Please take your seats.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, he just texted me.

There he is.

Robert and Lisa are on that.

Okay.

Take your seats.

We are going to commence the meeting.

Welcome to the special meeting of the city of Half Moon Bay, Tuesday, April 28th, 2026.

Councilmember Brownstone will attend remotely from Euleka, Nanada, Mataka, Zadar, Zadarska, Zupanuja, 23,000 Croatia.

Councilmember Brownstone.

Is he on?

He's on.

He's just muted.

Yeah.

Perfect.

There we are.

And Robert, if you could turn your video on as well, that would be great.

Yes.

When you're participating remotely, you need to leave your video on for the entire time.

And all uh votes need to be done by roll call.

Correct.

And Councilmember Johnson?

Here.

Councilmember Nagengast?

Here.

Vice Mayor Penrose?

Here.

Mayor Raddock.

Here.

We have all rights for a pledge of allegiance.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, individual with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

So before we begin, uh Councilmember Nagengast is asked to make a statement.

Go ahead, Councilmember Nagengast.

Thank you.

Good evening, and thank all of you who are here, no matter what side of the hill you're from, for your interest in this item presented before the city council this evening.

Prior to the March 18th meeting, for the record, I made a statement about my involvement with this project as a private citizen.

And before we begin tonight, I will I want to make a statement again as a city council member.

Dignity.

It is a powerful word.

And when you look up the definition of dignity, two other equally powerful words are included in the definition.

Respect, which I hope we practice towards one another throughout the course of the evening, and integrity, which without we are nothing.

If we cannot be honest, trustworthy, and practice ethical behavior as we strive to do the right thing.

My simple explanation is there have been so many questions and uncertainty of how a project of this size could have possibly been approved without typical consideration placed on a project.

It is hoped that our questions help the community understand why providing housing on public property is a very complicated process from permitting the entitlements to financing the construction to subsidizing the rent of the intended tenants of the building.

Is the intermixing of personal feelings of necessary landowner protections provided in the agreements that make this project of interest with all of us on the diet, all of you in the media since the Planning Commission approval in 2024?

I want to reiterate that as a private resident, I filed an appeal regarding this project, and I understand that tonight's action is a legislative decision for which I have no personal financial interest.

I am affirming I have and will continue to have an open mind in considering these agreements and will make my decision based entirely on the documents before the council, the staff report, and public comments provided during this meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Nagengast.

So the first item of business is 2A, and that's introduction of an ordinance for the 555 Kelly Affordable Housing Project, approving the affordable housing and property disposition agreement and ground lease and other agreements and adopting a resolution approving a grant agreement.

So these are several documents, very complicated.

Because this is a public hearing, you were advised to keep your comments to the matter at hand, and that is the comment on these agreements.

I know that a broader interpretation is allowable.

I'm not going to crush anybody's free expression, but the point of the public hearing is to consider these documents.

But first, we're going to uh get a presentation on the documents from staff and uh the city attorney.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um I will keep my portions of the presentation short, and that our city attorney will be going into some technical detail, and we think it's important to cover that thoroughly.

Um the purpose of tonight, of course, is to provide a brief overview of the project and the negotiations that have taken place over the last several years.

Um review the updated terms of the ground lease, AHPDA, which is the affordable housing property disposition agreement, regulatory agreement, and memorandum of ground lease.

Discuss any additional changes that council uh may desire, and then ultimately consider taking a vote on the ordinances before you.

Additionally, we have a grant agreement related to funding received from the state that I'll talk about at the end of the presentation and potentially vote on that as well.

So, for a very quick overview, we all know why we're here.

545 Kelly is a city-owned property that we have a proposed project for Mercy Housing of a four hundred percent affordable housing for retired and senior agricultural workers.

The mix of the units is three studios, 34 one-bedrooms, and three two bedrooms, one of which would be the manager's unit, and the max proposed occupancy is 86 residents.

This is just a contextual photo of uh the rendering of the site.

And with that, I'm going to turn the time over to our city attorney to talk about the individual documents, um, what they do, and some of the changes that have been made since our last meeting.

Denise.

Uh thank you.

Denise Pizzano, interim city attorney.

And I'm joined this evening by by my colleague Lisa Maxwell, who's online.

She is a real estate transaction expert and has handled many of matters, uh, many transactional matters similar to this one.

