Good evening, everybody, and um bless you.

Welcome to the November fourth Half Home Bay City Council meeting.

As a reminder, we have Spanish interpretation services available in person and on Zoom.

On point language service, on point language solutions is in the back left corner.

If anyone needs assistance with interpretation services, please head over there, and they'll give you a uh piece for interpretation.

Victor or Nicholas will now provide information on how to receive interpretation interpretation services if you're in need of them.

With either of you.

Great, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, uh City Council, all city staff, members of the public, Victor Hernandez, Spanish interpreter.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, appreciate that.

Can we please have a roll call?

Councilmember Johnson.

Councilmember Nagengast?

Here.

Councilmember Penrose?

Here.

Vice Mayor Reddick.

Here.

Mayor Brownstone?

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

Can we all please stand for the pledge of allegiance?

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

I move that we approve the agenda.

Can I get a second?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Agenda is approved.

I don't believe do we have any proclamations and presentations?

Great.

Thank you.

Any additional announcements, Matthew, of our upcoming events in November.

We'll actually cover that during CM updates.

That's okay.

Thank you.

Report out from recent closed session.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

The council did meet in closed session earlier this evening to discuss three items.

One item of anticipated litigation, one item public employee performance evaluation of city manager Matthew Chittester, and a third item of existing litigation, City of Happen Bay versus Granada, CSD and Monterra, WSD.

Nothing to report out from closed session.

Thank you.

Appreciate the report.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

We have three very brief updates tonight.

I believe the first will be with Irma Acosta from the city manager's office.

Good evening, Mayor, Council members, and members of the public.

And I just wanted to take a moment to update everyone on an important issue that we're seeing in our community.

Due to the ongoing federal shutdown, more families are experiencing food insecurity.

Local food banks and community organizations are reporting an increase in demand.

And many are stretched thin to meet the need.

These groups are doing incredible work, but they can't do it alone.

So they are asking for volunteers and community support to help keep food on the table for our neighbors.

If you're able, please consider volunteering your time or donating to a food pantry or meal program.

On this screen, you can find some upcoming volunteer opportunities with some local organizations.

And you can also find more information on our website about other opportunities for involvement.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Thank you, Irma.

I will take a brief moment to uh announce a couple of upcoming events.

We're really excited.

This Friday night will be the very first Dwali celebration in Half Moon Bay.

Dwali is a Hindu tradition, the festival of lights, and we've worked with uh some of our community members who have been interested in doing this, and uh we're happy to support and partner with them as they kick off this new venture.

Um the event will be this Friday night from 6 to 8 p.m.

at MacDutra Plaza in downtown Half Moon Bay.

And there will be music, there will be henna tattoos, there will be arts and crafts for children, and really the goal is just to introduce some additional culture to our community.

Um interestingly enough, we've had uh uh an influx of um Indian residents over the last several years that have started to create a new cultural community on the coast, and this is an opportunity to recognize some of our new neighbors.

And uh I think it's a really cool way to also kick off the holiday season.

It's a festival of lights, and as we know, we've got nights of lights coming up, and uh it's it's really cool, and it kind of kicks off following the um Dia de los Muertos uh events that have been going on.

So it's it's a cool opportunity.

We're excited to be part of it, and we hope people will come and attend.

I'll also share for folks um Friday is considered the kickoff of the holiday shopping season, and so many of our downtown businesses will be open late, hosting their own little parties in their stores, and they hope that for folks that are coming out to enjoy this event, they'll you know pop in and maybe start uh at least looking at what they want to buy for the holidays.

Main Street is a great place to shop for the holidays, so want to make sure we plug our uh our local businesses.

Um next Monday, Main Street and Kelly.

Yeah, um on Monday night, we will hold our annual uh Veterans Eve event.

Um, this is an opportunity for us to recognize our local veterans.

It's a pretty low-key event, um, and it's really just an opportunity for us to recognize those in our community that have served our country and defended our freedoms and our liberties.

And I think this is our fourth year doing it, and and it's it's usually a small event, but really appreciated by our local vets and and just an opportunity to recognize them.

So that's from 6 to 7 p.m.

on Monday night.

Um, you know, city offices will be closed on Tuesday, so this is an opportunity before we go into the Veterans Day holiday to recognize those veterans.

We'll have some cookies and treats and some some warm drinks.

Uh, it'll probably be cool as it has been, and uh, we're looking forward to recognizing our veterans.

And that's it.

Thank you, Matthew.

Um, okay, there we go.

So we're now going to have open up our public forum.

And that's open to everybody who's in the room and also people who are here remotely.

Um if you are attending on Zoom and did wish to participate, please indicate by raising your hand on Zoom.

Okay.

So the way this works is for those of you who know or don't know.

Each person has three minutes to speak.

If there's language interpretation involved, that person will, there'll be six minutes total for the translation.

And we ask that people do not applause after someone speaks.

It makes it more comfortable and safer for folks who might be coming up, especially for the first time, and they may be a little nervous.

And so we just ask that people listen respectfully.

And with that, we'll begin with our first speaker, who is Deborah Penrose.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Good evening.

I'm speaking tonight as an elected official and as an angry and frightened citizen of the United States.

We are losing our democracy and becoming an autocracy, a dictatorship.

Countries that slide from democracy tend to follow similar patterns.

Here are 12 markers that describe how the U.S.

has regressed and is already becoming an autocracy.

A political system limiting personal freedom, suppressing opposition, and controlling civil liberties by enforcing strict obedience at the expense of personal freedom.

Autocrats stifle dissent and speech.

Autocrats persecute political opponents.

Autocrats bypass the legislature.

Autocrats use the military for domestic control.

Autocrats defy the courts.

Autocrats vilify marginalized groups.

Autocrats control information and the news media.

Autocrats try to take over universities.

Autocrats create a cult of personality.

Autocrats use power for personal profit.

Autocrats manipulate the law to stay in power.

The frightening fact is that the current government has regressed on all of these twelve, and we have already lost what most of Americans hold dear: our individual freedom and our ability to elect and hold responsible our leaders.

We no longer have the luxury of time.

Now is the time to protest.

Show that they are willing to defend them by speaking out against tyranny.

Thank you.

Our next speaker.

And actually, apologies.

I like to say who the next speaker is, and then the one after that, so they can be ready.

So the next speaker will be Jennifer Moore, and she will be followed by Sandy Vella.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council, City staff, everyone here.

My name is Jennifer Moore.

I'm a local resident.

I have a business right up the street.

And I'm just here because I care about my community and I have a lot of passion.

As we move forward with the lease agreement.

Oh, let me put my glasses on, sorry.

With our lease agreement involving mercy and a loss, I strongly recommend that we engage in a our own land use real estate attorney to represent the city's interest.

Not only with whoops never mind, not that hard.

Jennifer, can you keep speaking to the mic because that'd be great?

I'm sorry, I thought I moved it closer.

Sorry, clearly.

Thanks.

Do you want me to start over?

It is essential that the city staff take lead in developing and reviewing lease terms rather than relying on Mercy Housing to manage this process.

Given the fact that Mercy Housing stands to generate substantial revenue from this project, it is reasonable for the city of Half Hoom Bay to ensure that there they also benefit appropriately.

By maintaining control over the lease development and legal review, we can better safeguard the city's interest, ensure fair, equitable outcome to all parties involved.

Additionally, with the city of Hafoon Bay's current structural deficit, I believe it would be prudent not to consider medical insurance for council members at this time.

We need to commit to fiscal responsibility and demonstrate leadership managing limited public resources.

Thank you for tonight.

Thank you, Jennifer.

Our next speaker is Sandy Vella, who will be followed by Joaquin Jimenez.

Good evening, everybody.

I have a couple uh comments.

Um my name is Sandy Vella, uh, 60 year coastal resident, living downtown Hafoom Bay.

Uh please paint the main street bridge.

It's that it's driving me crazy.

I understand that February is a target date.

If we could hold that, that would be great.

You know, it's been peeling for far too long.

So thank you for doing that.

Uh the other one's 555 Kelly.

As it relates to 555 Kelly, the city of Hafoom Bay should really be the author of the 555 Kelly Agreement being drawn up, not mercy or a loss, and that way we could cleanly draw up our requirements on our paper and consider adding mercy and loss requests via an addendum so it's nice and clean.

Please open up the current draft agreement for review by the public.

Public would like to suggest adding, removing, modifying terms, or we you know, just maybe we can just submit them to you guys and you can collect them.

Um we'd like to do this before anything signed, so get our comments early on if there's a huge glaring issue, love to see it in advance.

Please use outside counsel, specifically a real estate agent or land use attorney to review.

Um we need legal specialist uh to advise us.

Uh, I don't think we have the qualifications on our staff to really negotiate and even understand all the terms that are presented.

And again, you know, I would strongly suggest don't approve the one dollar lease for 99 years.

I know we've all talked about this before.

We can't afford this extraordinary and really outlandish request.

We need to consider all Hafoon Bay interest and constituents when drawing up a long-term agreement that will impact all of us for years and years to come.

And then finally, I want to thank you guys for helping to remove the long-term parked RVs on Main Street.

So we noticed that's great.

You know, they were nice or now it's gone.

It's beautiful.

If we can continue to tag RVs in Hafoom Bay that have not moved for three days, it'd be perfect.

Stagnant RVs will become more and more of a problem in Hafoom Bay since San Francisco will be addressing stagnant RVs with a priority.

And that's it.

Thanks.

Thank you, Senator.

Our next speaker is Joaquin Jimenez, followed by Anita Rees.

Uh good evening, honorable Mayor, vice Mayor, council members, uh city staff, um, and members of the public.

Uh Matthew, uh, sorry, interrupt.

You can please share the flyers with uh council members.

November 22nd, uh music and vendor events.

Uh or small businesses, music and vendors.

Everybody's welcome.

Uh first event is gonna be happening uh Magdutra Plaza.

Uh I'm gonna have a series of events happening, you know, uh in that area.

The second event will be uh preparing for uh December 20th.

Uh this is uh a plan to uh to help our local businesses, downtown association already.

I called uh Betsy del Fierro uh to let her know about the uh the event is happening.

I visited some of the shops downtown and left some of the flyers uh to promote this event.

We have a lot of small businesses, you know, in our community that need to support uh in just preparing them uh to uh to come to know to downtown, you know, and have a great time.

Public library plans to be there and have activities for the families and uh several of the vendors that we see usually see on Make and Main Street.

Uh some of the other vendors that visit the area, you know, to different festivals.

Uh this is just uh, you know, uh a plan, you know, to uh to bring more people downtown.

You know, we get a lot of visitors, you know, on the weekends, and we want them to enjoy visiting Half Moon Bay.

Uh the plan to have music, you know, activities in uh make it fun.

You know, make it fun and uh hopefully or economy will benefit from it.

You know, that is the whole idea, you know, visiting Half Moon Bay and uh they get to know our downtown area.

So please join us uh November 22nd, uh 12 to 5, you know, for music and vendors.

And then uh when we're ready for uh in December, uh we'll also come back and I invite you to join us for December 20th.

No same time, uh same location, all the permits are ready uh in.

I already apply for all the make sure it'll cover every angle uh to make sure uh everything's done the right way.

Thank you.

Thank you, Joaquin.

Anita, Anita Reese, thanks.

Hello, Anita Reese with the uh Unhoused on the Coast Outreach Program.

It's a program of the Pacifica Resource Center, which is primarily funded by the San Mateo County Center on Homelessness.

We provide outreach and engagement and case management services to unhoused folks on San Mateo County Coast from Pacifica to Pescadero with the goal of helping them return to housing.

Outreach staff is available seven days a week, Monday through Friday, 9 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

and Saturday, Sunday, and holidays, nine to five, and we respond to outreach requests within three hours during that time.

If you see someone living outside or in a vehicle, please call us at 650 452 6279 or email us at UC Outreach at PACResource Center.org.

As of today, there are 32 individuals who are unhoused in Half Moon Bay, four encampments with 14 folks living in them and 19 others not in encampments.

I will note that of the four encampments, only two are active.

The other two are still noted as encampments, but they are empty.

For example, we've been able to move two folks living in motor homes who are staying on Main Street.

Um both are on their way to housing.

One has been matched with a housing subsidy, is and is currently looking for a rental, and the other uh we were able to help them move their belongings out of the art out of their motor home and provided incentive funds for them to give up their motor home for good.

The motor home has since been towed and is off city streets.

Um they are now reconnecting with family and searching for housing.

So again, I just want to thank you all for your partnership as we help unhoused folks in Half Moon Bay return to housing.

Thank you, Anita, and greatly appreciate the work uh your organization's doing.

It's really having a positive impact.

So thank you very much.

I don't think we have anybody online.

Just double check.

And that's all our speakers today for public forum.

Public forum is now closed.

We will now move on to our consent calendar.

Um, let's see.

Same situation, a couple of items here that we had last time.

So first of all, is there anyone who wants to pull any item?

I know it's uh Paul and Patrick.

You will be abstaining from items eight A through eight C because you are not here to approve the to participate, so nothing to approve.

Um I don't think there's anything else being pulled at this point, but just want to double check before we go through.

So it's actually a 8BC and D.

Oh, sorry, that's right.

I was looking at A Day.

Thank you for that.

Okay, that's right.

Okay, so I'll do those separately.

Um, can I get a motion from the remaining three of us to approve um?

Actually, I'll I'll move.

I move that we approve items B, C, and D, which include approving the minutes of the January 19th, 2022 special session, the March 1st, 2022 regular meeting, and the minutes of the February 15th, 2022 special meeting.

Can I get a second?

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Thank you.

