score based on the criteria set forth in Chapter 17.06. For applications other than subdivisions (e.g., single family homes, apartments and accessory dwelling units), the relevant criteria are listed in Section 17.06.120(I). The source of the Ordinance criteria is primarily from an early version of the GreenPoint residential building checklist. Each new dwelling unit requires an approved Certificate before other permits may be applied for or issued. This year (2020), the City may issue up to 69 Certificates: 46 for development in Downtown and 23 for development in other areas. In January, the City received Certificate applications for 6 residential units in Downtown and 30 outside of Downtown. The 6 Certificates for Downtown did not require scoring, and these Certificates have been issued administratively. For the Certificates outside of Downtown, the City must score each application to determine which ones will receive Certificates. Once scored, the Code requires that the ranked applications be presented to the Planning Commission, which “may ratify or modify the final determination,” per Section 17.06.275. DISCUSSION This is the first time in a number of years that the City has received more applications before January 31 for Certificates than are available. The City is therefore required to apply the Chapter 17 scoring criteria. In 2005, under the City’s previous residential growth limitation system (Measure A), the City received more requests than available allocations and a similar scoring process took place. In 2019, the number of applications exceeded the available allotment for outside of Downtown. However, this did not occur until mid-year, consequently scoring of the applications was not required. In September 2019, the City Council transferred twelve of the unused Downtown Certificates to be used for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) outside Downtown. Ten of these transferred Certificates were utilized for ADUs between September 2019 and the end of the year. 2019 and 2020 are historical anomalies that are largely a result of unanticipated changes to ADU laws. In previous years, the City typically processed three or fewer ADUs per year. Following certification of the City’s comprehensive update to the ADU ordinance in December 2018, interest in ADUs jumped, and applications followed. Significant new incentives to build ADUs under new State housing legislation followed in 2019 and the City anticipates updating the ADU ordinance again in response. Measure D requirements are codified in the City Subdivision Ordinance (Title 17), Section 17.06. Relevant sections of the ordinance include: Municipal Code § 17.06.105.

A. An application form for residential dwelling unit allocations shall be approved by the city council that incorporates all of the components of this chapter.

B. In the event that it is necessary to assign points for residential dwelling unit allocations based on the criteria specified in this chapter, the application for a residential dwelling

Supers

eded

All Jan

aury

2020

Alloca

tions

will b

e Gran

ted

9


unit allocation shall include a site plan indicating the location of any surrounding development, the location and a detailed description of any infrastructure necessary to serve the site, and a description of the roadway providing access to the site.

All applicants were provided the City Council approved application and point scoring checklist. All applicants were also required to submit a site plan with their applications. Due to readily available information from Google Maps and other GIS tools, staff did not require all of the information specifically called for in Section 17.06.105.B cited above. Moreover, most of the applications are for ADUs. Pursuant to State law, the City does not have significant discretion in evaluating ADUs and cannot require that applications for ADUs provide all of the materials evaluated on the checklist. The checklist criteria are copied largely verbatim from Ordinance Section 17.06120.I.

Section 17.06.120.I

Points shall be allocated according to the community design criteria in this subsection which incorporate the concepts and principles of the “Build It Green” program and will rely on a certified GreenPointRater at the time that points are determined. The scoring criteria in 17.06.120.I subsections 1 through 6 appear to be consistent with early green building checklists developed by GreenPoint, an organization which originated in 2005. It should be noted that the GreenPoint Guides and Checklists have been updated multiple times since then. The most recent update, Version 8.0, went into effect in January of this year. The City is limited to using the scoring criteria codified in the Ordinance, even though these may be outdated and in some instances superseded by newer GreenPoint checklists, current California Building Code energy efficiency standards, State mandated water efficient landscaping regulations and stormwater runoff control regulations. Additionally, the GreenPoint guidance codified into the City’s Ordinance is not California specific and is intended to be widely applicable. Many of the criteria are oriented towards new subdivision developments located in geographic areas subject to much wider temperature extremes than found in Half Moon Bay. Primary Goals of Measure D: Measure D was intended to limit annual population growth and to encourage the following sustainable development patterns and practices.

Encourage infill development, where utilities and infrastructure are available with priority given to the downtown area.

Discourage premature development of large areas of undeveloped rural land, that may have agricultural or habitat value.

Encourage higher density, clustered development, close to existing services and amenities.

Supers

eded

All Jan

aury

2020

Alloca

tions

will b

e Gran

ted

10


Encourage the reuse and recycling of building materials.