So she will jump in if there needs to be any technical analysis or answer questions.

I'm just going to generally cover the agreements and um some of the changes that were made since the last meeting.

So we'll talk about the affordable housing property uh and property disposition agreement.

We are referring to it as the AHPDA.

Um, the proposed AHPDA and the ground lease are drafted to run sequentially.

Initially, the AHPDA would be the controlling document, and that document would uh control the relationship between the city and mercy during the pre-development period and establishes conditions precedent that must be met by Mercy Housing in order for the project to be allowed to enter or Mercy Housing to be allowed to enter into the ground lease for the property with the city.

Some of the key terms that are in the age PDA is that it requires Mercy to provide the city with a financing plan for the project.

It establishes certain conditions precedent that must be met before the ground lease commences.

In other words, if these conditions that are identified in the age PDA are not met, then the ground lease will not commence.

So it will just hang out there until the conditions precedent are met, and then we would proceed with the ground lease becoming effective.

Some of those conditions are that Mercy submit organizational documents, that they provide evidence of project financing sufficient to cover the project's costs as evidenced in the final project documents, that there is a construction contract in place, that there are final construction documents, that there is a building permit, management agreement for management of the project is in place, that there is an executed regulatory agreement, a title policy, et cetera.

So there are a number of conditions that are identified in the AHPDA.

The AHPDA itself would terminate upon the recordation of the memorandum of ground lease.

So once the memorandum of ground lease is recorded, the AHPDA will terminate on its own terms.

So some of the obligations that are identified for Mercy are to construct the approved project, and the project includes 40 units, office and common space areas and a community serving space with parking consistent with the provisions of the coastal development permit that was issued for the project.

They must comply with all entitlements, permits, and other legal requirements.

They must deliver the project within the defined terms and milestones of the agreement.

And that last bullet point is an error.

I think that was supposed to be deleted.

But it does the AHPDA does include provisions for default.

The affordability requirements, there are affordability requirements that are included in the AHPDA.

It's 100% affordable housing as mentioned by the city manager.

The target population is the senior agricultural workers, and the income targeting is a mix of 30% and 50% of the area median income or AMI.

And it has a long-term affordability covenants that run with the agreement, and the affordability levels would be required to be maintained for a period of 55 years.

After 55 years, the HPDA does allow the level of affordability to be adjusted, but it would still need to remain at affordable levels for the duration of the ground lease.

The HPDA also includes tenant preferences.

And then the third preference is for the broader San Mateo County area, senior current or retired agricultural workers.

These tenant preferences are subject to federal or state law and project funding sources.

So these preferences could only be maintained so long as they're consistent with applicable federal, state law, and project funding requirements.

So since March 18th, we've made a number of revisions to the documents that were presented to the council at that meeting, including the AHPDA and the ground lease.

So the some of the revisions are highlighted here in this slide.

I'll just go through a few of the important ones.

We revised that to be the recordation of the memorandum of the ground lease so that they could run concurrently or not concurrently, but that they could be consistent with the provisions of the age PDA where we want the ground lease to take effect when the memorandum of ground lease is recorded.

So instead of certificate of occupancy, it would be when the memorandum of ground lease is recorded.

And specifically provided that the use would be for uh meetings and activities of the general public for no less than 16 hours per work week based on the ad hoc committee's direction and discussion at the last meeting about how it was envisioned that that community serving space would be used.

We also removed reasonable from a number of provisions.

There was some discussion at the last meeting about that term, and so we removed reasonable from a number of areas in the AHPDA and just included a new provision in section 16.2 that talks about what it means when the city manager or the city council approves or takes action on something and what it means to be have reasonable discretion or reasonably considerably withhold that approval or taking action.

There was also a comment at the last meeting about I'm sorry, we also added a new provision in section 17.15 to specify that certain areas that are not open to the public must be accessed with uh approval or consent of the tenant.

And this is primarily for immigration ICE enforcement issues that may arise on the property.

And so that provision would require that Mercy housing either give consent or not give consent, but then if there's no consent, given that they have the information uh some sort of court order that allows access to those private areas and that they provide uh that information to the city so that we're aware of of what happens at the site.

So now we're gonna talk about the ground lease.

So as I mentioned, the ground lease would come after the age PDA, once the age PDA conditions are met.

The ground lease establishes the contractual obligations imposed on Mercy housing by the city for the long-term lease of the property.