Okay, now for the rest of the consent calendar, including um, I move that we approve items 8E, approve the minutes of October 16th, 2025 special meeting, minutes of October 21st, 2025 special meeting, minutes of the October 21st, 2025 regular meeting, the treasurer's report for the quarter end during September 30th, 2025.

And item, that was item 8H, sorry, item 8i.

Um, adopting a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute a licensing agreement with the Seahorse Ranch for non-exclusive use of city property along Poplar Beach for a term ending December 31st, 2030, at an initial annual rate of $13,117 with a 3% annual increase throughout the term.

Move approval, second.

Um I think we do we need a roll call on that, preferably.

Uh yes, it doesn't help money.

Can we have a roll call on that, please?

Councilmember Johnson.

Absolutely, yes.

Councilmember Nagengast?

Yes.

Councilmember Penrose?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Ruddick?

Yes.

Mayor Brownstone.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Great.

Uh moving on to ordinances and public hearings.

We're going to begin with item 9A, the introduction of an ordinance adding chapter 7.65 commercial vitality ordinance to the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code.

Great.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, Council, and Community.

My name's Karen Decker.

I'm your economic and community vitality manager.

Welcome to the first reading of the commercial vitality ordinance.

Um, this ordinance establishes standards for neglected and empty commercial storefronts.

So currently, the city does not have a specific mechanism to regulate empty commercial properties, nor does it require specific standards around upkeep of commercial properties generally.

We have heard feedback about empty and neglected storefronts in the past, but this year there was quite a bit of feedback, starting at community listening sessions back in January and February during council priority setting, meetings of the downtown association, and public comment from time to time.

Given that feedback, staff conducted research, and we did more of an in-depth discussion of this topic during the study session on October 7th.

We know that empty or neglected storefronts pose things that are not helpful to Half Moon Bay.

They contribute to urban decay, reduce property values, it's demoralizing for property owners that do comply.

And there are safety and public health risks around cleanliness and whatnot.

So the overall goal of the ordinance is intended to support active and attractive and safe commercial areas in Half Moon Bay.

The proposed ordinance would add a new section, section 7.65 to our municipal code.

It would specify standards that don't currently exist, and it would require property owners to notify the city whenever a storefront is going to be vacant.

At this time, there's not really a reason or an incentive for property owners to engage with the city.

It necessitates a conversation between a property owner or the responsible party with city staff.

It also establishes maintenance and display standards, which we haven't had before, and it provides the city with enforcement tools.

So whenever possible, staff, including our compliance officer, will opt for educating and collaborating instead of jumping right into accountability.

But should there be situations where we may have some bad actors or those who are not incentivized by the other means, the city would have leverage to follow up.

Many other cities have versions of this ordinance.

Several use complex registration systems that more match a larger city with much larger staff.

This approach is streamlined for half moon based scale.

Not introducing multiple forms or new software to complicate compliance was important to staff and stakeholders.

And staff received quite a bit of input.

We engaged with other economic cities that participate in economic development associations for which the city participates.

And so there was a lot of institutional knowledge and collective wisdom from jurisdictions who have already tried and implemented this, which was really helpful.

We also chatted with downtown groups, some local businesses were really generous with the amount of time that they took to sit down and chat with me about their concerns and their ideas, commercial real estate representatives.

So really appreciate those folks who took their time to weigh in on this topic.

Public notice was also published in the Daily Journey Journal on October 24th, which is a requirement of this process.

And just back to that study session that I had mentioned earlier.

So just a general summary, there was overall support for this concept.

It's something that council has asked for, the community has asked for, and that session afforded us an opportunity to hear from additional community members and get guidance from the council.

In addition to that general support of the ordinance, there was discussion about honoring the uniqueness of each storefront and avoiding overly prescriptive regulations while also calling for more specificity around the role of the compliance officer.

Council members also emphasize the importance of encouraging merchants and business operators to really take pride and ownership in maintaining their storefronts.

As a result of feedback throughout this research and specifically that study session, staff went back to the draft, and this is just a summary of some of the key revisions that were made.

And they generally fell under this umbrella of cleanliness and maintenance.

So following the study session, staff revised the ordinance to reflect that feedback.

And in particular, staff added provisions to address these concerns around commercial properties.

So clean awnings and legible exterior lettering.

We added more specific language around dumpsters and trash cans, that they must remain enclosed, that no trash or waste is left outside of receptacles, and that regular cleaning and maintaining of exteriors and interiors is important.

We also provided clarification around standards.

So ordinance, the ordinance defines specific upkeep and maintenance obligations for commercial properties, supported by clear enforcement guidelines to ensure consistency.

But we also intentionally pointed to specific parts of uh state health and safety codes.

There are some parts of that code that are irrelevant because they apply to residential properties, but that's okay.

We could exempt that portion and still utilize the parts of the state code that give our compliance officer a lot of leverage in terms of maintaining standards for commercial properties, and it provides property owners an extensive list of what those requirements are.

Staff also included examples around the section of the ordinance that talks about empty storefronts.

And we did this to provide property owners with options for temporary displays in street facing windows that have been vacant for more than 90 days.

The intent is to encourage storefronts to appear active and visually attractive while minimizing regulatory burden on property owners and limiting the need for extensive staff involvement.

So compliance with having an empty storefront that remains active could look like simulating that a business is inside, could be a desk with some flowers.

We could point them in the direction of working with downtown organizations that have maps, the history association with QR codes.

I was just chatting with the superintendent of Cabrillo Unified, and Dr.

Ramira Montes is happy to put staff in touch with the high school or the middle school to bring in student art from a local level.

So there's a lot of cost-effective ways to activate spaces that need not be cumbersome or expensive.

So next steps.

So Karen, the report's really good.

Sorry about that.

The report's really good.

It's kind of what I was drawn into months ago with Betsy of its Italia.

She's actually the one that you know brought this forward to me, the planners, this walkways, the leaves, the printers building, the sign's gonna fall down and hit somebody.

Can I put some kids' drawings on the building so it looks better?

Because we're doing all these events.

So she really brought this forward.

And this is what we got now.

But I'm a little worried here because I'm getting texts from her that she didn't really get a chance to put a bite of the apple.

Did you get a chance to talk to her about this one?

Did she see this and review it?

Um this was introduced to um at the downtown association meetings, and then copies of the ordinance was provided to the chamber and downtown association for distribution among their membership.

I'm still happy to sit down with any business owner that wants to do a deeper dive.

Um I didn't hear particularly from her, but it's not too late, and I'm happy to do that.

Because they do have a meeting in Matthew.

Maybe you can help me because I don't remember exactly, and I know Paul's gone to it, I've gone to it.

They have like a meeting at its Italian.

I think it's Tuesdays at nine in the morning or something.

It's it's one Thursday a month.

Yeah.

I would really like for that for that chance for that meeting to happen where they can dissect this.

Well, that meeting isn't a place where we would go through an ordinance like this, but that's the meeting that Karen was referring to where it was discussed several times.

So you were at the T in the morning, nine in the morning talking about some of this stuff.

Um yes, and whenever the concept of the ordinance came up, it was met with great enthusiasm.

So and then yeah, uh, there weren't particular sticking points that were hashed out in detail, but general support of it and the actual ordinance itself was um given to kind of the leadership for distribution.

So were they able to read what you had or were you just taking input?

I don't know who read it, but I was happy to take input from anybody at the meeting, um, and it was um just really general support.

There wasn't uh particular pivoting around any sticking points.

But again, um that's okay.

If there are concerns or ideas that um still need to be raised, you know, I'm I'm happy to do that.

No, I guess I the draft ordinance went to the different organizations to distribute amongst their membership.

So we're not sure if it made it to the individual business owners directly.

Um obviously with Betsy, we can just reach out directly to her and I'm not I'm concerned for Betsy and everybody.

Let's just be clear because my phone just blew up that she's not you know, not 100% on this.

And I believe that I think our merchants really need to be all the little stuff.

I you did a great job.

I've just I worry about merchants as a business owner myself.

I worry about that.

There was also a text that went out.

Um there's an opt-in for um merchants that uh is managed uh managed through the chamber.

And so a text went out um in anticipation of the study session, and I'm on that thread and I received that text, and I think Matthew did as well.

So any downtown businesses or chamber members that opt into that, um, that was just another way to get the word out that the study session was happening, that um the ordinance was available to view, and that the study session was a great opportunity for public comment.

Um, you know, tonight this first reading is another opportunity.

So um, yeah, I'm sorry to hear that, but that's all good.

This is the process.

I mean, I'm I'm just sharing.

The other thing I'd like to just pull in because I don't think we have it mentioned, but just the benches that we have on Main Street, like there was one that I actually grabbed because the uh downtown beautification owned it, and I was told if you want to clean it, clean it.

So I went and cleaned it, I power washed it.

But there are benches you don't power wash, and there are some that we can uh that are owned by the beautification, if I'm not mistaken, but I think that would be something that every once in once a year their teak, you power wash and you put some uh ceiling on there just so that they look nice and bright and clean, and there was graffiti on them too.

Um but that's I think that's it's just generalized language.

That's kind of what Betsy brought forward in here.

There needs to be a little bit more definition on neat and orderly.

So I think that's one of the comments you put forward.

And if I can, Mr.

Mayor, if I could jump in.

Uh there's there's a second thing that we'll be working on, which is really uh policies around street furniture and street, you know, the artwork, uh flowers, flower pots, benches, all of that.

We're gonna wait to really tackle that until after the November 18th special meeting where we'll hear from the fire district about all the new fire laws because that is going to affect that.

So something we were working on concurrently, and we put a pause on until we get through that.

So I I think it's a little different than what we're trying to address here with this ordinance.

It's a separate issue that we'll address in a different way, the the furniture piece.

I just want to clarify what it around what Patrick was saying.

So you're saying that the chamber did get a copy of this.

Is that right?

I sent an initial draft to leadership from the downtown association and the chamber, um, just asking them to share it with their members and provide any feedback.

Right.

And that's the same draft we're looking at here.

Um that was the draft leading into the study session.

Yeah.

Oh, okay.

So not this one.

Okay.

Well now everyone has it, and um great.

Please have Betsy and others, you know, contact uh counters here.

I actually contacted her on Saturday when I started reading this, so she was aware of it and I gave her heads up.

You need to get going on this and read it.

So I'm doing what I can, but I just want to make sure everybody's involved.

Sounds good.

Thank you for bringing that up.

Um any other Paul.

Thank you.

Um, a couple of things in here just to clarify, which may make a difference when we deliberate later.

I noticed uh about sidewalk repair.

Are are property owners responsible to repair the sidewalks in front of their businesses?

The landlords.

Or land you know, landlords or property owners?

Just like we do in residential areas.

That's correct.

Okay.

So that would require getting a permit, and then who determines when a sidewalk needs to be repaired?

Is that a city function?

Todd, do you want to speak to that?

Um, Todd Seeley's our interim public works director and and has been our public work superintendent and been dealing with maintenance of sidewalks for many years.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, Council.

Um, so downtown sidewalks.

We have a vendor that we send out once a year just to do an overall assessment of the condition of the sidewalks downtown.

Uh based on that, we'll uh target the most problematic areas first with the funding that we have.

The rest of the areas are primarily addressed through grinding or scarifying, depending on what methods we have available.

Uh as far as I am aware, I'm not aware of the city actually making any business owners downtown pay for sidewalk replacement.

It's kind of a function that we've been taking care of uh on their behalf for as long as I've been here anyways.

Yeah, I believe the only time we would have a property owner do the work on those sidewalks is if there was something that they had done to create an issue.

But the street trees are ours.

Um and and most of the issues we have to sidewalk were based on that.

Well, I was trying to figure out if I know right residential areas aren't property owners responsible.

Correct.

Does it distinguish between commercial and residential in the code?

Do you know?

I don't I don't believe so.

Uh we can we can look into that further.

I'm not aware of a difference in the code.

Um, but that's certainly something we can look at.

Yeah, okay.

Just curious.

Um, it would be the same for like cleaning sidewalks.

Do they have to come to the city for a permit to do that or how's that work?

I guess depending on type of cleaning the yeah, it's gonna be.

So it's a little more challenging uh with the water runoff regulations that we that we deal with as far as maintenance operations goes.

Um pressure washing the sidewalks need to be done by a BASMA certified pressure washer.

So basically it's reclaiming the water that they're using for their operation.

Um we've looked in with with Karen, we've looked at some numbers, and I think the numbers we we got informally it was about $8,000 a month to do like just the downtown core.

It's an expensive service for sure.

So I mean that that's kind of what we're up against right now.

Right.

So I don't know if that's who decides when a sidewalk needs to be cleaned.

I don't know.

We've just got questions.

Oh yeah.

Just want to quick clarify a question.

There's a difference between power washing and just taking a hose, right?

And hosing down a sidewalk, or is it the same in terms of what you're talking about?

I think there's probably some gray area there.

The pressure washing actually does get more material up, and that's what the water the regulatory bodies are worried about getting into the storm drain system, right?

Is getting that deep rooted filth and oil and grime up off the sidewalks and letting it flow into the storm drains.

Hosing it down, I I mean, if we're talking just about if we got a call that there was a pile of vomit, or you know, if someone vomited on Main Street, we're gonna hose it down, right?

That's what we're gonna do.

If there's human waste on Main Street, we're gonna hose it down.

That's what we're gonna do, right?

So pressure washing is probably a different threshold than we're than we're talking about here, but there there is probably some gray area in there.

I think there's a big difference.

I mean, I hosed down some of my sidewalks or backyard, but man, am I if I use a power washer?

Wow, what a difference it makes.

So it's like night and day in terms of the intensity of the power wash.