Reduce energy and water use through building design and materials and landscaping. Scoring Methodology: Applicants were required to submit the approved application form including the scoring checklist and a site plan. The Measure D Checklist and plans are intended to be used as a preliminary screening tool. Consequently, it was determined that a lower level of detail was appropriate than would be required for a project attempting to attain GreenPoint or LEED certification or similar designation. This would have required applicants to spend considerably more money in preparing fully developed construction level plans; which would have been especially contrary to the intent of State Housing and ADU laws. This would also be inconsistent with the intent of the Ordinance which is to use the checklist as an initial project screening tool. Additionally, this would limit design flexibility later when the projects were evaluated as required for architectural review and Coastal Development Permit approval. The current approved checklist had not been used previously. Staff understands that applicants had a hard time with it and staff has identified specific challenges with the checklist that fall under two broad categories: (1) new laws and standards and (2) context. New Laws and Standards: In reviewing the checklist questions, staff discovered that several of the questions involve project improvements that are now required for all residential construction and others that would only be applicable in much hotter or colder climates. The 2020 GreenPoint checklist requires projects to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards. The checklist contained in the City’s Code (which is based on an earlier version of the GreenPoint checklist) requires staff to award points for designs that are likely to be less efficient than required under current California Building Code, Title 24 standards. The same issue arises with respect to criteria governing water conservation: the checklist in the City’s Code requires staff to award points for measures that are either mandatory under our recently adopted Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (WELO, Chapter 13.04), or less efficient than those standards. Similarly, compliance with State and regional water quality and stormwater runoff regulations are applicable to construction projects and typically overlap with or are more restrictive than GreenPoint criteria. Context: The applications under consideration are for individual infill sites in areas that have already been subdivided. A number of the criteria, especially those about bicycle and pedestrian orientation, are more suited to subdivisions where bicycle and pedestrian facilities can be designed into the development. For the current applications, the sites are already part of a neighborhood context where in many cases bicycle and pedestrian access will improve over time as the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is implemented. These criteria are not significantly relevant to infill sites located outside Downtown. The landscaping criteria are also a challenge to apply fairly to the different types of units, especially ADUs. This is because the City does not, nor can it, require new landscape plans for these units. Thus, it was important to develop a way to apply these criteria so that ADUs were not disadvantaged. In addition, as noted above, WELO and stormwater management regulations apply to all development. As a result, many of the

Supers

eded

All Jan

aury

2020

Alloca

tions

will b

e Gran

ted

11


landscape criteria are no longer relevant because they will be required of all projects. To address these challenges, staff has not scored many of the landscape criteria because they will either be addressed through WELO or are not relevant to a majority of the projects. Also, for certain specific landscape improvements (e.g. provision of a rain barrel), staff recommends awarding points for these items if applicants indicate they will be provided. In those cases, these improvements will be requirements of these projects through conditions of approval. Interpretations: The new laws and standards and the contextual differences between projects results in an “apples and oranges” challenge because the content and quality of applications vary significantly, depending on the type of unit proposed. In attempting to fairly evaluate the applications, staff prepared interpretations of some of the criteria and in some cases did not award points for certain criteria if more stringent current building code or landscaping regulations would have applied to all projects. These interpretations are summarized in Attachment 2. Conclusion Generally, multifamily housing and ADUs scored well and were ranked above the cutoff. Larger standalone homes with or without an ADU, that were located in undeveloped areas not currently served by roads and utilities did not score well. In some cases, projects that require two Certificates (single family residence and ADU) were below the cutoff ranking. Consequently, although the City received seven more applications than available Certificates, the number of projects that were below the cutoff is less than seven. Project scoring and ranking are shown in a combined spreadsheet, Exhibit A of the resolution. In summary, the applications and recommended awards include the following: Project Type

Number Allocations

Requested

Number Allocations Recommended per

Ranking

Multi-family units (apartments)

7 7

ADUs (with existing units)

13 12

Single-family units with ADUs (each case = 1 single-family + 1 ADU = 2 units)

8 4

Single-family units

2 0

Totals: 30 23

Supers

eded

All Jan

aury

2020

Alloca

tions

will b

e Gran

ted

12


NOTE TO THE READER: The following list of projects will receive Measure D certificates.

Applicants who do not receive allocations at this time may request that City Council consider transfers in September, or may wait and apply again in January 2021. These include:

2778 Pullman: Single-family home and ADU (2 allocations)

O Van Ness: Single-family home and ADU (2 allocations)

909 Grandview: ADU (1 allocation)

Grove and Highway 1: Single-family home (1 allocation)

403 Chesterfield: Single-family home (1 allocation)

Recommendation Review the attached Measure D scores and ranking and ratify the Community Development Director’s ranking determination; or upon reviewing the interpretations and scorings, direct staff to prepare modifications. As an alternative to ratifying the ranking for all allocations presenting in Exhibit A, staff suggests that the Planning Commission consider not granting an allocation to 555 Poplar Street due to circulation safety concerns. That allocation could go to the next highest ranked project, a single-family home proposed for Grove Street. This particular application had previously received a Measure D certificate and a coastal development permit; however due to personal circumstances of the property owner, these entitlements expired. The Commission may also consider making recommendations to City Council with respect to their consideration for transferring allocations from within Downtown to outside Downtown this September. Next Steps Appeals: The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council within 10 business days of the Planning Commission decision. Updating Measure D Scoring and Ranking: Staff recommends that as future item the Planning Commission and City Council consider amending the scoring and ranking language for Measure D. The current categories include infill sites; home size scale and clustering; design for walking and biking; design for safety and social gathering; design for diverse households; and landscaping. We recommend that any important criteria regarding design for safety, social gathering, and landscape be codified; and that the walking and biking category be eliminated for infill sites (not because it is not important, but because small infill development cannot affect the system). We recommend instead focusing on the following areas: infill, affordability, accessibility, and sustainability. Staff is prepared to discuss this with the Planning Commission at their next meeting; alternately, we can check in with City Council in September when they are asked to consider transfers.