The ground lease term would be for a period of 99 years, and during that time the city would be the landlord and Mercy housing would be the tenant.

The uh lease also provides a rent of one dollar per year, and uh they are uh the the lease also covers responsibility for utilities, taxes, and maintenance, and that would all be Mercy Housing's responsibility.

It includes uh and reinforces restrictions relating to the preferences and affordability requirements.

There are insurance and indemnity obligations, and we're gonna talk a little bit more about the insurance a few slides forward, but it does have insurance requirements and it obligates Mercy to indemnify the city for a number of losses that are defined in the contract.

Um it provides the lease provides that uh the condition of the property is as is, which means we make the city makes no representations as to the condition of the property.

The property is being leased as is in its current condition, and Mercy is ultimately responsible for understanding or knowing what that condition is.

Um there are default provisions, so provides a number of events of default, and those are defined that would uh identify a default condition that would uh be considered a breach of the contract and would allow termination for that breach.

It also provides that the city can inspect the property upon reasonable notice, and that's important because there may be times where the city wants to inspect the property to ensure that it's being uh that the property and the project are being run consistent with the agreements that we've entered into if the council proceeds forward with agreements.

More key terms of the lease.

Um it also includes Article 10, which is a maintenance uh and repair requirement.

So Mercy housing must maintain and keep the improvements in good repair, free of debris, graffiti, waste.

So they have to keep the property and the improvements in a condition that's compliant with the terms of the agreement, but also the law, applicable law.

There's also Article 12, which discusses hazardous materials and environmental law and hazardous materials activity, and general generally requires Mercy housing to comply with applicable environmental laws and not engage in or permit in any hazard or allow any hazardous materials to be used or discharged on the property in a way that that damages the property.

If insurance proceeds are insufficient to restore the property or the improvements, then subject to the rights of the mortgage, either party has the right to terminate the ground lease.

Article 13 also includes restoration requirements and procedures for restoring the improvements.

So as I mentioned before, the ground lease has insurance requirements, and so I just wanted to touch upon what those are.

There is commercial general liability coverage, 10 million for a single occurrence or 3 million for uh single occurrence.

Um it includes broad form property damage.

There's also workers' compensation requirement and employers' liability requirements.

Um it includes builders' risk coverage for the cost to cover the cost of the hard construction costs, and um it that coverage that builder's risk coverage applies until the temporary certificate of occupancy is issued.

There's also property insurance coverage requirements, business interruption requirements, boiler and machinery insurance coverage requirements, so a lot of insurance requirements.

Um the city must be named as an additional insured and get notice if the insurance policies are amended or canceled.

Um the general contractors that work on the property need to maintain commercial general liability insurance consistent with the requirements of the ground lease.

And the city manager is authorized to increase, reduce, or otherwise modify insurance requirements as necessary based on certain criteria in the ground lease.

We also revised the ground lease since March 18th meeting based on council direction and further discussions, and a lot of these revisions are to make it consistent with the age PDA.

So we revised the definitions in the same way so that the definitions in the age, PDA, and the ground lease are the same.

We changed references from director to city manager or landlord in this case because the landlord is the city.

Um we revised again the community the provisions relating to the community serving space and clarified its uses and the city's ability to use it for uh activities of the general public for no less than 16 hours per work week.

Um we clarified provisions relating to subleases, so defining what the resource center sublease would be and the resident subleases.

We also added a provision that provided that the council gets to review the final forms of those documents and approve those documents to make sure that they are consistent with the ground lease and the other uh doc agreements.

Um we added the same provision that I mentioned before about accessing the properties for ICE and immigration purposes, and the legal description of the property was updated.

In the package tonight is also a memorandum of ground lease, and as I mentioned, um the age PDA will terminate upon the recordation of the memorandum of ground lease.

And so this document is really just a basic form document that is recorded against the property to let anybody who's interested know that the ground lease is out there, it exists and um identifies where a copy can be obtained.

The regulatory agreement is also recorded against the property, it causes the affordability uh covenants to encumber the property, the project I mean, and it provides notices to all interested parties of the affordability covenants.

Upon review of the regulatory agreement, there was a discussion about removing some language in section 3.4, which is the affordable rent provision in the regulatory agreement.