So I would just hope someone could at least just hose something down and just make that sort of differentiation.

Okay.

Thanks for starting to.

One last thing.

On that note, because we're talking about um cleaning awnings, so then are we are we in detail of how we're gonna clean those awnings?

Because I mean I went down town and I saw somebody hosing down the awning and I took a video of it.

It was pretty impressive how much dirt was coming off and how nice it looked.

But then now you guys are saying no no water, no nothing.

So how are we going to clean the awnings?

I I don't want to speak for Matthew, but I think that's probably part of the discussion that he was talking about for the November 18th meeting uh with regards to fire codes and what is going to be allowed on Main Street with the update to the fire codes.

We're not we're not sure what the guidance is gonna be on that.

So there you the awnings could very well disappear.

We're not 100% sure yet at this point.

And I I think based on your questions, I think there's some det level of detail that the current ordinance does not get into, and we're gonna have to determine: do we need to get into that level of detail in this ordinance, or can it be that when someone needs to do this work, they need to come and talk to us about what's appropriate.

And unfortunately, that's probably the better approach because if we try to get too specific, things change all the time.

We're gonna be updating this ordinance constantly.

So there's probably a happy balance there.

So we'll research some of the questions that you've asked, and and we may need to make some um either clarifications of the ordinance or just language that references how people can get information about what are the current practices and best practices for doing some of this work.

And then I have one more thing for Todd.

Is on and Matthew is there are on Main Street in front of the storefronts, right where the the trees are, there is cracking that's lifting.

I was walking with Keith near and just shooting the breeze with him, and he's like stops and he goes, This is a lawsuit ready to happen.

And then we go across the street to the cunhas, same thing over there.

There's cracks that have been ground down, which you guys are doing, that's great.

But they are significant and their arrays pretty good.

Um, so we might want to assess that every once in a while and know how how I guess how tall or how high a crack is supposed to be before it's you know in danger of somebody tripping trip and fall.

Typically anything above an inch we're gonna want to address immediately.

Anything less than that, we kind of look at it.

Um the reason that there's still a significant amount of lift downtown is that we just got our contractor under contract for this year's round of doing it.

So we expect them to be mobilizing in the next week to actually go out and start working in the downtown area.

Um, there's a ton of areas that we've identified, it's actually fairly reasonable priced for the service that we're gonna get, and we expect to get quite a bit of it done this year.

So expect to see that change in in the next month or so.

We should be done with everything.

Paul, did you uh wait, did you finish?

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

Can you tell me uh when you work on the lift?

What are you working on?

Are you working on things below one inch?

Oh it it so anything above an inch goes to the top of the priority.

Yeah, I know, but what about is there any minimum amount that you are?

I mean, really about a half an inch is kind of where we're at.

Uh it's all based on the ADA codes, and I don't have those in front of me right now, but basically the most problematic areas.

The the vendor comes out and does the assessment and gives us a list top to bottom.

These are the areas you guys need to focus at first.

We expend all of our funds on those areas and get those areas done, and then we start going on the areas that still are in compliance for ADA, but could potentially get worse because of the tree root lift and stuff that we have going on in those areas.

Thank you.

Um maybe it's maybe you can address this next one too.

I noticed in here is about dumpsters and you know, trash receptacles.

Having them locked between different hours.

Is that something that's required now?

No.

No.

No, it's not, and and there's some implications with this and working with Republic.

Yeah, because I mean is there a cost to this then?

Does republic republic charge to do this?

There is some sort of a cost.

Do we know what that is?

Just at first glance, I would have to think there would be a significant labor burden associated with them for them to go and lock it.

I know that they're not staffed up to to handle that kind of stuff, and they would have to add a staff person or get someone to come in and do it on overtime.

They have a fee that they charge businesses that lock their dumpsters.

Do the businesses know this?

I mean, I I just throwing this out.

I mean I'm not I just these are questions that I you know come up with real quick.

And then um the other was oh, this is the enforcement mechanisms available in title four this code to remedy violations.

So title what what exactly is the title four tells you what to do or gives you the process to do something?

I could take a stab at this one.

Um title four is the code enforcement chapter, and so it's basically just incorporating all the tools that the city already has for code enforcement, whether it's administrative enforcement or civil enforcement, criminal enforcement, they're all um incorporated to enforce this new ordinance.

Right.

Because this had nothing in here about uh fines or recording on properties, but that so that's why it gets referred to do what Title IV says to do, and then that's the process that's that's in there for that.

Yes.

Correct.

Okay, and then one other quick one.

Um, you had mentioned you talked to some cities that had uh they've gone through some trials and tribulations, you know, trying to set up ordinances and what worked, what didn't work.

Did you get any sense, and maybe it's reflected in here, cut an item or two that they thought was don't do it or something that really was challenging for them?

Um the registration process being extensive, um, the amount of code enforcement officers, plural at the jurisdictions that had more detailed requirements around registrations, the databases, the tracking, um, the staff capacity, that was not fun from a city staff perspective, and it got to be labor-intensive and expensive.

But um, you know, those cities in particular weren't located in coastal zones that had as much um uh process as we do.

Um they uh had much more active commercial um and industry areas, you know, manufacturing, they're just it's just not apples to oranges.

Um but when I looked at smaller cities like Patterson, um, and certain aspects of Santa Cruz, but Santa Cruz is substantially larger.

Um there was much more commonality.

Um just the feel and the culture and social ethos of the town um seemed to fit half moon bay better in terms of scale and capacity.

Okay, so and we we tend to focus on Main Street.

Is this only intended for main street?

So will this be like in uh um I never get the names correct, like Safeway shopping?

Sunflower village and yes, so this is intended to be citywide, so commercial.

So, yeah, interesting.

Do they all know this is coming too?

Um, I mean, I wouldn't say every property owner knows about it.

It's much easier to fly her and engage the merchants, but more often than not, the business operator is not the property owner.

Right.

Yeah, I just want to because would this go to the writs even or yeah, it's any any commercial business will will have to golf course by this.

Yeah, uh interesting.

Okay, those are my questions.

Thank you.

Any other council members have clarifying more clarifying questions?

Okay.

Do we have any public comment?

I don't think so.

Nobody online.

Okay.

Public comment going once, twice, three times.

It's been opened.

We're now clear.

Just want to declare for the record that the the uh public hearing has been opened.

Public comment is now open.

Okay.

Nothing online, nothing in the room.

Public comment is closed.

Now have uh council discussion.

Yes, go ahead.

Yeah, there's nothing in the ordinance right now about clean windows.

And that's of concern to me, because the two properties that I know of on Main Street that are the most offensive have dirty windows.

Um I would like to see us at least consider making some statement about having clean windows.

We did talk about clean windows internally, um community development and the city manager's office.

Um, you know, we are complaint-based, so that could be manageable, but I know that there was some concern that if that was actually an expectation that that could be burdensome for staff in terms of monitoring for that, trying to look for that, enforcing that.

Um but any of my colleagues want to weigh in on that, or do we not feel strongly about that?

Because we had discussed it.

I recall that from feedback you provided during the study session.

Councilmember Penrose.

Okay.

Hello, can you guys hear me?

Uh thank you, um, Mayor and Council members.

So, to the question that you asked, is this kind of burden burden some?

I'm sorry, uh mispronouncing.

It is only because it becomes very um subjective over what is dirty and what's not, and like what is the threshold for us to be able to do any type of enforcement.

So essentially, with me being the only enforcement officer, quote unquote, um, it would be like a daily task for me to walk down Heritage Main Street, or even since we're in encapsulating straw flower and everything else, to be like, what's the threshold for a dirty window?

And what can we do?

How is that different from the threshold from a dirty sidewalk?

I mean, to me it's the same thing.

You know, somebody has a piece of paper on their sidewalk, I could call that dirty, or I could say, gee, there's just a piece of paper there.

So I I don't know how you enforce something like that, but I do know that what we want is an ordinance that covers a situation where somebody doesn't clean their windows for six months.

Absolutely.

And I don't know how we do that.

That's that's my point.

I agree with you a hundred percent.

The thing is, where is the threshold and where do we like what is the bar that we raise through this so that there is something that is enforceable, like a dirty sidewalk.

What is that threshold?

What is the threshold for a dirty window so that we can actually hold somebody accountable rather than just being subjective?

I understand.

I I think that's something that we need to consider though in the ordinance, not just leave it out because it's a difficult thing to look at.

I guess I I think what I'm hearing is, you know, if we look at section 7.65.070, all commercial properties exteriors.

We talk about maintaining neat and orderly landscaping.

Um building exteriors, clean awnings where permissible, and clear exterior lettering when used.

Can there just be a reference to doorways and windows?

Um, and then we'll have to deal with that subjectivity later, but I think it's implied here, and I think what you're looking for is just clearly call that out so that people can't say, Well, you don't say windows in the ordinance, so I don't feel like I have to deal with that.

Is that right?

Exactly.

So I think we can look more closely at that, but is there a reason why we couldn't just call out windows where we're calling out other parts of a building exterior?

Yeah, and I would argue that the windows are already covered, but we should call them out.

Okay.

As to council member Penrose's concern, and um, well, it's one of the main things between the public and the space is the window.

That's what they look at.

That's the first thing they see.

They're not looking at the landscaping nearly as much or the awnings, they're looking right at the window.

That's at eye level.

So that's why I think it's important to call it out in some way.

Certainly don't want to make things burdensome for anybody, but yeah, and to my second point, I think that we can include some language that provides some kind of objective threshold that's that's easier, um easier to enforce than actually quite a number of those sort of subjective um elements.

So not just windows, but also sidewalks and other things.

Thank you.

Um I really appreciate the approach of making it um consistent with our scale and and trying to simplify it.

It still is way more than I anticipated that we were going to take on.

Like I was mostly interested in you know vacant storefronts, um, and it's gone beyond that.

And I do have kind of a problem with the sort of subjective nature of a lot of the descriptors uh in it, and I think um that can cause real problems for enforcement.

It puts our enforcement compliance officer in kind of a tough spot um to have to make those calls.

So I I think if we're going to have an expanded um approach to like upkeep and things, I think we need to at least have a um a companion guide guidance document that you know relieves the compliance officer of some of the burden of subjective interpretation.

And maybe you use photos, maybe this guidance document has photos.

Here's a dirty window, you can't see the merchandise or something like that.

Um here's a dirty sidewalk.

But um, and I I think photos are the way to go because there's less room for interpretation because most reasonable people can agree what's dirty, you know, what's clean and that sort of thing.

But I think you need photos.

But bottom line, what I'm saying is you need some sort of guidance document to make Joe's job easier to um not put him or the city in a position where you have multiple interpretations flying around, or you know, people you know make charges of influence pedaling, he likes you better than me, and you know, mine's not that dirty.

I don't think we should, you know, be involved in that sort of stuff, you know, and it requires ultimately like the city manager, the community development director step step in, maybe the city attorney.

So um it's more than I thought we were gonna do, and and I think because of that, it introduces some peril in a small town where everybody wants to feel good about each other and you know, neighboring businesses and things like that.

So, you know, we might you know take another look at this or at least create a you know companion guidance document.

So you take you know some of that subjective interpretation out of there and thereby diffuse tension and stress, and um free up the compliance officer for um enforcing other things in town for which he is responsible.

So um I think we've maybe have bitten off more than we can chew, is just my observation.

But given that I think you came up with a reasonable approach that sort of works for our community, and it was thoughtfully done.

I just think that um there's still some issues here that creates issues for our staff and uh and gets us into a battle of interpretations.

Yeah, yeah.

And I hate to use this word, but I'm going unintended consequences, and I think some along the lines which you're talking about when you leave room for interpretation, what I worry is what I may think is quaint in the rule, somebody else may call that junk or it's a hazard, and and I know we have some eclectic properties in town, which I think are wonderful.

I think that's why folks come over the hill to come here to see that, whether it's a sign on a piece of plywood that you can get something, but I think it it's kind of our character, you know, that I think it makes it attractive for folks to come here, you know, and especially we're not just the beach, you know, we're a whole other community here.

So I I I agree if we're gonna have a lot in here, and I'm also I'm a little uncomfortable that all the businesses really realize what's happening here.

There's a lot in here that I want them really to know, you know.

Careful what you wish for.

Here it is, it's coming.

Now I can't imagine some cities that do even more than this.

What they must have, they must have a whole department that has to deal with that.

But um, I would want to make sure the businesses have all agree with this, and even these shopping centers, because that I've seen some things in some of those shopping centers that you're gonna have maybe have to address, whether it's the front or back up, because they're visible to the public and they have public walkways there.

So I just think maybe we need to tweak a little more and just make sure businesses are you really this is coming, we're gonna have this.

And maybe whittle some of the stuff out ultimately.

But you know, one thought I had is because of these sorts of issues, like if we could make it maybe a pilot project, or you know, put a sunset on it, like for two years or something, you know, build some experience with it that'll show us, you know, is this workable?

Is it not?

I don't know, but I think I think it's a lot to take on.

Mr.

Mayor, if I might respond, um, I think these are really great comments, and really, as the scope of this changed, it was exactly for the reasons you're describing, because I'll use an example.

Um everybody's familiar with it.

We we had this glorious donation bin on that property line between 7-Eleven and Rite 8, and it's been an issue for many, many years, and and Joe has spent more time than you would ever want to know trying to enforce that under our current code because everybody agrees it's a problem, everybody agrees that it's ugly and it's a it's a problem for our community and a nuisance, and enforcing that has been a nightmare.

And luckily, through a lot of work from lots of people in this room, and especially Joe, we finally got rid of it.

What we're trying to prevent is that years and years of fighting to get rid of something because our current code doesn't address these things directly.