Supers

eded

All Jan

aury

2020

Alloca

tions

will b

e Gran

ted

13


ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution Exhibit A. Points Score and Ranking List

2. Summary of Interpretations 17.06.120.I

NOTE: Plans associated with these applications for Measure D certificates are on file at City Hall. It was staff’s intent to make them available for review at this time. Staff was not prepared to assemble a large file of plans for this item. However, due to the closure of City Hall and online format for the upcoming meeting; staff is assembling the most basic components of each of these files (the site plan) and will convey these to the Planning Commission and post on the Commission’s agenda page in advance of the meeting.

Supers

eded

All Jan

aury

2020

Alloca

tions

will b

e Gran

ted

14

ATTACHMENT 1

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION P-20-__ RATIFICATION OF THE 2020 MEASURE D ALLOCATION RANKING OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY RATIFYING THE RANKING FOR MEASURE D APPLICATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL UNIT ALLOCATIONS OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN

WHEREAS, in 1999 the voters of Half Moon Bay adopted Measure D, the

Residential Growth Initiative, which limits residential growth to no more than 1% per year; and

WHEREAS, as a part of the implementation of Measure D, the City of Half Moon Bay adopted and the Coastal Commission Certified the Residential Dwelling Unit Building Permit Allocation System Ordinance, Chapter 17.06 of the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, Chapter 17.06 established a process for ranking Measure D Certificate applications in the event that these applications exceed the number of residential allocations permitted in a given year ; and

WHEREAS, on December 21, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution C-2019-100,

which established the maximum residential growth allocation for 2020 as 46 in the Downtown area and 23 outside of Downtown; and

WHEREAS, prior to January 31, 2020, the City received 6 Measure D Certificate

applications for Downtown and 30 Measure D Certificate applications for outside of Downtown; and

WHEREAS, staff reviewed all Measure D Certificate applications and supporting

documents for outside of Downtown allocations and assigned points to each application according to the criteria stated in Chapter 17.06; and

WHEREAS, based on this review, the Community Development Director ranked all of the

applications; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director forwarded this ranking together with

staff’s final determination of the points to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public meeting on March

24, 2020, 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 oral public comment

presented for their consideration; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found and determined that the Community

Development Director’s determination of the points and ranking for the Measure D allocations 15

Attachment 1

Resolution P-20-__

were correctly applied according to the rules set forth in Chapter 17.06.120 of the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission ratifies the determination of the point allocations and ranking for the year 2020 Measure D Certificates by the Community Development Director, set forth in Exhibit A to this resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Half Moon Bay Planning Commission at the regularly scheduled meeting on March 24, 2020.

AYES, NOES, ABSENT, ABSTAIN, APPROVED: ______________________________ ___________________________ James Benjamin, Chair Jill Ekas, Director

16

MEASURE D ALLOCATION (MDA) APPLICATION # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

PROJECT ADDRESS 565 Myrtle 655 Potter 2778 Pullman Ave 0 Van Ness 555 Magnolia St 665 Highland Ave 2450 S. Cabrillo HWY 320 Miramontes

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SFR + ADU SFR + ADU SFR + ADU SFR + ADU ADU ADU Convert commerical to 7

apartments ADU (attached)

# MEASURE D ALLOCATIONS NEEDED 2 2 2 2 1 1 7 1

TOTAL DWELLING UNITS PER SITE WITH PROJECT 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 2

CONDITIONED FLOOR AREA (SF) 1,690 3,716 4,742 5,564 800 590 6,686 350

NEW UNIT(S) ONLY - AVERAGE UNIT SIZE (SF) 845 1,858 2,371 2,782 800 590 955 350

LOT SIZE (SF) 4,143 7,500 18,372 50,965 7,068 8,624 36,618 7,500

LOT SIZE (AC) 0.10 0.17 0.42 1.17 0.16 0.20 0.84 0.17

DENSITY (UNITS / AC) 21 12 5 2 12 10 8 12

1. Infill Sites (Maximum 70 Points per Ordinance;

Maximum 65 Points per CDD 2020 Interpretations)

a. Project is located in a built urban setting

with utilities in place for ten years or more (5) 5 5 0 0 5 5 5 5

b. Project is located in a built urban setting and

avoids environmentally sensitive areas (5) 5 5 5 0 5 5 5 5

c. For each contiguous side of a building site

adjacent to existing development (including

across any public or private right-of-way) (5) 5 5 3 0 4 5 5 5

d. For each contiguous side of a building site

for which residential dwelling units have been

allocated, but development not completed

under the provisions of this system (including

across any public or private right-of-way) (5)

e. Building site is Located within one-half mile

of a transit stop (5) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

f. Where there is an existing all-weather road

surface providing vehicular access to the site

constructed to city standards or otherwise

acceptable to the city engineer (5) 5 5 5 0 5 5 5 5

g. Except for below market rate (BMR) housing,

those applications for development on a site

that meet all of the established development

standards for the zoning district and no variance

or other discretionary applications are required

(5) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

h. For those applications for development that

provide BMR housing through deed restriction or

other legally binding mechanism (35) 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0

SUBTOTAL: 30 30 23 10 29 30 65 30

2. Home Size, Scale and Clustering (Maximum 30 Points

per Ordinance and CDD 2020 Interpretations)

a. Homes are clustered to preserve open space

and natural features (5) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

b. Resource conservation achieved by

increasing density (5 / max 15) 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

c. Home Size Efficiency (5) 5 2.5 0 0 5 5 5 5

d. Building layout and orientation improve

natural cooling and passive solar attributes (5) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