It basically defines the maximum monthly rent for the various affordability levels, but within those definitions of low, very low, et cetera, there are references to three bedroom units.

And since three bedroom units are not included in this project, we are staff is recommending that that section be amended to remove references to the three bedroom units.

Okay.

So if the ordinances are introduced tonight, then I would recommend that this change be made to section 3.4 of the regulatory agreement.

So all of the agreements are included and referenced in a draft ordinance that is also part of the package this evening.

One of the provisions is the CEQA determination.

So as part of the consideration of these agreements, if the ordinance is introduced, it does have language about the CEQA determination which basically identifies that the approval of the agreements qualify for the class 32 categorical exemption for infill development projects, and there is some language in the ordinance about that CEQA determination.

After review, it was determined that some of that language could be streamlined a little bit.

So this language on the slide revises the CEQA determination slightly.

But if the ordinance again, if it's introduced this evening, then my recommendation would be to revise that SECA determination determination language to be consistent with this slide.

Okay.

Some other provisions of the draft ordinance.

It makes specific determinations consistent with government code section 37364 for affordable housing projects.

The draft ordinance has a provision in it that provides that the city manager is authorized to execute those agreements in ancillary agreements that are referenced within the AHPDA ground lease, memorandum of ground lease, and regulatory agreement.

It does specify that there would be periodic review of the ground lease and reporting to city council by the city manager at least every 10 years.

And so that's something that the council could consider leaving in as drafted, or if you wanted to do it more frequently, maybe every five years, that's something that the council could consider as well, revising.

Did you want to talk about the grant agreement?

And now I'll turn it back to the city manager to continue the presentation.

Thank you, Denise.

The last agreement and document on the agenda is consideration of a grant agreement between the city and mercy to act as a pass-through for funding received in the 2023-2024 state budget.

Senator State Senator Josh Becker secured two million dollars for affordable housing in Half Boom Bay, specifically for this project.

And the way this would be structured would be that the city would continue to retain those funds within our affordable housing fund, but earmarked for this project.

And as allowable expenses are incurred by Mercy as the project moves forward.

If the project moves forward, then they would submit for reimbursement throughout up to a maximum of the two million dollars.

And so a draft of that agreement is included.

It is similar in form to the agreement we had with Mercy for the pass through of the ARPA funds from San Mateo County earlier on in this project.

And we we seek your consideration consideration of that tonight.

And with that, these are our recommended actions.

I will not read all this, but when we get to that point of the meeting, we can we can take a look.

And that concludes our presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

First, I'm gonna take any clarifying questions from council members.

Yeah, I have one.

Okay.

And when you say maintain affordability, what do you mean by that?

So and Lisa, jump in if I don't get this right or you want to add anything.

So section uh 11 of the AHPDA provides that um uh oh yeah, as more particularly provided in the ground lease, and then it goes through the AMI requirements.

Um it says that um if the developer or its investor reasonably determines prior to the property closing that based on the project's residual analysis test, maximum rent levels would need to be increased after the 55th year of operation, then the ground lease shall permit such increase after the 55th year, but it also requires that the affordability levels be uh maintained, so it would still be affordable.

It's just that the rent increases may be uh may be affected if the residual analysis test supports those increases.

Thank you.

I have a follow-on question to that.

Conceivably they could raise rent to just um uh a dollar under um market rate, right?

I mean it could be just low income up to 140,000 a year.

I think that's right.

Lisa, can you confirm that?

I mean, if if they're so long as they're below the low affordable low affordable level, that would be consistent with this provision in Article 11.

Is that correct?

And I'm not saying they would do it, but they could do it.

Yeah.

She on.

Lisa, if you're um if you're able to, can you respond to that question?

Hello?

Oh, there she is.

Yeah, we can hear you.

So sorry, guys.

That's okay.

I couldn't.

Um so they would they could increase the affordability levels, however, the limitation is that they have to stay in the low income level as you know that's as applicable to San Mateo County.

So they couldn't even go into the moderate income level.

It's it's limited to those initial two bans, very low and low.

But but that could change.

And so my question would be so 55 years out, they need to you know increase uh the rent levels.

What would happen to the people who are living there under extremely low and low?

Would they like evict them or what would that process be?

No, I don't believe that would be the case.

I mercy would probably have to respond from a more practical operational standpoint.

But the way most cities do it or other some other cities do it is that they have those folks just stay because they're already there.