So I think to your point, that's why we've expanded this beyond just the vacant storefronts.

The key is how do we thread that needle, keep it objective, and actually accomplish what we're trying to, which is ease of enforcement, clarity of enforcement, and property owners and businesses know what's expected and can just the goal is for people to be able to read it and comply without us ever having to get involved, right?

And I think the key word you just said was nuisance, and I'm just guessing here, but it seems to me that it's easier to define a nuisance than it is like clean and orderly, right?

Um, but I think that's been the problem.

Yeah.

Because everybody would agree that that particular issue was a nuisance.

And we spent years trying to use that very subjective term as the only means we had to enforce it.

And we finally got there with help from the property owner in the business that was allowing it to be there.

The thing about nuisances, though, is you can it's easier to establish and levy fines and collect them because you're making it more like civil code sort of stuff, you know, where it's becomes a health and safety issue.

So I think that's the dividing line.

It's like, what would we like to have because it's nice and attractive for our tourists, but what is a nuisance and how where do you what buckets do you put those in in terms of code sections and all that stuff?

But and I don't bring all this up to denigrate the work because I think you live, you know.

If we were gonna do something that like this, you know, is is good for us.

It's just that it's it just seems I'm just making the point that I think it's too much.

That's all.

Um, is this going to address the issue of um the 7-Eleven and um the right aid parking?

It's been I can address that right now.

I just drove by it today.

Yeah, so the bin is gone, the donation bin.

And that parking lot looks beautiful.

There's no homeless person there, it's all cleaned up, the other garbage bins are out there.

I was actually wow.

In fact, I was gonna I was gonna say, I want to say something positive that has actually been done.

It's nice.

You could show movies on that wall.

Great, it's uh but but the answer is the goal of this ordinance is to make it easier for us to maintain this incredible state we're finally in, because as we know, it could change tomorrow morning.

We could leave this meeting right now, and we're back to square one, and it's and it's a really tough process right now.

This ordinance, and it sounds like there's some things we need to do to further refine it, is intended to make that easier to continue to maintain.

That's part of the goal.

Yeah, and I'm thinking, you know, I've been uh started, I started attending the downtown association meetings, and I'm thinking, you know, I like to see some sometimes something that looks like in between, like a little bit of um community self-enforcement or you know, help.

So maybe there's a way where you know folks from downtown association could take turns, have some conversations about what's looking okay or not, perhaps making some recommendations to store owners, you know, to clean things up, do they need help, you know, what's going on, and before anything then gets sent to Joe for enforcement or whoever's responsible for enforcement, have the downtown association, you know, be a little bit less um, you know, there's a fine line between overregulating and creativity and everything having to look the same.

And we pride ourselves on, you know, well, we like this small town kind of feel.

What does that mean?

And a lot of it is some individuality, you know, and believe me, there's cities in this country that you go down, everything looks pretty darn uniform, and God knows in Europe countries, God help you if your lawn is an inch over the grass limit.

I mean, really heavy, heavy regulation, and um I'd rather see, you know, helpful support versus um, you know, and just address the outliers, you know, the people just simply refuse to think that there's anything, you know, wrong going on and asking if you know they might need some help.

And I think we got the kind of people in the downtown um community who uh will be really good with that approach, you know.

So, and I'll also just say that's that's the intent of this as well.

This is not so that we go door to door, and every property is like you gotta change this, you gotta clean up that.

It's for those outliers that everybody knows, everybody can tell you which buildings we're talking about, where our current enforcement has not been able to address those issues, it's to give us some teeth for the people that will not comply.

That's that's what this is all about.

Yes, this is not about to the to to 90% of our property owners to 90% of our businesses, this will not change anything for them.

It's for the outliers that have been egregious and ongoing issues for us to give us some teeth to really go after some of them.

Yeah, great.

Um so do you have enough direction?

Is there any other direction or um I would like to ask a clarifying question?

Um, so in regards to you know, subjective descriptions, and there are several places in the ordinance where it says neat and orderly intentionally, because the intention is to be understood by a layperson, but for sort of a really detailed list, that's where the title four, that's where the state code comes in, that's where the existing code comes in.

That was always the intention to have those detailed lists, provide the compliance officer with leverage.

Should there be an extreme case where we need to point to the law and say this is what we mean by flammable, this is what we mean by you know dilapidated.

Um there are some subjective descriptions, but it's it's by design because a lot of the feedback was to not be overly prescriptive.

So would it be acceptable to largely keep the key provisions and the ordinance as is, but to use um the city's website on this topic to provide photos, to provide the form, to provide um because that is all um would happen if this was adopted, but I don't know if the ordinance is the best place to do that.

Saratoga in particular did a really great job after they passed their ordinance of just being so lay person friendly on their website and really illustrating what some of these sticking points were without having to change the technical language.

Would that be acceptable?

I I would support this if we have a companion effort to clarify people like and for guidance on on the web or a you know, a pretty book or something that just and you probably can't take pictures of local businesses for privacy reasons, but maybe illustrations, you know.

But so yeah, I can support that, and then we'll see how it goes.

I mean, I think I think it's a it's an okay start.

Similar to remember that building standards thing, and we have that booklet.

Now we might not want to be taking pictures of our local businesses, that's a good point.

Doesn't mean you can't go to some other cities without showing the name of a place and say, you know, this is not so good, this is too funky, you know, and give people a chance to see, oh, this is you know what you can do to make it slightly you know nicer and stuff like that.

And um, yeah, so that would be great.

And I think um, just one last thing, Karen.

Um, I realize that not everybody sees the announcements of what we'll be covering on a particular meeting.

So, in terms of the most recent copy of this ordinance, would you mind resending it to um the chamber and to the downtown association?

Sure.

And say this is a work in progress, you know.

We realize not everyone may have seen the latest um, you know, addition.

Um, so it could get sent out to everyone, you know, so it doesn't they don't have to come to you, you just say please contact Karen if you have some ideas or don't understand something, that would be great, and we'll just keep that villain.

Yeah, I'd like to say something.

Yeah, please.

Yeah, um I I agree with you.

I don't think it's smart to be overly prescriptive in terms of the ordinance, but I don't want to be relying on the city's website.

If we are going to be putting it like this, we want people to understand what it means, and that means the city has to take a proactive stance and reach out in some way, and I don't know how to do it, but reach out to the businesses, the vendors, the lit you know, landlords, and say this is what our ordinance is all about.

I don't want to rely on the website.

People don't go to the website, agreed.

Yeah, I think the website is not enough, and I think there needs to be really proactive engagement around this.

You know, my team with the streetscape uh master plan outreach, I think is a good example.

We can do flyering, we can walk door to door-to-door.

If we have um uh city communication that's um uh a hard copy again, like currents in currents.

Um I think that there are several mechanisms.

A member of my team, Irma is actually drafting a business resource guide.

This could be a helpful chapter for property owners, you know.

So I don't think it stops here.

I think if it gets adopted, that's just the starting point of spreading the information and multiple mediums because absolutely how many frequent flyers are gonna check the city manager office page on a website under a government umbrella, yeah.

So understood.

And um this is a great opportunity for with something like this with an ordinance.

There should always be, you know, an FAQs, an ongoing FAQs.

And I think that's a great role for the chamber to help us, because they've got, you know, they're downtown, they'll have their ear to the ground and say, yeah, what what's some more FAQs that you're hearing that we can maintain and would be a living document?

Absolutely.

From the fire department, all that stuff.

So, um, and you know, I like the word vitality, but I also like the concept of talking about community pride.

You know, that's something everybody who lives here can relate to and does business here.

It's it's a matter of pride, not just, you know, increasing business and making business more successful.

It's you know, we want to take pride and care in our community.

So if we can weave those concepts in, you know, I think that's good.

I did Prop 50 past.

All right, what was the percentage?

FYI.

Yes, but in my mind.

Um we're ready before we're gonna take a break before.

I want to make sure that uh staff has the direction that we need because I'm just checking with Karen right now.

Um I think uh so this is a public hearing, um, which we have to notice per you know uh government code, and there's been some direction given in terms of the ordinance itself, and I guess I just wanted to flag the council would have the option of continuing the public hearing to a date certain to allow staff to make adjustments to the ordinance, potentially work on the um handbook, administrative supplements.

Uh I think there would be some cost savings to continue the public hearing.

I don't know how much it costs, but Maggie could probably tell me how to notice these things.

$720 per notice.

$720 per notice to notice a public hearing.

So continuing is cheaper?

Yes.

Yes, as opposed to tabling it and then just bringing it back.

If we know when we want to bring it back, that's the key.

If you want to bring it back.

Yeah, well, yeah.

So that we'll bring it back for sure.

Do you bring it back before the holidays or after the holidays?

I mean, to me, that's where we start getting into running out of meetings.

Well, I don't think we necessarily have to have a guidance doc, you know, for us to adopt this ordinance.

We want to give direction that we want that.

But um, I mean, I I haven't recommended any specific changes.

I haven't heard any specific changes anybody's asked for up here.

So originally you're gonna bring this back for a second thing, uh, November, our next meeting in November.

So if if the changes request, you know, I think one specific change we heard is referencing windows.

We'd probably want to put a reference to the fact that there will be guidance docs available.

Um if that was enough and you were ready to, you know, uh approve this tonight for a second reading, that would go on consent on the next council meeting on the 18th.

Um, and then it would take effect 30 days later.

So the question is is there further discussion needed for this in the future?

That's really the questionnaire.

I I I would I'd rather not do a first reading tonight.

I mean, I would even the next meeting if that's okay, but I really want to make sure the businesses understand, and there's costs in here.

The so lock your dumpster is a cost.

I want to make sure they know that.

Which I think it's a it's a good thing.

Because it benefits everybody.

I think that's you were talking about community pride, but I think that's something that you know, we're all in this together.

I think is what we're trying to say.

We're here to help.

Yeah, I had to say, from the government here to help.

But I mean, we are and trying to address the concerns that we've heard from the business community.

Right.

So if we want to come back for further discussion, November 18th is not an option.

That's the special joint meeting, it's very focused on other things.

So it'd either be December 2nd or December 16th in this calendar.

And then continue the public hearing.

We would continue the public hearing to one of those dates, and we would just need to decide.

So is December 2nd, Karen, for what we're hearing, is we could do that work and bring it back December 2nd without any issue.

We could bring it back.

I mean, just to be frank, when I go back and I I look at this iteration, um I know neat and orderly there's room to add specificity around windows, so that's clear.

I'm not hearing any um big pivot around key policy.

Um then in section 080, the very last bullet says establish and enforce any administrative policies necessary for the implementation and enforcement of this chapter, which to me is the majority of the feedback that I've heard tonight.

So if we did do another first reading, I'm not I don't have terribly new things to introduce.

Um I think that the way that it's written covers the concerns that I heard with the understanding that after adoption, we're not done, right?

There's still education, there's still research around Republic.

Um so yeah, I'm happy to follow any direction, but as your staff at the next public hearing, I won't have substantive changes to share.

Yeah, so if we continue this to let's say December 2nd, what are we looking for between that?

Sounds like continue to notify businesses of the ordinance and some of the impl implications to them.

Um at that point we would collect more feedback.

We'd have another, we'd continue the public hearing on the second, and then hopefully at that point put it forward for the first reading.

Uh, you know, I would recommend, you know, to Chris Lynn, you know, um have some meetings, you know, the chamber can have in the evenings and stuff, or you know, where um people from you know business owners can come and uh talk about or bring in the landlords, you know what other she can do to get some more feedback.

The shopping center people, I think.

I mean, those would probably be our meetings, not the chamber's meetings, um, because it's our ordinance that we're trying to adopt.

Obviously, we do it in coordination with the chamber and the downtown association.

But if we want to do outreach meetings like that, that's that's really our on us.

No one else is gonna do that for us.

That they can't pull together a listening session that looking at it.

No, they could they could help us with that, but it would be ours, not theirs.

They could collaborate with us on that.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right, so we're looking at continuing to the second.

You're looking for some additional outreach and notification to property owners and business operators, and then we'll bring it back on the second for hopefully kind of a wrap up discussion.

Yeah.

That would include Joe's input too on on being able to enforce and he's involved also.

Oh, yeah, the community development is very involved in this process from the beginning.

Thank you.

I mean it a motion and a second and a vote to continue to a date certain to uh December 2nd.

Move that we continue.

Um the public hearing on ordinance adding chapter 7.65 commercial vitality ordinance to the Hapman Bay Municipal Code to the meeting regular meeting of December 2nd, 2025.

Second, all those in favor?

Aye, all those against motion passed.

We're gonna take a five-minute break and then move on to item 9b.

Reopening our session.

Thanks, everybody.

We're going to move on to item.

Nine B adoption of the twenty twenty five editions of the California Building Standards Code.

We'll have a staff report.

And this is regarding electrification.

Good evening.

Mr.

Mayor and Council members, staff and public.

As most of you already know, the California building code is updated every three years.

It was published originally this past July for comments and feedback.