SUBTOTAL: 22 17.5 15 15 20 20 20 20

DRAFT

EXHIBIT A

Blue = ADU Green = Single-family

Light Yellow = Single-family and ADU Gold = Multi-family

1

17









LOT SIZE (SF) 4,143 7,500 18,372 50,965 7,068 8,624 36,618 7,500

LOT SIZE (AC) 0.10 0.17 0.42 1.17 0.16 0.20 0.84 0.17

DENSITY (UNITS / AC) 21 12 5 2 12 10 8 12

3. Design for Walking and Bicycling (Maximum 37 Points

per Ordinance; Maximum 12 Points per CDD 2020

Interpretation)

a. Pedestrian access is provided to

neighborhood services within one-half mile:

community center; library; grocery store; school;

day care; laundry; medical;

entertainment/restaurants; post office; place of

worship; bank: one point for each service within

one-half mile (1 each; up to 12) 12 4 3 2 1 12 2 12

b. Development is connected with a dedicated

pedestrian pathway to places of recreational

interest within one-half mile (5)

c. At least two of the following traffic-calming

strategies are incorporated into the project:

1. Designated bicycle lanes are

present on roadways (5)

2. Vehicle travel lanes are ten feet in

width (5)

3. Street crossings closest to the site

are located less than three hundred

feet apart (5)

4. Streets have rumble strips,

bulbouts, raised crosswalks or refuge

islands (5)

SUBTOTAL: 12 4 3 2 1 12 2 12

4. Design for Safety and Social Gathering (Maximum 15

Points per Ordinance; Maximum 10 Points per CDD 2020

Interpretation)

a. All home front entrances have views from

the inside to outside callers (5)

b. All home front entrance can be seen from

the street and/or from other front doors 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5

c. Porches (one-hundred-square-foot

minimum area) are oriented toward streets

and/or public spaces (5) 0 5 5 0 5 5 0 5

SUBTOTAL: 0 5 5 0 10 10 5 10

5. Design for Diverse Households (Maximum 20 Points


Interpretation)

a. At least one zero-step entrance provided in

home (5) 0 0 0 5 5 0 5 0

DRAFT

EXHIBIT A



2

18









LOT SIZE (SF) 4,143 7,500 18,372 50,965 7,068 8,624 36,618 7,500

LOT SIZE (AC) 0.10 0.17 0.42 1.17 0.16 0.20 0.84 0.17

DENSITY (UNITS / AC) 21 12 5 2 12 10 8 12

b. All main floor interior doors and

passageways have a minimum thirty-two-inch

clear passage space

c. At least one half-bath on the ground floor

with blocking in walls for grab bars (5) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

d. Project is or includes an accessory dwelling

unit (5) 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5

SUBTOTAL: 10 10 10 15 15 10 10 10

6. Landscaping (Maximum 74 points per Ordinance;

Maximum 34 Points per CDD 2020 Interpretation)

a. Resource-Efficient landscaping is

incorporated into site design that:

1. Meets California-Friendly

Landscape Program requirements

2. Excludes any invasive plant species

listed by the California Invasive Plan

Council (CAL-IPC)

3. Excludes plant species that require

periodic hedging or shearing (4)4. Plant palette consists of at least

75% California natives, Mediterranean

species or other appropriate adaptive

species5. Fencing on-site consists of at least

70% of FSC certified, recycled plastic or

composite lumber 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0

6. All turf areas have a water

requirement that is rated at less than or

equal to tall fescue (≤ 0.8 plant factor)

7. No turf is installed on slopes

exceeding 10% or in areas that are less

than 8 feet in any dimension (2) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2A. Landscaping includes turf

that is one-third or less than

(≤33%) the total landscaped

areas on-site; OR (2)B. Turf is one-tenth or less

than (≤10%) of the total

landscaped areas on-site (4)8. Shade trees of an appropriate

species are integrated into the

landscape (5) 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 5

DRAFT

EXHIBIT A



3

19









LOT SIZE (SF) 4,143 7,500 18,372 50,965 7,068 8,624 36,618 7,500

LOT SIZE (AC) 0.10 0.17 0.42 1.17 0.16 0.20 0.84 0.17

DENSITY (UNITS / AC) 21 12 5 2 12 10 8 12

9. Plantings are arranged and grouped

according to common water needs

(hydrozoning)

10. Irrigation systems include high-

efficiency componentsA. System uses only low-flow

drip, bubblers, or low-flow

sprinklersB. System includes smart

(weather-based) controllers

11. Non-plant landscape elements

consist of at least 50% salvaged or

recycled-content materials (5) 5 0 5 0 5 5 5 012. Outdoor lighting systems

incorporate low-lighting elements,

shielded fixtures and direct lighting

downward to avoid light pollution and

glare:13. At least 50% of all non-roof

impervious surfaces on-site consist of

light-colored, high albedo materials

(solar reflectance index ≤ 0.3) to reduce

heat-island effects (5) 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

14. At least 50% of all non-roof surfaces

consist of pervious materials (10) 10 10 10 10 10 10 0 10

15. Rain water harvesting systems are

provided on-site:A. Less than 350 gallon

capacity (2) 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

B. Greater than 350 gallon

capacity (5) 0 5 5 5 0 0 0 0

SUBTOTAL: 24 29 32 27 24 29 19 22

GRAND TOTAL 98 95.5 88 69 99 111 121 104

RANKING (High =1) 10 13 17 20 8 3 1 6

ALLOCATIONS BY RANKING 2 2 0 0 1 1 7 1

TOTAL ALLOCATIONS - 23 Max. Outside Downtown 22

DRAFT

EXHIBIT A



4

20

MEASURE D ALLOCATION (MDA) APPLICATION #

PROJECT ADDRESS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

# MEASURE D ALLOCATIONS NEEDED

TOTAL DWELLING UNITS PER SITE WITH PROJECT

CONDITIONED FLOOR AREA (SF)