But what typically happens is that they fill the units when those people depart, they have them comply with the affordability requirement.

Um it might be useful for Mercy to confirm that that's how they operate their project though.

Madam Mayor, if it's acceptable, um, could we have someone for Mercy respond further?

Great.

There's a switch on it, it's off right now.

Good evening.

Uh my name is Rami Dare, Mercy Housing.

Um, what Lisa Maxwell described is correct, and also the regulatory agreement, which is in your packet, um, that restricts the affordability of all the units except for the manager's unit to the you know the 50 percent or low income for 99 years.

Any other questions for staff or mercy at this point?

Okay, well, I will open uh public comment.

Remember, you have uh two minutes, and when you have 30 seconds left, you'll get the yellow light and then the red light and a beep when your time is up.

And as I mentioned earlier, I'm going to alternate between those who are online and those in the room.

Um we have a lot of speakers tonight, and we have a lot of deliberation ahead.

So if you could keep your remarks um concise and maybe not repeat everything the person ahead of you said, if you agree with them, just say I agree with the person in front of me, and that will help streamline public comment this evening.

Thank you.

Um, my first speaker is Mike Ferrara.

Uh Madam Mayor.

Did you want to talk about that translation timing?

Oh, um, maybe you could explain that for folks.

We do have translation services here this evening.

Yeah.

Uh did we want to have that explained to the members of the public?

Yeah, I I think that I think that would be helpful for members of the public to understand that.

Okay.

And I believe last time the way we had it set up was that if um if the translation was being conducted uh simultaneously, so as the statements were made, the translator was repeating and translating the the statements, then the time would be doubled consistent with the Brown Act.

But if the person was giving their statement in a language other than English, and then the translator was just reading it afterwards, then they were restricted to the same time levels.

Is that your recollection?

Um I believe so.

Uh whatever streamlines the process more, I think is good.

But I don't, you know, for um non-English speakers, I understand their situation too.

So I just want to you know aim to try to keep the the remarks concise, but um we'll do what we need to do to be sounds great.

Thank you.

Yeah.

And uh Victor, did you want to uh comment thank you, Madam Mayor?

Um yeah, I'd like to inform you the council tonight that there is interpretation being provided as we speak uh in simultaneous mode, and I think um the way that we've normally handled it before is if there's a member of the public that steps up to make a public comment, there'll be an interpreter accompanying that person, and then we'll do it in consecutive style, meaning they'll mention something and then they'll pause and the interpreter will interpret whatever is being said, unless they have a written statement in which I usually provide the council with instructions ahead of time saying they're gonna provide their comment, and then I'll provide a what's called a site translation.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um the first speaker is uh Mike Ferrara, followed by Sandy Vella.

Good evening, Council members.

Uh and Mayor Redding.

The uh 99-year lease that's before us tonight brings some serious concerns to me as to whether the city's interests are protected throughout the period.

In particular, I've looked at the responses to council questions that were published this this afternoon.

And I am not sure if these are from staff or the applicant.

It's not clear.

And how enforceable those responses are as they relate to all of your documents.

With that, I'll express sympathy for the council members that are trying to sort through all of these complicated questions.

There's uh probably was not anticipated that you'd have to deal with this when you uh decided to be on the council.

And uh I personally would think that it would have been nice if there was an outside consultancy, a specialist that couldn't have been engaged to review this from the city's liability standpoint for 99 years.

Now, to the project that underlies all of this.

I was a supporter of the original project, which was 40 units for stories, and parking as to the city's ordinances.

And I also watched how the Planning Commission was gamed to believe that there was a major transit stop nearby.

They weren't really given a choice to find otherwise.

One of which is the eighth.

That we would not bear false witness.

The finding that this project is within the zone of a major transit stop.

Is that the end?

All right.

Thereby allowing an extra story, higher occupancy, and less parking, among other exceptions, the city ordinances is indeed the bearing of false witness.

There is no parcel in Half Hoon Bay that is within the zone of a major transit stop, i.e.

15 minutes between bus departures in the same direction.

None.

It looks to me as though the voters will need to make the decision as whether this project has been righteously brought forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And then I will take a person online who is Barbara Fain Mathewson.

Hello there.

It's not really about the farm workers not deserving housing.

They are.

It's always been about building a building that's way too big for the city of Half Moon Bay in the wrong spot.