The most significant change that we have this time around is the creation of a separate part seven um uh in the new code for the wild wildland urban interface code previously uh the these the requirements of the wildland urban interface uh applied to structures in a wooy or state designated fire fire hazard severity zone were contained within the california building code chapter seven and the california residential residential code um section r337 um at the same time well those requirements now they're moving they are me being moved and consolidated to a new part a new book basically part seven so instead of eleven books we now are gonna have 12 um these changes intended to address the escalating risk of wildfires throughout the state while increasing the resilience of structures and ensuring more sustainable communities within these wooy areas um we also have local modifications um and most of them are two two of them one of them is electrification of buildings the city is repealing municipal code section 14.06 which require all new buildings to be all electric with no natural gas allowed um the other uh local amendment is electrical vehicle charging infrastructure the city previously required electric vehicle charging system infrastructure to be installed on non-residential and hotel motels buildings via municipal code amendment the requirement for the EV charger infrastructure for residential and non-residential building has been incorporated in the 2025 California Green Building Code sections co um section number 4.1064 for residential mandatory measures and 5.1065 for non-residential mandatory measures the municipal code amendment is no longer required the green building standards code title 24 part 11 shall be adopted without amendments so the recommendations we are asking from city council is to introduce an ordinance repealing chapter 14.06 of the Half Mont Bay Municipal Code electrification of buildings and repealing and replacing chapter 1404 of the Halfmond Bay Municipal Code adopting by reference the 2025 edition of the California Building Standards Code with local amendments and finding the amendments to be exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act and direct staff to place the ordinance and the attached resolution establishing the need for local modifications to the California Building Standards code and ratifying the Coast Fire Protection District's ordinance number 2025-05 on the consent calendar for adoption on November 18th 2025 in conclusion staff recommends that city council introduce an ordinance to adopt the 2025 California building standard code with the local amendments described herein the second reading will be brought back to council at its next meeting November 18 along with the resolution determining the need for local modifications to the California building standards code and ratifying the coast fire protection district ordinance the new state codes as modified by the local modifications will take effect on January 1st 2026 staff will submit the ordinance and resolution making findings of local necessities to the California building standards commission before the ordinance goes into effect as required by Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7 this concludes staff report thank you uh do we have a clarifying questions on the so repealing the following provisions and I I think I'm just referring to the gas because I remember that was the thing where no more gas appliances, no more gas heaters, and then everybody started switching to different style and different style of water heating.

So are we going are we saying now we're gonna repeal that and not go forward on that on old construction, or is that just for new construction?

For well, right now we are suggesting.

You know, people to continue to to try to move towards electrical.

We cannot enforce gas at all.

Um part of this is because of uh, you know, there was a lawsuit.

You I don't know if you're familiar, there was a correct.

So based on that, we have to pretty much repeal everything that has to do with reach codes.

Um I think Berkeley, and this is my personal opinion, went too strong on changing from gas to electrical.

We tried to face it, and if I'm not wrong, he was gonna be in 2045 when eventually you know we were gonna be completely fully just electrical.

And uh mo a lot of the permit permit um that I get, some of them are going in that direction by their own choosing.

Um those who want to continue with gas, yeah.

We have to, you know.

Um like a gas stove is a lot easier if you have the gas already there.

Like I was fortunate, uh, Castle Del Mar Homes had electric and gas.

So I went electric back 20 years ago.

I'm kind of happy because I went that route, especially with solar panels and all that stuff and the green initiative that we're trying to do.

But when you go into a water heater situation, it's a little trickier, it's a little bit cheaper to buy a water heater than it is the new style of heating, you know, for your uh what are they called on demand, and then the other one was for heating systems also.

They run gas and now they're using other systems, and that gets to be expensive.

So if you have an older home and you're changing your heater and you're heat and you're changing your water heater, that can be very expensive to be conforming with the new law.

Um, yeah, please.

No, I may not.

Oh, the the light on that one doesn't work.

The microphone work?

Press one more time.

There we go.

So in the last code cycle, the city decided that they were going to go above and beyond the code and and require that new homes be powered f solely by electrical power for a new home.

And but based on the lawsuits that arose, especially in Berkeley, we're no longer able to enforce that code.

So the new code we're removing any local amendment and going back to just the California code, which allows gas or electric.

So we can no longer enforce the electrification of buildings.

So we'll repeal that amendment.

So um the the fire codes ordinance um and their changes.

Is there significant um changes in there related to anything new that it's gonna I think totally different anything that the community's seen before?

We both agree that fire should have been here to address that question.

Um but because I mean what uh what I have read is is considerable, but definitely I will I will I will defer that to fire.

Okay.

So is fire coming to here, right?

Fire's coming for forward in on the 18th, I believe.

Right.

So that will come plug.

They will come and they will be able to explain each item within that matrix.

Uh but the majority of their amendments are this are similar to what were has been adopted in previous years, but there are minor changes and and uh we we will leave it to them to explain that.

And they will be here November 18th, that's what's I want to make sure.

Yep.

You know, I'm not sure you introduced yourself.

Did I miss something?

All right, uh good evening.

Um my name's Keith Weiner.

Um I'm your building official.

I work as a contractor uh to the city.

Um so I'm not city staff, which is why I'm not presenting, but it's uh pleased to make your acquaintance, uh Mr.

Mayor and the council.

I have an interesting follow-up question.

If I am correct, the county of San Mateo, a couple of years ago, um had an put an ordinance regulation that I don't know in the next year or so forbidding the sale of gas hot water heaters in the county.

I was wondering if this Berkeley case changes that as well.

I mean, not that you couldn't buy a hot water heater outside the county, but right.

Do you remember that?

Something like that, yeah.

I thought carb came out with regulations regarding appliances.

Something like on a certain date, you would no longer be able to sell, like gas water heaters, and gas stoves in California, something like that.

Well, I think that well, it no it was carb, but I think the county, I think they did a shorter period of time, but um, does this not account for carb regulations?

And that is the California Air Resources Board, right?

So there are there's there's legislation.

There's I've there's bills in process that would eliminate um carbon producing appliances by an X date, um, and those may very well come to fruition and and happen.

But the amendment that we put in was a local ordinance where the city of Half Moon Bay decided that we were going to go above and beyond the code, and that's the local ordinance is are what's being repealed throughout California, um and the code gets updated every three years for just these types of things.

And so if the state decides that they're going to enforce those codes and and further restrict the carbon outlay of a of a residential home, then those will be incorporated into the code that's issued by the um building standards commission.

Um but what we're talking about here is they're saying that legally we can no longer enforce a local amendment requiring somebody to to electrify their home.

Got it, thank you.

If I if I may just I was just you know using the old internet research, and it looks like the barrier air quality management district has a ban prohibiting the sale and installation of gas appliances that begins to take effect in 2027.

So I think that may be what we're referencing here.

Um so and it it it appears that that's still in effect regardless of the Berkeley decisions, so um maybe it just hasn't been challenged yet.

We'll find out, yeah.

Okay, would someone like to make a motion?

Are we ready?

Mayor Brownson, could we open the public hearing first?

Opening for public comment on this ordinance.

No one in the room, anyone online?

Okay, I thought it and then forgot it to do that.

Thank you.

We do have a hand raised now.

Oh no, see what we're adding.

Someone called admin named admin, would they like to speak?

You're showing up as admin, Mike Pereira, uh Mayor, sorry.

Yeah, go ahead, Mike, you have three minutes.

Yeah, I was I did click on that just as you were closing.

I think uh Councilmember Ruddick is correct about CARB, and of course the city managers just verified it.

And it does not seem that this was crafted with knowledge of that carb ruling.

And I don't know that there's much urgency to this, but it would seem to me that our your ordinance should take the CARB ruling into consideration.

I'll make that just that short comment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mike.

Well, I think we're we're actually adopting a state code though, right?

Correct.

Correct.

So, we if there's a if there's a a law that is statewide, it will be enacted by this code.

Right, it will just be a modifier.

And the code, the state code that's issued by the BSC, the Building Standards Commission, has supplements.

So if a state code that was statewide reaching that prohibited the sale of gas appliances, then it would be issued as a supplement to this code issued by BSC.

It wouldn't be a local amendment that would be needed to enforce that.

So I I stand firm that we'll we do not need to amend the code and that something that goes statewide will be affected in this code that we're adopting.

Okay, I move.

Public comments are now closed.

Thank you.

I move that uh we introduce an ordinance repealing chapter 14.06 of the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code Electrification of Buildings and repealing and replacing Chapter 14.04 of the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code, adopting by reference the 2025 edition of the California Building Standards Code with local amendments and finding amendments to be exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act and two direct staff to place the ordinance in the attached resolution establishing the need for local modifications to the California Board Building Standards Code and ratifying the coast side fire protection districts ordinance number 20 2025-01 on the consent calendar for adoption on November 18th, 2025.

Second, do we need a roll call on this, Kevin?

Sure.

Roll call, please.

Councilmember Johnson.

Yes.

Councilmember Nagangas.

Councilmember Penrose.

Yes.

Vice Mayor Ruddick.

Yes.

Mayor Brownstone.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

We'll now move on to item 9C, the 2023 through 2031 housing elements.

Start with a staff report.

Good evening, Mayor Brownstone and Council.

Last time I was before you, I was able to give you a very brief presentation.

This time I prepared a longer one, but I think I'm gonna skip ahead.

Um I was expecting we might have some members of the public here.

I would also like to make sure that Asher Cohn, who is the consultant who's worked on the housing element with city staff for years now, is available on Zoom, Maggie.

Maggie, is Asher available on Zoom.

So when we get to the point where you have clarifying questions, there may be some that he's better suited to answer than me.

So in bringing before you the fifth draft of the housing element, the staff recommendation is to receive public input and evaluate revisions to the 2023-2031 sixth cycle housing element, adopt the mitigated negative declaration for the housing element, and adopt the housing element dated October 2025 for review by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

From here on, I'll just say HCD.

So I have some slides here for background.

I think you're all very familiar with what the housing element is and why we're here.

I'm gonna skip through those.

Well, our our allocation is 480 units, and they break, they break out as 181 very low income units, 104 low, 54 moderate, and 141 above moderate.

And the reason I wanted to talk about this a little bit is because we did get some questions about why we have the number um 782 as uh also as the number of housing sites that we identified.

Um I think Commissioner Johnson wanted clarification on that, and that is because the state requires us to have a buffer of anywhere between 15 and 30 percent of housing sites, recognizing that even though we identify the number of housing sites for the number of units that the state requires, not all of those will be developed over the course of the eight years between housing elements.

So we have extra sites identified.

So that brings us to 782.

I'll skip through this, but I will point out that this was started in March 2021, public outreach for the housing element.

It's gone through a number of drafts.

Um the last draft that we sent to HCD for certification did not address Measure D because we were waiting on input from HCD.

We've since received some input from them in their May 20th letter.

So this is the fifth draft now.

They asked us to clarify the remaining steps needed for some of the pipeline sites under development.

So we added additional information about nongovernmental constraints and additional information on a site-by-site basis.

HCD also asked to add information on environmental constraints that might preclude development.

So we added a paragraph describing overall environmental constraints in Half Moon Bay, noting that the city lies within the coastal zone.

HCD asked about updates to any sites which was not applicable.

That's number three on this slide.

They also asked for additional language on potential interventions to support for supportive housing regarding emergency shelters.

And we added some suggested language.

And they and this is all if you want to see this specific language, it's all in attachment five in your um in your packets.

They asked they asked us to add additional information on the approval times for typical developments.

So we added some information to clarify that recent development patterns are typical concerning approval times and a program to monitor our approval times over time.

And then in terms of the really bigger change and the area where we spoke with HCD staff quite a bit.

So that would not be council acting to actually approve anything that would change ADUs or that would remove ADUs from Measure D, but simply putting the ballot measure out there so people could vote on that.

So those are the changes, the major changes to the housing element.

Also before you tonight is the CEQA document.

Rincon consultants prepared an initial study, which led to a mitigated negative declaration.

Um and published and duly noticed, I'll just say, September 9th, 2025 through October 9th, 2025.

There's no impact or less than significant impact with one mitigation measure which relates to protecting nesting birds.

And with that, I'll conclude my presentation, and I'm happy to take any questions.

Please.

I know there was some follow-up about what mechanism HCD relayed to the city about this measure D.

And it's my understanding there was nothing submitted in writing by HCD.

Well, the letter But but the letter does the letter say thou shall put it on a ballot.

Let me look at the language exactly.

I mean, I'm just asking.

I know there was global discussions, and I I don't understand why HCD won't put it in writing to us.

Yeah, they want the what the letter said was that they uh regarding program 6-8.

They want us to provide alternative actions with discrete timing if uh an LCP amendment is not pursued to exempt ADU and JDU and JDUs from residential dwelling unit allocation limitations.

So um so what they're saying here is they want to have ADUs and J DUs exempted from Measure D.

Um they did not say specifically it has to be through a ballot measure, okay.

However, given our own legal research, we know that the only way to do that is through a ballot measure.

And is the church property still the Catholic church property still an opportunity site?

It is an opportunity site, yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So I was sitting next to my coffee table about four o'clock this afternoon, and I noticed a the chronicle insight section sitting on the table that I hadn't really noticed until then.

And there's an article in it that says a new court ruling blows up California housing law.

And um, it's about an appeals court ruling against uh the city of Redondo Beach.

Uh and that they found they basically tossed out the housing element for a number of reasons, according to the article, but one of them was the use of um overlays to create more dwelling units to meet the quota.

And they're saying that that is basically illegal, and um it it you know it had other issues with the housing element as well.

But you know, the the headline is a new court ruling blows up California housing law.

So I'm just wondering um since our housing element and LCP rely on overlays, um, workforce housing overlays primarily.

Um have we done uh prepared an analysis of this appeals court ruling and its potential impact on on our housing element?

Um I mean it's basically saying you can't do that, and yet we're doing that, and I'm wondering should we even, you know, authorize this tonight if we don't understand what the impact of this ruling is on our own housing element?

Seems like there's similar issues here.

Um I read that case last week and was uh surprised by it given that I think in that case HCD actually had certified the housing elements, and generally the courts would defer to that.

I will say, um, I have not done that analysis.