NEW UNIT(S) ONLY - AVERAGE UNIT SIZE (SF)

LOT SIZE (SF)

LOT SIZE (AC)

DENSITY (UNITS / AC)




with utilities in place for ten years or more (5)


avoids environmentally sensitive areas (5)










of a transit stop (5)




acceptable to the city engineer (5)






(5)



other legally binding mechanism (35)

SUBTOTAL:




and natural features (5)


increasing density (5 / max 15)

c. Home Size Efficiency (5)


natural cooling and passive solar attributes (5)

SUBTOTAL:

10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

480 Wavecrest Grove & Hwy 1 716 Monte Vista 332 Garcia 451 Poplar 403 Chesterfield 1568 Mizzen Lane 421 Beach Ave

ADU SFR ADU ADU ADU SFR ADU ADU

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2

984 1,347 646 700 505 2,100 385 400

984 1,347 646 700 505 2,100 385 400

22,479 3,450 21,000 6,750 7,361 7,500 9,775 7,620

0.52 0.08 0.48 0.15 0.17 0.17 0.22 0.17

4 13 4 13 12 6 9 11

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

3 4 5 5 5 5 4 5

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

28 29 30 30 30 30 29 30

5 0 5 5 5 0 5 5

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

5 2.5 5 5 5 0 5 5

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

20 12.5 20 20 20 10 20 20

DRAFT

EXHIBIT A



5

21


PROJECT ADDRESS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION





LOT SIZE (SF)

LOT SIZE (AC)






Interpretation)







one-half mile (1 each; up to 12)









width (5)



feet apart (5)



islands (5)

SUBTOTAL:



Interpretation)




the street and/or from other front doors



and/or public spaces (5)

SUBTOTAL:



Interpretation)


home (5)

10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18



1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2

984 1,347 646 700 505 2,100 385 400

984 1,347 646 700 505 2,100 385 400

22,479 3,450 21,000 6,750 7,361 7,500 9,775 7,620

0.52 0.08 0.48 0.15 0.17 0.17 0.22 0.17

4 13 4 13 12 6 9 11

2 12 12 3 12 12 1 1

2 12 12 3 12 12 1 1

5 0 5 5 5 0 5 5

5 0 5 5 5 5 5 5

10 0 10 10 10 5 10 10

0 5 0 5 0 0 5 5

DRAFT

EXHIBIT A



6

22


PROJECT ADDRESS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION





LOT SIZE (SF)

LOT SIZE (AC)






clear passage space


with blocking in walls for grab bars (5)


unit (5)

SUBTOTAL:









Council (CAL-IPC)







composite lumber






than 8 feet in any dimension (2)

A. Landscaping includes turf







landscape (5)

10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18



1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2

984 1,347 646 700 505 2,100 385 400

984 1,347 646 700 505 2,100 385 400

22,479 3,450 21,000 6,750 7,361 7,500 9,775 7,620

0.52 0.08 0.48 0.15 0.17 0.17 0.22 0.17

4 13 4 13 12 6 9 11

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

5 0 5 5 5 0 5 5

10 10 10 15 10 5 15 15

2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

2 5 0 5 5 0 5 5

DRAFT

EXHIBIT A



7

23


PROJECT ADDRESS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION





LOT SIZE (SF)

LOT SIZE (AC)






(hydrozoning)








recycled-content materials (5)12. Outdoor lighting systems








heat-island effects (5)14. At least 50% of all non-roof surfaces

consist of pervious materials (10)



capacity (2)B. Greater than 350 gallon

capacity (5)

SUBTOTAL:

GRAND TOTAL

RANKING (High =1)

ALLOCATIONS BY RANKING

TOTAL ALLOCATIONS - 23 Max. Outside Downtown

10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18



1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2

984 1,347 646 700 505 2,100 385 400

984 1,347 646 700 505 2,100 385 400

22,479 3,450 21,000 6,750 7,361 7,500 9,775 7,620

0.52 0.08 0.48 0.15 0.17 0.17 0.22 0.17

4 13 4 13 12 6 9 11

5 5 0 0 5 5 0 5

5 5 0 0 0 0 5 5

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

26 29 12 17 26 17 24 27

96 92.5 94 95 108 79 99 103

11 16 15 14 4 18 8 7

1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1DRAFT

EXHIBIT A



8

24


PROJECT ADDRESS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION





LOT SIZE (SF)

LOT SIZE (AC)





with utilities in place for ten years or more (5)


avoids environmentally sensitive areas (5)










of a transit stop (5)




acceptable to the city engineer (5)






(5)



other legally binding mechanism (35)

SUBTOTAL:




and natural features (5)


increasing density (5 / max 15)

c. Home Size Efficiency (5)


natural cooling and passive solar attributes (5)