And to that, I agree with I believe his name is Mike.

The 99-year lease for one year is crazy.

I don't see that how that benefits us, the community, or the farm workers, even directly.

It doesn't matter if there's precedence in other cities.

We're Half Moon Bay.

We're a different city.

We're our own entity.

This just doesn't make for sense for the city of Half New Bay.

Please don't sign it.

Density bonus.

555 Kelly is ineligible for density bonus.

Therefore, the structure should be a maximum of three stories, and a current half Moon Bay parking study should be done.

The project has not been funded or even close to breaking down.

Let's therefore let's stop this mistake now and just correct it.

I think we have time uh to do so.

Referendum, I urge a city, the city to call for a special vote uh on this for go no go.

We don't have to collect signatures.

I understand the city council themselves could just do this.

So let's do it.

And you know, if it's a no, if it's a yes by the city or the constituents, then let's do it.

If not, then let's find a not more suitable place to proceed.

Um the other thing, I know that uh we don't have funding yet in place, and I know to know today's an important day to move this forward, but you know, funding's been extended twice already.

How many more times are we gonna extend the you know the funding limit?

Should we set a limit, say you know, December 2026?

And if it's not done by that time, let's create a new strategy and figure out how to get farm workers and housing right away rather than delay, delay, delay, delay.

It it doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Um I I think that's about it for me, but thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Uh the next speaker is um Barbara Fain Mathewson, followed by April Vargas.

Mayor Reddick, we are having an issue with our timer.

It's not beeping.

It's counting down the time, but it's not beeping, so I can step in when the time is up and just say time if that is okay with you for now.

Okay.

Barbara, we're ready when you are.

Barbara, are you there?

You can unmute yourself and speak.

Okay, well, let's go to the next person on that on that list.

Is it Lisa Maxwell or no?

Her hand's not raised.

Um, Sophia Lane.

Hey everybody, can you hear me all right?

Great, thank you.

Um, I really appreciate it, as you know.

I'm pretty familiar with the ins and outs of local government, and I know the challenges that are involved in undertaking a project this big.

As you know affordable housing is an emergency in our community as well as beyond our community.

And uh you've done a really great job pulling together a plan that's gonna work.

Is any is it perfect?

Probably not.

Is anything perfect?

Definitely not.

Um, you know, this this is a fantastic plan that said, and uh, you know, I think a lot about about uh class that my younger son is taking at uh one of our local community colleges about global justice and our responsibility to each other.

Um there's different ways of looking at that, that we have either no obligation, that we have a duty to help each other, that we have a duty to stop harm each other, harming each other, or that we have a structural injustice that we need to fix.

And I think that's where this fits in here in terms of affordable housing for our neighbors.

Um the first three will get sugarcoated and kind of you hear a lot of, you know, it's not that I'm against this, but um, but really I think if we approach this from a point of progress for our community and those helping those which are most vulnerable and changing the system so that it we go from something where historically things get so bogged down and in in the aiming for perfection is up.

Everyone is that never really attain your goal.

Um so I appreciate the work that you're doing to fix this structural injustice for those um many of the members of our community that that really need it the most, and I encourage you to move forward on this project promptly and without further ado.

And everyone for all your hard work um in doing that.

So thank you so much.

Thank you.

Um the next speaker will be uh Chris Thibodeau, followed by Alice Lindzmeyer.

Good afternoon.

Muy buenas tardes.

Um my name is Chris.

I've lived in Hapunbe now for almost five years.

Uh soy Chris, tengo casi cinco.

I'm very glad to live here.

I'm also a resident of Cypress Cove, um, the area next to Stone Pine Cove.

Uh Cypress Cove, que Colinda con Stone Pine Cove.

And I remember the meetings uh before that um project came to to pass.

And I remember there was a fair amount of enmity, but also opposition, and I remember those meetings sounding very similar to some of the opposition expressed here.

Uh in opposition ideas uh parecidas a las ideas que escucho aquí.

I just like to share with all of my neighbors here that I think that in my experience, the opposition, those points they they've not really come to pass.

Uh, in opposition uh uh these are my neighbors.

The the opposition has not really come to pass.

And so I believe that uh supporting five five Kelly is as important as supporting the neighbors that now live next to me and uh and in Stone Pine Cove.

One of them is here.