Uh I don't know to the extent we rely on overlays versus other mechanisms.

I think we've got a much bigger buffer than the Redondo Beach had, and I think Rodondo Beach has um maybe had a different posture in terms of being a little bit more aggressive in terms of fighting HCD, frankly, than uh, you know, other cities are.

Uh so uh I think um I guess I would you know CFS has any additional thoughts about the the extent of our use of overlays, but I do believe we've got a pretty sizable buffer, um, which would insulate us from any sort of um, you know, litigation.

I think also the other thing is that in Redondo Beach, um the opponents of that plan had made very you know were very vocal in their opposition to the plan, uh so they had a heads up that there was litigation risk uh and and concern about uh the overlays.

I don't think we're we have a similar situation here, but I guess Leslie, I don't know if you have anything to add about overlay workforce uh housing overlays.

I'm reluctant to add anything because I I don't know anything about the case.

Well, I wasn't asking to add anything.

I was wondering whether we should defer temporarily while we you know analyze the impacts of this decision on us, but just a question.

I mean, I I would I would ask do we know how much of our estimated housing production is based on our workforce housing overlay?

Um not off the top of my head.

Um that might be a good question for Asher.

He might have a better sense of that.

I want to click.

So in this case, Redondo Beach was suing HCD.

No, it was actually an outside group uh challenging Redondo Beach's housing elements.

Which was a little bit of HC.

I think like a YIMBE type of group, if I'm not mistaken.

So HCD, who would appeal this case?

HCD.

I think it was the the I have to go back and look.

I think the plaintiff.

The article says it was a developer.

Yeah, okay, so um, pro development interests, the developed development community challenged the city, uh, the city's housing element.

I don't even know if HCD was a member, was a part of the lawsuit.

Um, but this was a you know a group that wanted more to see more housing in Redondo Beach that would be more readily approved.

So it wanted Redondo Beach to do better in terms of its its housing element.

But you don't think it's really similar to our situation.

Well, I think one thing I you know, I'm I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I think a critical question is really how much of our arena are we satisfying by our work by workforce housing overlay?

Because if that number is pretty small, I um I wouldn't be concerned about this case.

I think we are satisfying almost all of our arena through opportunity sites and housing sites.

Did we manage to get Asher on?

Okay.

Let's have him respond.

Yes, uh evening, good evening, members of council.

NASHAM group.

Um so we have I just um hold up the housing element.

I'm looking at uh we have a table of housing opportunity sites.

It's table C5 on C 13.

I don't know what number that is in the uh packet, but um there's potentially three sites that use the workforce housing overlay.

However, the critical difference here I believe with um what I've read with the Redondo Beach case is that they use an overlay over um sites that were active commercial or industrial uses.

And had um the argument I was made is that those were um sites that the underlying zoning did not uh did not require residential housing.

So it's a very different situation than the three sites we have where um there's um we don't have that conflict, and I would say that um what I've read of the Redondo Beach case that stemmed from an earlier case in um the city of Clovis, which had to do with housing overlays and um the similar situation, and that came out in a 2023, and as part of this um draft in the previous draft, we've worked with HCD in ensuring that we um what they called our Clovis analysis, and that was something that we had to work through with them to make sure that our overlay wouldn't conflict with that underlying um legal case.

Thanks.

That's a very helpful distinction in terms of the Redondo Beach case, and and thank you for reminding me that because I I uh for I failed to mention that the underlying zoning there was commercial, and so um the court was very concerned that this wouldn't actually develop as housing.

Uh and so our housing sites, Asher, correct me if I'm wrong, uh they are um different.

The overlay is over um essentially resident residential uses.

That's correct.

The zoning that would allow residential use and overlay, just allows um workforce housing.

So a different style of residential.

Yeah, I'm hearing I feel that's different enough.

So we could proceed.

I mean, well, that's a discussion.

And yeah, we're just clarifying here.

Sorry.

Are there any other clarifying questions before we open it up for public comment?

Okay, um, now open for public comment.

Uh so far, um we have two online and one in the room.

I'll start with the one in the room, which will be uh Joaquin Jimenez, and he will be followed by Jeremy Levine, who's online.

So first, we hear from Joaquin.

Thank you.

Hello.

Good evening.

One more time.

Uh Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members, uh, city staff, uh, members of the public.

Uh so we are in a predicament.

Um, questions.

I mean, is half the city of Bay ready to provide you know housing by uh 2031, right?

The arena cycle ends on 2031.

I mean, we are waiting for housing to be uh, I mean, building our community.

Um, I don't know if you remember.

Uh I do remember March 8th, uh 2023.

There was a coastal commission uh meeting here at the Oceano Hotel, and one of the questions that it was asked to them, how come you're not approving low income housing development in the coast?

The answer was we don't have any applic applicants, so they're not denying any development for low-income housing or very low-income housing here in the coast.

They're an applicants.

What is half of doing to uh invite our local develop developers to build low-income housing that is greatly needed here in our community?

555 Kelly.

About housing for retired farm workers.

I mean, so far the low-income housing that we have is in Stone Pine, 46 units.

I mean, the numbers are very low income, 181 units for low income, 104.

Add them up.

So to you, questions are what are we gonna do when we are not able to meet this quota of building this low-income housing in the state comes in?

And it's gonna force us to develop.

I mean, what are we ready for that?

There's a big discussion about potential sites here in half of it to develop housing.

Yes, potential sites.

Catholic community, thinking that we were trying to take the land away from them.

We were not taking no land away from anybody.

It's a potential site.

We have other sites.

We need the housing, or community needs the housing.

We don't do this, we're gonna be in trouble.

The city of Half-May is gonna be in trouble.

We're gonna see a lot of four-story buildings that are gonna be built for four long for low-income housing.

Are we prepared for that?

Ask your question.

Thank you.

Thank you, Joaquin.

Our next speaker uh on Zoom online is Jeremy Levine, to be followed by Mike Ferrar.

Good evening, Half Moon Bay City Council, city staff, Jeremy Levine here speaking on behalf of the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County.

HLC exists to work with communities and their leaders to produce and preserve quality affordable homes.

And to that end, we have uh commented and reviewed and commented and reviewed and sometimes commented and reviewed some more on every housing element in San Mateo County.

Half Moon Bay is the last housing element waiting for certification from HCD, so we're following it closely.

And uh a couple thoughts.

The first is that the housing element process requires removing constraints to housing, and Measure D is a pretty strong constraint to housing.

HCD is asking the city to determine that ADUs are not subject to the Measure D unit cap, and we agree with that legal analysis that just under existing ADU law, the city can deem that ADUs do not apply to the CAP overall.

It's really important to further ADU production in the city to not constrain it.

And we even go a step further.

As we've written in emails to the city, we think that Measure D is not enforceable under state housing element law.

The city of Alameda had a somewhat similar growth cap, which they deemed a unmitigable constraint on meeting their housing goals, which they then bypassed.

And uh they they got HCD's sign off to do that.

HCD, I think would support the city declaring Measure D on enforceable under state law.

And that is potentially gonna be necessary for Half Moon Bay to meet its housing goals, as as the previous commenter noted, there will have to be more housing in Half Moon Bay, which brings me to my second point.

There are projects currently proposed in Half Moon Bay that need this council's support, and without this council's support, the city is uh the city's housing element is not going to pass muster.

So I HLC and our partners hope that the city will move forward with the existing housing proposals, including projects like 555 Kelly, which are part of the community's housing element, and not try to impose again new constraints that are not described in the document.

So we we look forward to continuing to support the city's work for what it's worth.

We don't think that you have anything to worry about from the Redondo Beach case, so I'm glad the council member brought it up and did due diligence, but we do think that there are ways the city can continue working to support housing and uh being bold with policy reforms that will make a difference.

So thank you for your time.

I look forward to hearing the rest of tonight's conversation.

Thank you, Jeremy.

Uh next speaker, and looks like our final speaker is Mike Ferrar.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, council members.

I don't want to get too distracted by the prior comment.

I will try to zero in on uh some things that troubled me, which is a state agency that's not elected.

It's really not even appointed.

Telling you that you have to change your ordinances, or you have to put something on the ballot.

I find that extraordinarily distasteful.

It makes me very happy that I'm not sitting in any of your seats.

The uh I am disappointed if the Coastal Commission appears to be standing by while this happens.

Uh if I were to believe in ghosts, I would have to say something about the ghost of Peter Douglas and what his reaction would be to this situation.

Measure D is a very good ordinance.

It was passed by a wide margin by the voters of Half Moon Bay.

There seems to be this mythical concept that there's this huge demand that would only be built if we would get rid of Measure D.

So how many are rejected every year?

I will tell you, it's a piddly number.

And in most years, we're not even close to the measure D limits.

This is ghost chasing.

Maybe you have to agree to this, although you know the hippies used to call it a future trip.

Promising to do something in the future in return for something now, which is a bit strange.

But it's, I guess that's the problem that you faced with.

Put it on the ballot.

Some of us are not going to vote for it.

Some of us will fight it.

And I think that really should be brought to the people.

Even the half count should go to the people.

Let the people vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mike.

That concludes our public session.

Thank you, everybody, for contributing.

Your input.

Public session closed.

Now open for council discussion.

I think uh well, the point five.

I think I was talking to a commissioner uh over the weekend about it, and it's either no measure D for ADUs and Jada's, or the point five, and it goes to the vote because we're changing measure D.

I think it should go to the vote.

Um, but I also am in favor of ADUs, because I think it's are we doing oh, sorry.

Uh because I think ADUs are important for our town.

I think it's something that I remember back in the day as a planning commissioner, ADUs were not popular and we didn't want them.

Uh, but the way this housing element's been written with parking was an issue, and they're restricting or not, they're pulling back on that a little bit.

Uh they weren't as popular, and I remember substandard lots were we were trying to merge the lots and make bigger homes, and now we're saying smaller homes, so we're trying to make them more affordable.

Um so I'm I'm in favor of the ADUs, I'm in favor of going to the vote uh so that we can get people's input on this, but I also think we don't we have to have like another option too if it doesn't pass in a vote.

Isn't that true in there somewhere it was written?

Yeah, if if the ballot measure didn't pass, they would ask that we explore other avenues.

It's not clear what those other avenues are, sorry about that.

So I don't think the homeless count was correct on uh page two sixty because we we got data today, if not mistaken.

Um how many people we have because in the report it says a certain amount, but it doesn't match.

Yeah, I can if if it's okay to address that the homeless count, the official number comes through a biannual process.

The data you heard today is an informal process that is only within San Mateo County and is done through the service providers.

So there different there's similar comparable data points, but they're collected in different ways, and so there's a consistency here that's important for for this particular item.

So what we heard today is boots on the ground, something going on.

The number that's referenced here is a more consistent approach that happens every other year, and that count will be upped uh re-upped in January, but we won't have that data till late next year.

We talk about the mobile home park facilities expansion of existing uh mobile home parks and allow uh appropriate sites.

I agree with that, which is on 272.

I know Keith Nearhan's talking about building some mobile homes up Goat Hill and he's looking at other areas.

Uh workforce housing and essential workers, I brought that and for teachers.

Um what else?

In uh I'm in support of the small lots fill-ins, and then what else was I talking about?

Oh, I want to talk about um LC L UP policy 2-47, page 282, uh repairing.

I was bringing up it's talking about riparian and um riparian areas, and I was giving like examples of Keyhoe.

If you have a riparian area that's deemed riparian, so the water course now called water course, but it has willow trees.

How do how many other homes do we have that are in that riparian area like ditches and all that stuff, and they're excluded, and here we have potential areas that somebody could build the ADU, but we have the riparian, and that's an issue.

And how would that be affected and what kind of is it is it is this gonna make it easier or is it gonna make it harder or is it the same process because that now has to go to CDP and Coastal Commission?

So typically when there's um when there's development that would be near a riparian area, there's a buffer that it has to stay out of.

If the if the lot is such that they can't completely stay out of the buffer, they move as far away as they can, and there are other uh smaller buffers that that you put in place in the in that case.

What if the property already has mitigated measure that it was was built out at some point with a mitigated wager like a frog wall?

Could you add an ADU in that area then afterwards since it's already been mitigated?

I'm sorry, say that again.

If you added into your home, let's say 20 years ago, and you went into the riparian area or the buffer area, but there was a mitigation that you did, like for instance a frog wall, and it was approved by fishing game and all that stuff.

Would you have to go through that whole process again to add an ADU?

I can't I can't say off the top of my head what the process would be in that kind of very specific situation.

Um but I would say that if the ADU is gonna impact habitat, then that would take it out of the realm of an administrative coastal development permit, okay.

And then on so the traffic conditions are level F as called out on 284, uh, and that's so they're saying on the uh mitigated uh deck, whatever it was, the that's not gonna change.

The traffic will always be F.

I mean, we're we're not gonna even though we're growing, it's just gonna always stay the same level because we don't have any really course of action to change the traffic.

Is that correct?

Yeah, and you answered the question on the 480 units versus 782, it's just that there's a buffer incorporated inside theirs just so they they go bigger and they think outside.

Um I think oh fire safety.

Um I don't need to talk about that, but uh the parking standards.

So on that note, we're we're easing up on the parking standards for ADUs and Jada's, correct?

And for these homes.

But at the same token, we have a parking issue in our town.

So we I think as as our city we should think about that because we have parking issues, but we're also easing up on the parking restrictions for these units in town in the downtown area.

So that's one thing that it's I mean, we've all talked about that before.

Are there any more?

Do we need an answer to something now or no?

Okay.

Do you want to comment?

Yeah, go ahead.

Just a couple of things.