SUBTOTAL:

19 20 21 22

909 Grandview 651 Potter 611 Johnston St. 555 Poplar

ADU ADU ADU ADU

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

350 368 350 480

350 368 350 480

5,000 7,500 5,000 6,554

0.11 0.17 0.11 0.15

17 12 17 13

0 5 5 5

0 5 5 5

0 4 5 5

5 5 5 5

0 5 5 5

5 5 5 5

0 0 0 0

10 29 30 30

5 5 5 5

6 5 6 5

5 5 5 5

5 5 5 5

21 20 21 20

DRAFT

EXHIBIT A



9

25


PROJECT ADDRESS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION





LOT SIZE (SF)

LOT SIZE (AC)






Interpretation)







one-half mile (1 each; up to 12)









width (5)



feet apart (5)



islands (5)

SUBTOTAL:



Interpretation)




the street and/or from other front doors



and/or public spaces (5)

SUBTOTAL:



Interpretation)


home (5)

19 20 21 22


ADU ADU ADU ADU

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

350 368 350 480

350 368 350 480

5,000 7,500 5,000 6,554

0.11 0.17 0.11 0.15

17 12 17 13

1 6 12 12

1 6 12 12

5 5 5 5

5 5 0 5

10 10 5 10

5 0 0 5

DRAFT

EXHIBIT A



10

26


PROJECT ADDRESS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION





LOT SIZE (SF)

LOT SIZE (AC)






clear passage space


with blocking in walls for grab bars (5)


unit (5)

SUBTOTAL:









Council (CAL-IPC)







composite lumber






than 8 feet in any dimension (2)

A. Landscaping includes turf







landscape (5)

19 20 21 22


ADU ADU ADU ADU

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

350 368 350 480

350 368 350 480

5,000 7,500 5,000 6,554

0.11 0.17 0.11 0.15

17 12 17 13

5 5 5 5

5 5 5 5

15 10 10 15

0 2 0 0

2 2 2 2

5 5 5 5

DRAFT

EXHIBIT A



11

27


PROJECT ADDRESS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION





LOT SIZE (SF)

LOT SIZE (AC)






(hydrozoning)








recycled-content materials (5)12. Outdoor lighting systems








heat-island effects (5)14. At least 50% of all non-roof surfaces

consist of pervious materials (10)



capacity (2)B. Greater than 350 gallon

capacity (5)

SUBTOTAL:

GRAND TOTAL

RANKING (High =1)

ALLOCATIONS BY RANKING

TOTAL ALLOCATIONS - 23 Max. Outside Downtown

19 20 21 22


ADU ADU ADU ADU

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

350 368 350 480

350 368 350 480

5,000 7,500 5,000 6,554

0.11 0.17 0.11 0.15

17 12 17 13

0 5 0 5

5 5 0 5

10 10 10 10

0 2 1 2

0 0 0 0

22 31 18 29

79 106 96 116

18 5 11 2

0 1 1 1DRAFT

EXHIBIT A



12

28

ATTACHMENT 2

1

City of Half Moon Bay Municipal Code: Distribution of residential dwelling unit allocations 17.06.120.I

Maximum Points per Ordinance: 246 points Maximum Points per 2020 Interpretation: 166 points

Criteria shown with grey shading are not included in the scoring as described in the “Notes, Interpretations, etc.” column on the right, below.

Criteria Points Notes, Interpretations, etc.

1. Infill Sites (Maximum 70 Points) (Maximum 65 points per 2020 Interpretation)

a. Project is located in a built urban setting with utilities in place for ten years or more

5

“Built urban setting with utilities” requires all of the following for 5 points; otherwise 0 points:

Setting: At least half the sites in the subdivision are developed.

Zoning: Zoned for residential development (R-1, R-1-B-1, R-1-B-2, R-1-B-3), mixed-use development (C-D, C-R, C-G, C-VS), or planned development with approved PUD or Specific Plans that provide for residential development (PUD or PUDX)

Utilities: Municipal water and sewer service proximate (see “f” below with respect to roadway requirements)

29

ATTACHMENT 2

2

b. Project is located in a built urban setting and avoids environmentally sensitive areas

5

“Avoids environmentally sensitive areas” requires the project to fully avoid ESHA and be sited to conform with standard (not reduced) ESHA buffer requirements for 5 points; otherwise 0 points. For sites identified as including or located near potential ESHA as indicated by City mapping or other relevant sources, substantial evidence, such as a biological resources evaluation, is required to confirm ESHA avoidance and buffer requirements.

c. For each contiguous side of a building site adjacent to existing development (including across any public or private right-of-way)

5

Building sites that are located in a “built urban setting with utilities” (as defined in “a.” above), qualify for this criterion if the site abuts a public facility including public open space areas such as at a school or a City park. If all sides of the building site are contiguous to existing development, 5 points are awarded even if the site has only 4 sides. For ADUs proposed with an existing residence, all points awarded.

d. For each contiguous side of a building site for which residential dwelling units have been allocated, but development not completed under the provisions of this system (including across any public or private right-of-way)

5 Criterion is not specifically applicable to infill sites and is redundant with aspects of “a.” and “c.” above for these cases.