I saw uh Senior Cornelio is talking.

Mr.

Cornelio, I think I saw him earlier.

Uh I I see him in my neighborhood, Lobayopolaya.

Uh I really employ your loss in Ploro, Los Imploro, please support 55 Kelly.

Uh please.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Alice Lindzmeyer, followed by Shauna Pickett Gordon.

Thank you, City Council members and staff for what looks like a whole lot of um hard work.

Um at a farm recently for my work, I again witnessed strawberry harvesters skillfully and rapidly harvesting safe.

Thank you.

Healthy quality fruit, then running up and down the rows with large pallets all day long to make their peace rate enough to feed their families and all of us.

Imagine the wear and tear after decades of that work.

We all know farm workers' dedication to sustain all of us despite being unrecognized and underpaid, but they do it for us despite the hardship.

And now it is our turn to recognize and stand up to do as what is right for them.

I'm sure you all saw the horrible aggression towards immigrants in Minneapolis.

But we also witnessed the amazing responses showed by everyday neighbors, teachers, principals, students, city council member representatives, may the mayor, the governor, all standing up with the family is the loud Lind's Myers.

I thought you might be able to understand me otherwise.

So you know, we saw them organizing and delivering food and homework, raising rental assistance, et cetera.

They did that despite the cold, the criticism, and in some cases threats to their own safety.

But they stood with the most vulnerable no matter what the pushback by the powerful.

That is what good neighbors and good representatives do.

Stand with the most vulnerable.

That is what I've seen in smaller ways in Half Moon Bay, and it's the united community that I want to live in.

Now is our and your opportunity to do that today, to do what is right by standing with senior farm workers and supporting 555 Kelly, just like they've been standing, bending and running to feed us.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Shauna Pickett Gordon, followed by Gloria Stefan.

Honorable mayor and members of the Hackman Bay City Council and all others at the table tonight.

Thanks for all you do for the citizens of Hack Moon Bay and for us who live on unincorporated San Mateo County land.

As a 35 year 35-year resident of Monterra, I love this about the coastside.

A lot of conscientious folks continually strive to include and help all who live here.

I've spoken to this issue in this chamber many times over the past two years, so I'll just be brief now.

I just hope with all my heart that you will approve all of the documents and agreements needed to move the 555 Kelly project forward from planning to blessed reality.

These 40 homes have been badly needed for years, and we all need our essential workers, especially our senior farm workers to be safely, comfortably and affordably housed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, Gloria Stefan.

She there.

She put her hand down, but I'm giving her permission to talk now just in case.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Hello.

Oh, okay.

Good evening, City Council members and city staff.

My name's Gloria Stoufen, longtime member of uh Coast Faith in Action and Faith in Action Bay Area.

Thank you for allowing the public to make comments on this very critical issue of 555 Kelly Avenue.

Making hard decisions are never easy, especially when they affect so many people.

So many vulnerable people who are depending on your decision and leadership.

So tonight I come before you urging you to support and approve 555 Kelly Avenue for senior housing for farm workers.

I've done this quite a few other times as well.

The uh housing needs for our senior farm workers are very much needed.

And this project that has been in the works for several years with community input and has been modified and approved several times, will very much fill their needs.

They're very much deserving of a safe environment with dignity and much respect.

I believe that housing is a sacred human right for all of us.

I want to thank all those who have been working very hard on this project for a long time.

Remember that a stable home makes for a healthy community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are we doing three minutes or two minutes?

We are doing two minutes.

All right.

The next speaker is Roberta Gelt, followed by Belinda Ariaga.

Hi, I'm Roberta Geld.

I've lived on the coast for for 46 years.

Let me just do this.

And I'll be really brief because others have stated my view very well, probably better than I can.

Yeah, sorry.

As we all know, housing in California is incredibly expensive.

And in particular, the Bay Area is extremely high.

Too tall.

It's also incredibly expensive.

Do I say that?

Those of us who own houses here are really, really lucky.

The senior farm workers, as others have said, have worked tirelessly and very hard to bring food to our tables.

They deserve a nice place to live.

And of course, with all the compliance with all the requirements, I think the council has a moral obligation to approve this.

Their lives are on your hands, in your hands.

This is not hyperbolic to say that.

Their lives are in your hands.

And they deserve a really nice, safe place to live after all their hard work.

Thank you.

Thank you, Roberta.