If I could direct something to the city attorney, Catherine, just quickly, you're absolutely confident that the Redondo Beach decision has no nothing here in half moon bay.

You're we're we're okay.

Yeah, thank you for bringing it up again.

I actually had a chance to pull up the case because I was going by memory because I read it last week and hadn't refreshed on it.

Uh so just to summarize the facts of that case, I do think it's distinguishable, but just to better explain why.

Um in that case it was a developer that sued the city, arguing that its housing element was not in compliance uh because they had not identified adequate sites, and the sites that they had identified, they were commercial sites that were zoned commercial and industrial, and the city was using them to accommodate their low-income housing need, and the city uh put a um an overlay that would allow for density of up to 55 dwelling units per acre.

So the city was really hoping, you know, basically on paper, it was looking like these are gonna be really good sites.

We're gonna get a lot of housing out of them.

But what the court found was that well, that doesn't actually ensure that any housing units are going to be developed there because uh um a developer may develop up to 55 units doesn't ensure that that will happen um given that they're industrial and commercial, that someone could just come in and just do industrial or commercial.

Uh and so um I mean I did find the case surprising given that HCD actually had certified Redondo Beach's housing element.

So I I am surprised at the outcome, nonetheless.

Um I do not see any parallel with what uh Hafman Bay's housing element has done, given that uh the overlay has only been applied to a certain a small number of sites, and those sites are um allow for residential use, uh not the not the thing that the court was concerned about here, that they actually just might develop as commercial sites and we're gonna get no housing units out of them.

So we're we don't have our our workforce overlays or on residentially zone.

Correct, correct and um I think our consultant could give a little bit more details about the specific sites, uh, but that uh but yes, that's correct.

That's the that's a major distinguishing factor.

Okay, and and then I still I I I can't comprehend why H C D is demanding us to put something on the ballot.

Okay, not they're not HCD doesn't have any right to command us to do anything, okay.

Put anything on the ballot.

Thank you.

Do you want to go?

I just want to say there is a workforce overlay over shoreline station, is there not?

And the the public facilities and shoreline station, 10 units workforce overlay.

Do we want to check with our consultant to see if um that's correct?

Yeah, yeah.

Can Asher, did you get that question?

Um I'm so sorry, I was responding to your question about ADU parking.

Actually, yeah, okay.

Okay.

The question about which sites have the workforce housing overlay.

Could you repeat the question?

I I was just pointing out that there is one for this area over here that allows for 10 10 units maximum.

Yeah.

But I you know, I don't need a big discussion about it.

I'm just pointing out the that one of the housing sites in this area for 10 units is covered by the workforce is there because of the workforce housing overlay.

Right because you know so there's also workforce overlay over school district property that's not zoned for housing and there's one here in the um Ted Adcock center area.

So it's it's not all of ours are over existing housing zoning.

That's all I'm trying to point out.

Yeah but this is not an agendized item tonight we're here to discuss two issues.

One is the issue of whether or not JDUs and ADUs can be have reduced amount of measure D allocations specifically half a half an ADU half measure D allocation and whether or not we are going to pay any attention at all to HCD's suggestion was it I don't know what we call it that we initiate a ballot measure.

It's not their business and and I am absolutely against it.

So uh I I am I am in favor of a half of a measure D allocation to J ADUs and JDUs.

But I am not in favor of any kind of ballot measure.

I would agree with that I'm I'm fine with um assigning half of a an allocation to a um an ADU and exempting JDUs and I I think we can do that without putting anything on the ballot.

I'd say we just do it and you know if we're challenged and then do something different but um yeah I'm not going to agree to put uh put it on the ballot at this point but I will agree to um look for ways to accommodate them and if that means assigning a lesser amount of measure d I'm good with that or exempting JDUs I'm good with that as a matter of policy.

And I think looking at a rollover you know if we have you know unused you know we let we give people uh measure D's year goes by they don't use them we take them back we roll them over allow the carry over that creates more measure D's and more development and I don't think we have to go to the ballot to do that.

Can we agree to that at this hearing?

Okay I mean I'm just I'm just asking out questions.

Well I think what we're saying is um sure let's approve this tonight but take out any mention that we're gonna put anything on the ballot you know that we're gonna process we're gonna you know work on assigning a half uh an allocation exempting JDUs and looking at rollovers and I'm willing to have that in the housing element and approve that with that language just don't include a sentence saying we agree to put anything on the ballot I don't think it's necessary yet.

So according to staff does this meet what HCD wants it's just we don't have to do it with a ballot initiative.

What yeah so what HCD um asked us for was first the code amendments to be followed by the ballot measure in 2028.

So the code amendments would get us to a half a unit more quickly because we wouldn't be able to do a ballot measure until 2028 um and then the ballot measure would remove ADUs from measure D altogether, and that's really where HCD wants to go.

They want ADUs out of Measure D.

And by 2028, we're already going to be in the next cycle, the next arena cycle yeah and then you know, we'll be working with HCD on an update.

So, you know, at that point, we've been unsuccessful uh exempting these by a matter of policy, you know.

Then we can deal with it, but I don't say we could I don't I don't want any language committing to a ballot measure.

I think it is important to point out that um based on our conversations with HCD, they will not certify this housing element if we don't include that language.

So just making it transparent to the council what we can expect if we if we remove that language and submit it to them, it is likely that they'll come back with additional comments and we'll continue this process.

But then we don't have a housing element.

Right.

Right, and then what?

Well, we know the housing element.

Yeah, we've talked about the the risks and the consequences, but that that's you know, I'm willing to take the risk.

I am unwilling to have them tell us something as outrageous as having us tell us to put something on the ballot.

That's not their business.

They can tell us about ADUs and measure D allocations all they want, and I agree with that.

I I think that's their place, but it's not their place to tell us what to put on the ballot.

It's not.

That's interfering with city government.

Sorry.

Yeah, I mean that's that's not that's not ended staff.

This is not staff's our demand.

It's an HCD demand, and I just want to make sure we were clear that there's the likely consequences it will not be certified, and we'll be continuing to work with HCD on this going forward.

So, well, just tell them that we're going to do this without including any language about a ballot measure.

So it's kind of a trust issue here.

We want to say we'll do this by policy.

That's the policy we'll establish.

Um, we don't need to have a ballot initiative, that'll be our policy, and don't expect that policy to be reversed.

Um, and talks talk that through with um HCD.

Now you asked what's the con now the consequence of not having an approved housing element opens up the whole builder's remedy issue, right?

So builders can come in and start building all kinds of things without any restrictions, all kinds of heights, etc.

So that's always been the risk of not having an approved housing element.

So that's what we're balancing here.

If somebody wants to put changes to measure D in the ballot, citizens can put gather you know petitions and signatures and put it on the ballot.

Doesn't have to be the council.

So are we gonna structure a motion around this or do we say we want to adopt something here excluding the requirement to have a um ballot initiative that we agree to uh not include um ADUs?

We don't mention the ballot at all.

Do we want to make changes to our policy about ADUs and JDs and measure D allocations and leave it at that?

I'll forget about the rollover.

Well, that doesn't really address well, maybe I can comment on that.

The current draft of the housing element that we've submitted for your consideration includes language about a ballot measure.

So I think what the mayor is asking is if you want to make a motion adopting the draft of the housing element that we presented to you today, but before we submit it to HCD, we remove those references.

That's what he's he's pointing out.

Is that okay?

Great.

So moved.

I'm like, I don't phrase exactly.

What's the phrasing of that?

Catherine, maybe you can have it.

I can take a stab at that.

And I actually, before I do, I do want to um uh confirm what Vice Mayor uh Roddick said about the workforce housing overlay.

There are two sites I'm seeing in the opportunity sites um that have a workforce housing overlay over um a public facilities land use designation.

Um so I guess I would say um, you know, that's that's different.

Yeah, I can still distinguish it because it's not commercial, um uh like the Redondo Beach case.

Um, but again, we we do have a sizable buffer, and so even if for some reason those sites were not allowed because someone sued and challenged them, we would still have a buffer.

So I don't think anyone would be incentivized to to challenge those sites anyway.

Um as far as a motion, okay.

So I'm gonna point you to program 6-8, uh, which basically says all the things that the um the city is uh going to do uh regarding measure D.

And the first two bullets, it sounds like are acceptable.

Um seek approval of a local coastal program amendment to revise the allocation requirements for ADUs and JDUs from a full allocation per unit to a lesser amount, such as a partial allocation of 0.5 or amount considered reasonable by the city.

The city will prepare amendments to its local coastal program for council consideration and coastal commission certification to increase available allocations.

That sounds like that's okay with the council.

Um and then the next bullet I think is also okay.

It's reallocate unused measure D allocations for ADUs and affordable housing units by rolling over those allocations to the next year for which no building permit is applied.

I keep that one.

The next bullet is the one that says prepare a ballot measure for the 2028 election with substantial public communications process that will revise measure D by one, revising uh to define the downtown area, and then two exempting ADUs um and JDUs from Measure D.

Uh so I think that's the bullet point that the the council is proposing to strike, and and the last bullet point, which then would become moved because it says if the ballot measure fails, the city will seek other measures as necessary.

So the I guess the motion to approve uh the housing element striking the two um that those two bullets in uh section and sorry in program six-eight.

And I would say, you know, exempt JDUs.

I mean, they're part of a house.

Why would we, you know, require another measure D.

So I would include going to the coastal commission for an amendment, not just for you know reducing the measure D required for exterior ADUs, but why not just exempt JDUs?

Um the language does include JDUs, uh J ADUs.

Um I guess the the thinking was well they they do actually generate population, some some level of population, and so depending on the data we can collect, the city can collect in terms of how much population we just want to make sure it's consistent with measure D.

Um and that I think that could be a decision that could be made uh when council considers the amendment to to uh measure D.

So I but I but yeah, I I see your point that they do not generally generate the same level of population.

Do you have anything to add to that?

Or the overall motion.

Yeah, I mean, we would we could use language to consider exempting JDUs just to make sure that we include it as a possibility, but we would need the research to back it up.

Yeah, I would put that language in because it looks committed on our part, right?

Right.

So that would be go in the first bullet to add a consider um exempting JDUs.

We're just taking a little thing.

Okay.

Oh, yes, I'm happy to um we'd like you to to state the motion, a suggested motion.

That would be terrific.

I didn't know if you needed a break to do that or actually, I could use a short break to do that.

Okay.

Thank you for suggesting that.

Okay.

Let's take a short break.

Thank you.

And we'll come back.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

We're back in session, and we have a motion to make some language here.

If I could, may I do want to just uh make one explain one explanatory note uh regarding this staff recommendation?

Um there's two recommended changes to program six point eight six-eight language.

Um the first one we talked about, it's the second bullet, remove all references to a ballot measure.

The first sentence in that program, I uh I will say I have some concerns with, and from a legal perspective, I would recommend deleting it.

I understand it was language recommended by HCD, but I did just want to note that it states that measure D is only applicable to the extent that it is judicially determined to be in compliance with state law.

That suggests to me that we need to go to court to get a judicial determination, and that um just like I think the council's concerned about being forced to put something on the ballot.

I I think there's a I I would have a concern about being forced to put take something to court to determine that it is valid.

So I think that um so my recommendation would be um, since we're making changes to this program to also remove that sentence.

So we can just say so.

Okay.

You want me to read that out.

So this is the this is the full uh recommended uh motion in front of you.

Oh, you don't?

I'll make the motion here.

We move that we adopt the mitigated negative declaration.

For the twenty twenty three, twenty thirty one six cycle.

Housing element and adopt the housing element date in October twenty twenty five for review by the California Department of Housing and Community Development with the following amendments to programs six programs six through eight.

Six-eight, sorry.

Remove the sentence measure D as currently enforced through section eight of the measure.

Is only applicable to the extent that it is judicially determined to be in compliance with state law, and remove all references to a ballot measure.

Second.

Can we have a roll call, please?

Councilmember Johnson.

Yes.

Councilmember Nagengast.

No.

Councilmember Penrose?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Reddick?

Yes.

Mayor Brownstone.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you, everybody.

Moving on, we will now have a financial report for the quarter ended on September 30th, 2025.

And thank you, Ken.

We'll uh deliver our.

All right, good evening, uh Mr.

Mayor and Council.

Uh today I'm gonna be presenting the uh financial report.

Uh we do these presentations quarterly, and this is for the first quarter that ended this past September.

Oh, I gotta show up.

There we go.

So starting with revenues, we have our major revenues with a comparison to the prior budget based on percentage.

Um starting with the first one, uh transient occupancy tax or TOT tax.

We had budgeted 8.6 million, and we've received about 900K.

Uh that's about 11% of budget, and compared to last year during this time, it was nine percent.

So it's uh a little early to conclude definitively, but so far it's performing a bit better than anticipated.

Um, and I have more information on the next slide.

But generally for the past uh six months have been positive for us in this category.

Property taxes that we've received uh we budgeted about 3.7.

We've received about 700K.

Uh this is a bit of an outlier for us.

Uh the 700K is a late payment that was due to us um uh from the prior year.

So there's a portion of property taxes called a vehicle and loofee.

Um, that is uh these are fees that are there's a point of contention between cities and uh the states regarding these funds.

Uh this was owed to us last year.

The state um was a bit late in committing to incending this payment, but it arrived um in in this past August.

Outside of this outlier, we haven't received uh much property taxes yet, but that is of expected.

Um, we get our the majority of our property taxes in December and in April.

Sales and use tax.

Uh we budgeted 4.9.

We've decided we received about 380k.

Um that does include measure R, uh, which went into effect back in April, our sales tax increase, about 120 of that is measure R monies.

Between the two, we've received about eight percent of our budget.