30

ATTACHMENT 2

3

e. Building site is located within one-half mile of a transit stop

5

All SamTrans bus stops qualify as major transit stops. This interpretation aligns with State Law guidance for accessory dwelling units. Almost every residentially zoned property in Half Moon Bay is located within one-half mile of a SamTrans bus stop and therefore most projects will qualify for this criterion.

f. Where there is an existing all-weather road surface providing vehicular access to the site constructed to city standards or otherwise acceptable to the city engineer

5 This may include both City streets and private streets.

g. Except for below market rate (BMR) housing, those applications for development on a site that meet all of the established development standards for the zoning district and no variance or other discretionary applications are required

5 Discretionary applications include variances and/or exceptions; they do not include coastal development permits, use permits, design or environmental review.

h. For those applications for development that provide BMR housing through deed restriction or other legally binding mechanism

35

“BMR housing” means that there is at least one unit deed restricted affordable for extremely low, very low, or low income households for a minimum of 55 years. All 35 points awarded for such a case.

31

ATTACHMENT 2

4

2. Home Size, Scale and Clustering (Maximum 30 Points)

(Maximum 30 points per 2020 Interpretation, no change)

a. Homes are clustered to preserve open space and natural features

5

For infill sites, “clustered” includes the following for 5 points:

Multi-family development: Duplexes, triplexes, apartments, and condominiums

Single-family development with an ADU

ADUs after primary dwelling(s) established

Single-family development without an ADU does not qualify as “clustered,” and will receive 0 points.

New subdivisions: Refer to 17.06.200

b. Resource conservation achieved by increasing density

5 points plus one additional point

for every 5 du/ac greater than 10

du/ac

Density is calculated for each site, including both existing and new units. For projects that will result in a site density of at least 10 du/ac, 5 points awarded. Another point is awarded for each additional full 5 du/ac (e.g. 15 du/ac = 6 points, 20 du/ac = 7 points, 25 du/ac = 8 points, 30 du/ac = 9 points, 35 = du/ac 10 points); for example, a density of 22 du/ac will be awarded 7 points.

All sites with an ADU receive 5 points as a base even if under 10 du/ac; otherwise, no points for projects with less than 10 du/ac. Maximum 15 points available only for projects invoking full density bonus allowances resulting in 35 du/ac.

32

ATTACHMENT 2

5

c. Home Size Efficiency 5

Unit size is for living space in square feet (SF) and excludes covered or enclosed parking areas. For projects with more than one unit, the average unit size of all the units in the project shall be used for this criterion. Maximum size for an ADU pursuant to City draft ADU ordinance and Planning Commission draft Land Use Plan are guides for “home size efficiency:”

<= 1,000 SF living space: 5 points

1,001 – 2,000 SF living space: 2.5 points

>= 2,001 SF living space: 0 points

d. Building layout and orientation improve natural cooling and passive solar attributes

5

Examples of attributes that “improve natural cooling and passive solar” qualifying for this criterion include shading features on south and west sides of structures (deep eaves, covered porches, etc.); floor plans and window locations that allow for crossflow ventilation; maintenance of solar access to the rooftop. Most development in Half Moon Bay, because of its temperate climate, can qualify for this criteria with operable windows. Locational choices for ADUs are limited and therefore all ADUs qualify for the full 5 points.

33

ATTACHMENT 2

6

3. Design for Walking and Bicycling (Maximum 37 Points)

(Maximum 12 points per 2020 Interpretation, no change)

a. Pedestrian access is provided to neighborhood services within one-half mile: community center; library; grocery store; school; day care; laundry; medical; entertainment/restaurants; post office; place of worship; bank: one point for each service within one-half mile

1 point for each service within 1/2

mile (up to 12 points)

One-half mile is measured as a radius from the subject site; walking distance is not computed.

b. Development is connected with a dedicated pedestrian pathway to places of recreational interest within one-half mile

5

The Half Moon Bay Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan identifies pedestrian pathways to, through, or proximate to all of Half Moon Bay’s residential neighborhoods. As a result, all applications would qualify for these 5 points, and thus this criterion does not provide a mechanism for ranking applications.

c. At least two of the following traffic-calming strategies are incorporated into the project:

Criteria 3.c.1 – 4 are superseded by the Half Moon Bay Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan for infill development. The Plan identifies improvements for a comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian network to, through, and/or proximate to all of Half Moon Bay’s residential neighborhoods.

1. Designated bicycle lanes are present on roadways

5

As stated above, superseded by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, noting that the plan identifies cases where other types of bicycle improvements are more appropriate than bike lanes in a given neighborhood.

34

ATTACHMENT 2

7

2. Vehicle travel lanes are ten feet in width 5

As stated above, superseded by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, noting that the plan includes guidelines with neighborhood context design options that may result in a variety of lane widths and associated bike and pedestrian improvements.

3. Street crossings closest to the site are located less than three hundred feet apart

5

As stated above, superseded by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, noting that the Plan includes options for improvising linkages through large block subdivisions.

4. Streets have rumble strips, bulbouts, raised crosswalks or refuge islands

5

As stated above, superseded by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, noting that it is often the case that traffic calming measures are implemented in locations where they are most needed to improve safety, etc. Many neighborhoods without traffic calming have low volume traffic and do not need such measures to achieve bike/pedestrian compatibility; furthermore, the Plan includes guidelines with a wide array of options for these types of improvements going beyond the options presented in the GreenPoints checklist.