It's a little early to tell, but so far is trending as anticipated.

Other revenues uh we budgeted about six point four, we've received about five hundred K.

Now this category contains everything else and a lot of different things.

So benchmarking is not really a one-to-one thing.

Um, but the reason why it's a little bit less than it was in the prior year is because of um grants.

We no longer are getting a carrier's grant, so that's kind of reflective in that number.

But overall, um, we can't really draw a conclusion.

Uh, not if we're gonna hit these numbers, but uh we will know more at the mid year uh point.

Overall, we have received uh 2.5 million in revenues or about 11% of budget.

Uh still early to tell, but uh revenues generally look promising.

Now for TOT specifically, uh this chart is of our revenues by month for the past six months.

The darker TL columns is um for this year, and the gray columns are for the year uh prior.

As you can see month over month, we've been performing better than the prior year.

Um, and the past few years, TOT has been was uh sliding down, but recently is starting to pick up in what appears to be moving in the right direction.

Um we don't know if it will hold, but if we just do what we did last year, we could hit our budget number.

On the expenditure side, we are looking good because expenditures are a bit more timely and regular, our benchmark is 25%.

Um, which we're underneath that, we are at about 9% of what we budgeted for.

Now, this finance update does include a budget amendment request for council to um for consideration.

It is 30,000.

Uh this was a budget line item that I intended to include with the original budget adoption back in June.

It was a bit of a late revision that didn't quite make it.

Um, but during this uh review and update process, I noticed the mission and just kind of wanted to work it back in officially into the budget.

With that, here is our fund balances and reserves, um, what they would look like uh June 30th, 2026.

Reserves are at 8.8 million, and because we ended last year better than what we expected, uh, we're estimating about 3.2 million in unassigned uh funds.

It's quite a bit, but we don't recommend assigning these funds until at least until mid-year, preferably through our actual annual budget process, and when we have more uh data on revenues, since our reserves are underfunded, we're at 36 percent.

Um, our target is 50.

Um, more likely than not, um, the recommendation from staff uh at mid-year or at a budget process, which is to put it back into reserves, anything unassigned.

Then finally, our last topic is something called carry forwards.

Um, so this is a term carry forward funds are monies that roll over uh from one fiscal year to the other, and what happens is this is because um we have capital projects and other multi-year projects that are that go across multiple fiscal years, but our budgets are one year at a time, so we have to roll them over or carry them forward during the budgeting process and do the timing.

We can't um this we have to estimate what's gonna roll over, but we don't know that number until after the budget has been approved.

Um, so now that we have our final numbers from last year, the recommendation included into tonight is just to make those adjustments to reconcile those funds just to true it up and roll over um and adjust based on um what actually happened.

The summary of the projects are is below.

We have uh about 44 million.

Uh that's the total project budgets, and we've spent uh thus far almost 20 million, leaving a remaining budget of about almost 25 million.

Um that's mostly I would say 90 percent uh in capital projects, but we do have a handful of special initiatives or special projects, and that is included in attachment two of the uh in the agenda packet.

Overall, uh I got a bit of a wordy recommendation for council uh it accept the financial report for the quarter ended on September 30th, 2025, and authorize the administrative services directory to make budgetary entries to one include a 30,000 budget adjustment to the community development department's planning collaborative, and two incorporate previously approved carry for funds related to capital improvement projects and other multi-year initiatives.

With that, um I'm happy to answer any questions and that's all I have uh for council tonight.

Thank you for the updated report, Ken.

Appreciate that.

Um council members, do you have any questions?

Start with Patrick.

Ken, what was what was the because I think you told us at one time when I was just starting off, what's the reserves that you like to see, or maybe Matthew told me, and what are we at right now?

What's the what's the average?

There was a magic number you guys told me.

We like to see this.

So uh there is an organization called GFOA, which is a national wide organization that kind of dictates best practices for uh municipalities, and their number is 16 percent because our town uh relies heavily on TOT.

Um council approved a policy at 50 percent, and currently we're at 36 percent.

Okay, and maybe to clarify a little bit, we have two different types of reserves.

We have our general reserves, and that's really what the 16% represents.

In our case, we uh we have a policy that says 30 percent, and it's 30 percent of our annual budget.

So um whatever our annual budget is, 30 percent of that amount needs to be set aside in our operating reserves, and those are the reserves that are really there for dire emergencies.

There's some major crisis, and we just don't have money coming in, and that's the only time we would spend that money.

In 2019, the council also adopted what we call an economic uncertainty reserve at 20%, which was to smooth us through challenging times such as what we've been going through here, and that's what takes our reserves to 50%.

So our reserve policy is significantly higher than other cities, but we think it's important because I think with the smaller budget and our reliance on tourism, a little more volatile.

So the goal would be to get back to that 50% reserve amount, 30% fully funded for operating, 20% for economic uncertainty reserves.

I think it was 36 or 32, right?

36.

Yeah, so amazingly in 2019, the year before COVID, when all our TOT disappeared, we had this incredible reserve.

So I'm just saying, and now we're and now we're getting back to fully funding it.

So quite the accomplishment, especially compared to a lot of other cities in the county.

So thanks.

Thanks for the question.

Um Paul, did you have any questions?

Did you have any questions?

Um, someone like I can make the motion, someone like to make the motion.

It's not and just to confirm we don't have any public comments both in person or online.

Public session, public session comments open, none online, none in the room.

Thank you.

Public comments closed.

Sorry, thank you.

Okay, we'll be we accept the financial report for the quarter ended on September 30, 2025, and authorize the administrative services director to make budgetary entries to one include a $30,000 budget adjustment for the community development department's planning collaborative, and two, incorporate previously approved carry forward funds related to capital improvement projects and other multi-year initiatives.

Second, I will take a roll call since we have some spending there.

Councilmember Johnson?

Yes.

Councilmember Nagangas?

Yes.

Councilmember Penrose?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Reddick?

Yes.

Mayor Brownstone.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

We'll now move on to item 10B, the minimum wage agreement with the County of San Mateo.

Have a quick staff report.

Good evening, Mayor, Council.

Irma Acosta, City Manager's Office.

And I am here tonight.

I will be presenting the staff report on the minimum wage agreement between the City of Hafoom Bay and the County of San Mateo.

My presentation will outline the background of our local minimum wage ordinance, the role of the county's Office of Labor Standards and Enforcement, and the benefits of the partnership.

So I'll just begin by providing a little bit of background.

On February 4th, 2020, Council adopted the minimum wage ordinance that set the local minimum wage of $15 per hour.

Since then, the wage has increased annually based on the consumer price index for the San Francisco, Oakland, and Santa Jose region.

And as of January 1st, 2025, the wage is currently $17.47 per hour.

And it applies to all businesses operating within city limits.

Over the past few years, the city has received several reports of wage theft and underpayment claims.

We have been lucky to be able to work with the district's attorney's office on these cases.

But the cases also highlighted the need for a more structured and consistent process for investigating and resolving these complaints.

Also referred as OLSE, and their mission is to implement and enforce the county's own minimum wage ordinance as well as provide education, outreach, and investigative services related to local labor standards.

Under the agreement, the county will receive and investigate complaints of possible violations of the city's minimum wage ordinance.

And when appropriate, they will issue formal findings and a notice of violation to the employer.

And if the agreement is renewed, it would continue on an annual basis of $10,000 per year, adjusted annually annually by the consumer price index for wage earners.

So partnering with the county offers several benefits to the city.

One, it will provide faster and more consistent investigation of wage claims.

Second, it'll give the city access to expertise and labor standards and enforcement.

Since we don't have a lot of the resources in-house to be able to investigate these claims.

Thank you.

Any clarifying questions?

No clarifying questions.

I'd like to open it up for public comment.

Any public comments?

None in the room, none in online.

Closing our public comments.

You want me to read it?

Can you bring the recommendation for the last week?

Um it should be on there, yeah.

Oh, okay.

No, I just want to say that um I think this is great.

Anything that will take the load off of staff to investigate things that are very difficult to investigate is a great idea.

So it looks like it's a win-win.

Yeah.

I move that we authorize the city manager to execute an agreement with the county of San Mateo for investigative services related to enforcement of the city's minimum wage ordinance through the county of San Mateo Office of Labor Standards and Enforcement.

Second.

We'll do a roll call just for the heck of it.

Councilmember Johnson?

Yes.

Councilmember Nagengast?

Yes.

Councilmember Penrose?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Reddick?

Yes.

Mayor Brownstone.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Uh moving on to commission committee updates.

We don't have any updates tonight.

So the only thing I'll share is our recreation commission meetings are normally the fourth Tuesday of each month or Thursday of each Wednesday of each month, sorry.

And as typical from past years, because of the holiday, both Thanksgiving and Christmas fall right around that time.

We cancel those two meetings each year and do a single meeting in mid-December.

So the next meeting won't be until mid-December for the recreation commission in case anybody's looking for that.

Great, thank you.

Let's see for future discussion.

Just a reminder from last time we're gonna look into uh health insurance, I believe, right?

So I just want to remind you.

The staff's already initiated that work and we'll bring something back in December.

Great.

Um any other yeah.

It would would be great if sometime soon we could have a just an update on the planning around Carter Park and fundraising and um the process and all that stuff.

Sure, happy to bring that forward.

Wait, try seconds to the mayor.

Maybe that could just be a city manager update rather than agenda item.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

Uh, any city council reports?

Yeah, please.

So I um and I'm not sure if that project started rumor in 2024.

Caltrans came to the Columbia Commission and to the city and well, the council, and it was a $33 million project.

And one of their statements why they couldn't do work that we wanted because they couldn't go to the CDC.

So, well, we're not gonna fund us.

The CTC's California Transportation Commission does the funding.

So this project now is a forty-seven million dollar project, so apparently they got 14 more million more dollars.

So that you know, when somebody tells you that you have to, you know, dive deeper in there.

Cause the reason why I know this, because I was following this, and I actually remember I appealed this to the Coastal Commission.

So the project was supposed to start this week.

I'm not sure if it did, because I know there's some issues.

They the coastal commission required them to have parking spaces because it was happening up in you know the north end of the town and they were moving parking off near Surfers Beach, and there was a meeting.

I didn't attend that recently with the county Caltrans, maybe even uh Becker's office showed up.

But they're trying to j figure out parking up there, Burnham Strip or not, and I don't know the outcome of that, but I think that maybe I don't know that's why the project maybe hasn't started yet, but it was supposed to start this week.

But I do want to acknowledge Caltrans is paving Highway 92, which definitely really needed it.

I don't know that those of you if you have to travel it, there was some serious rutting in that asphalt, and they've been doing some paving there.

So but again, it's a 47 million dollar project, and they said, Oh, this project will go away if we have to we if we have to ask for more money to do some work that we were asking, so it would be nice to have another meeting with a Caltrans representative again at some point we mention that, right, just to see what's really going on.

So um, yeah.

Thank you.

Any other city council reports?

We have to give Caltrans to answer the phone.

Yeah, any other city council reports?

Um to the mayor, I think it's just something that I want to bring up.

Um I got a phone call from Julie Shankman, um, who's very active in the big wave.

I'm sure you guys know about that.

And she really expressed to me that she would really like for us as the council to go to one of the events and just become more involved because we are they are part of our ad, you know, it's half moon bay, and they are gonna supply uh we're gonna offer a hundreds of jobs is what she's saying, and she'd want us to actually look at the facility and tour the facility.

So I told her to be more active and let us know when it comes around so that we can because I've been going, but that's because I've been going.

Um but I told her I haven't really seen anything on my agenda, so I want she's gonna bring that forward.

So she'd really like us to go as a group and when they have a grand opening that's gonna be coming.

The other thing I wanna point out is there's a um Kirk Raymer and Dave Shore have been pushing hard on a pool at the high school, and I think they got a bond, and Matthew can give more details.

I did I don't have my papers because it's in 700 of other of the papers I lost it.

But they are proposing, if I'm not mistaken, Matthew, you can correct me, I was 13 million to redo the old pools and twenty-nine to rebuild new pools, and they were pushing more towards the rebuild, and they got what 13 million in a bond or something like that.

So they wanna work with us, but they're not asking for money, they want us to support the pool and see if the if council and the city could help in any way.

So the there's that's one thing that they're moving forward.

I think Matthew can allude to it.

I can update you on that.

We're actually meeting with them on the thirteenth.

So um just to get all the facts and details and about where we may or may not be able to um help them.

And by the way, if Julie Shankman would like to come to one of our meetings, you know, and just give us a little bit.

I asked her to come tonight, but she'll put she will be here.

It's I'm just tonight she didn't pull it off, but I asked her to come forward.

Going on a tour sounds great, so let us know.

And then also what I brought forward when Dave Shore talked to me over the weekend.

I they weren't thinking about disabled kids and using the pool, so I brought that forward to them, so they're gonna now incorporate that, and then they wanna incorporate big wave.

That was the other thing.

I kind of put that in his pocket and he didn't even think about that.

So now he's talking with Julie Shankman now on how they can work together with Big Wave.

That's great, thank you.

So I think I think what we need is a little bit of direction too.

If we can put that on the agenda for discussion, is that what we're talking about, Matthew?

Because I know J Dave's been talking to you.

I know that there's been a request that we do uh resolution supporting the pool project.

Um, and so that I think for us to bring that forward, we would need to agendize that for a future meeting.

Um but I think as the mayor shared, we've got a meeting with them next week and we can get some clarity on that.

Yeah, we'll talk about it more on the thirteenth and have an idea of what the ask really is so great.

Okay, well thanks everybody members of the public for participating thank you for staff thank you to fellow council members this meeting is now adjourned.

Have a good evening.