35

ATTACHMENT 2

8

4. Design for Safety and Social Gathering (Maximum 15 Points)

(Maximum 10 points per 2020 Interpretation)

a. All home front entrances have views from the inside to outside callers

5 All homes are required to have a peephole or window in the entrance area.

b. All home front entrance can be seen from the street and/or from other front doors

5

ADUs receive full points. State ADU law requires that only objective design standards be applied to ADUs; City ADU ordinance may result in entrance locations that cannot meet this criterion. For multi-family development, criteria is met for units that share entrance facilities such as a lobby, elevator, or hallway.

c. Porches (one-hundred-square-foot minimum area) are oriented toward streets and/or public spaces

5

Attached and wholly within ADUs receive full points.

Detached ADUs receive full points if open space is provided for the ADU.

36

ATTACHMENT 2

9

5. Design for Diverse Households (Maximum 20 Points)

(Maximum 15 points per 2020 Interpretation)

a. At least one zero-step entrance provided in home

5

This is a flush entry between the unit and outside or a hallway or other area that can reasonable be anticipated to be free and clear of obstructions (e.g. a garage or carport does not qualify). Plans must indicate that grading, ramping or other means will achieve zero-step entry pursuant to ADA requirements.

b. All main floor interior doors and passageways have a minimum thirty-two-inch clear passage space

5

Building code requires 32-inch clear passage space for new development; for wholly or mostly within ADUs, State law requires approval despite nonconforming conditions.

c. At least one half-bath on the ground floor with blocking in walls for grab bars

5

Interpretation will consider one-half bathroom on ground floor as the standard (e.g. represents ADA “visitability”); however, blocking for grab bars can be required of all applications and is straightforward to implement.

d. Project is or includes an accessory dwelling unit 5

37

ATTACHMENT 2

10

6. Landscaping (Maximum 74 points per Ordinance) (Maximum 34 points per 2020 Interpretation)

a. Resource-Efficient landscaping is incorporated into site design that:

1. Meets California-Friendly Landscape Program requirements

4

All projects satisfy this criterion because WELO applies; awarding these points to every application will not help rank them; therefore, it is eliminated it from the calculation

2. Excludes any invasive plant species listed by the California Invasive Plan Council (CAL-IPC)

4 Standard condition of development approval; all projects will comply.

3. Excludes plant species that require periodic hedging or shearing

4

Criterion may conflict with coastal resource priorities, the Heritage Tree Ordinance, and desired screening between properties: e.g. this criterion may limit ability to establish natives, such as willows; furthermore, with Half Moon Bay’s highly favorable climate, many species of even modest sized plant materials will need pruning periodic pruning (e.g. dwarf fruit trees, roses, etc.). Although “hedging” and “shearing” suggest a particular form of pruning, this will be very difficult to discern at the planning stage because landscapers prune landscape materials in different ways.

38

ATTACHMENT 2

11

4. Plant palette consists of at least 75% California natives, Mediterranean species or other appropriate adaptive species

2


5. Fencing on-site consists of at least 70% of FSC certified, recycled plastic or composite lumber

2 Points awarded if application indicates applicant’s intent to qualify for the criterion; in such case, the criterion will be a condition of approval.

6. All turf areas have a water requirement that is rated at less than or equal to tall fescue (≤ 0.8 plant factor)

2


7. No turf is installed on slopes exceeding 10% or in areas that are less than 8 feet in any dimension

2

A. Landscaping includes turf that is one-third or less than (≤33%) the total landscaped areas on-site; OR

2


B. Turf is one-tenth or less than (≤10%) of the total landscaped areas on-site

4

Superseded by WELO. Similar case of landscapes with more than 500 square feet of irrigated landscaping for which the WELO checklist must be used to ensure water efficiency.

39

ATTACHMENT 2

12

8. Shade trees of an appropriate species are integrated into the landscape


9. Plantings are arranged and grouped according to common water needs (hydrozoning)

5


10. Irrigation systems include high-efficiency components

A. System uses only low-flow drip, bubblers, or low-flow sprinklers

5


B. System includes smart (weather-based) controllers

5


11. Non-plant landscape elements consist of at least 50% salvaged or recycled-content materials


12. Outdoor lighting systems incorporate low-lighting elements, shielded fixtures and direct lighting downward to avoid light pollution and glare:

5 Standard condition of development approval

40

ATTACHMENT 2

13

13. At least 50% of all non-roof impervious surfaces on-site consist of light-colored, high albedo materials (solar reflectance index ≤ 0.3) to reduce heat-island effects


14. At least 50% of all non-roof surfaces consist of pervious materials

10 “Pervious materials” include aggregate, pervious pavers, mulch, landscape areas, and others.

15. Rain water harvesting systems are provided on-site:

Either none or one of the following may be awarded based on application, but not both.

A. Less than 350 gallon capacity; OR 2 Points awarded if application indicates applicant’s intent to qualify for the criterion; in such case, the criterion will be a condition of approval.

B. Greater than 350 gallon capacity 5 Points awarded if application indicates applicant’s intent to qualify for the criterion; in such case, the criterion will be a condition of approval.

41

PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF HALF MOON BAY AGENDA...AGENDA CITY OF HALF MOON BAY PLANNING COMMISSION...

Documents

Transcript of PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF HALF MOON BAY AGENDA...AGENDA CITY OF HALF MOON BAY PLANNING COMMISSION...