Next speaker is Belinda Ariaga.

Good afternoon, Council.

Great to be here tonight.

I just want to reiterate what we've been sharing for all these four years, how important our 555 Kelly is for our community, for our seniors.

And I also want to share that there's so many that can't be here because they're ill and they're homebound in many ways to be able to come out.

And they're counting on this housing.

And I I've heard so many conversations about whether the people that are going to live there are going to be from the coastside.

And I just really want to say that this four-year process has been to really uplift our seniors here on the coastside.

And that is what 555 Kelly is about.

And we know that you voted for it originally as it began, and we're here at the end now, and we hope that you will reaffirm your commitment to our community to care and to uplift one of the most vulnerable populations all across California that deserves so much.

And I think there's no better answer than to say yes.

At the end of the day, it really amounts to caring.

And it amounts to giving dignified housing to such a special group of people.

And Mercy has worked so hard.

I've been able to see the work that they've done alongside us, and I know they're committed to doing the right thing.

Their hands are worn for years and years of being in the field, but their hearts are full of hop.

Hope that they'll have a warm, decent home to retire in.

Thank you for being here through these four years.

I know it's been a long road, but please, please vote yes, 555 Kelly.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is April Vargas, followed by Dan Haggerty.

Good evening, Council members.

Um, and thank you for continuing on with this project.

Um, listening tonight, I um just realize constantly the responsibility that you all have to make decisions that are in the best interest of everyone in the city.

I am um encouraged by the fact that your legal team has made some changes to the documents uh that were discussed at the last meeting.

And I believe that the city does have the coverage and the ability to make sure that the decisions that you make and the contracts that you get into are going to be in the long range uh good decisions for the city, and that if anything seems to be amiss later on, there are ways that you can intervene and get things back on track.

Um one of the documents stated that there's no direct fiscal impact to the city's general fund and the fact that funding is available that Senator Becker got and the other funding that was available these days is really kind of a blessing that money's available for this.

So I would urge you to move forward with this, uh, knowing that the decisions you make, you want to be in the best interest of everyone.

This project is in the best interest of the city of Half Moon Bay, and I just want to um say that Chris's earlier comments about the fears that people have of change, which are understandable.

Um, in my experience with big changes too, on things I've worked on, uh, the fears that people have don't come to pass, and after a while, people are willing to um see a new reality, be part of it, and expand the community.

So I urge you to please adopt all of these documents.

Thank you.

Thank you, April.

The next speaker is Dan Haggerty, followed by Bill Heflin.

Good evening.

Uh Dan Hagerty, O'Granada, 37-year resident, 13-year former member of the Midcoast Community Council.

Uh, first of all, I want to say that I believe that reasonable housing should be available to all farm workers.

Um, in regards to the project 555 Kelly, a positive vote tonight would move forward a whole package of burdens to the uh community.

Uh, first of all, you know, the giveaway of uh uh tax dollars that if we're used in another way could spread much further and provide uh broader benefit to the broad um needs of of the uh city citizens, including um farm workers.

Uh there's a burden of to the impact of the character of the town.

There's a burden to future exposure to equity criticisms.

Um what about other senior workers of the pay of the same pay scale?

What is truly the definition of most vulnerable workers?

Um then also, you know, there's a a sweet song that was sung tonight that oh, every little button will be covered as far as enforcement and equity and everything will in the future will be um adhered to as it's mentioned or sold to us today.

Thank you, Dan, but your time is up.

Excuse me, Dan.

Dan's excuse me, Dan.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh Bill Hevlin is the next speaker, followed by Noreen.

Esteemed City Council members.

My name is Bill Hevlin, and I'm a member of CoSide Faith in Action.

And I speak tonight specifically on behalf of extending the ground lease of 555 Kelly to Mercy Housing.

There is a straight line connecting the January 2023 mass shooting in Half Moon Bay to the 555 Kelly project.

The community of Half Moon Bay is thus engaged in a reconciliation process.

Tonight, I draw upon theologian Edgar Villanueva's seven-step process of reconciliation.

These steps begin with grief and they end with investing and repair.

Half Moon Bay is rather far along in this process.

Straddling the invest and repair stages.

So half Moon Bay is on the threshold of doing something extraordinary.

Within sight of completion of a heart-rending process of social reconciliation.

So much so that I call on this council to begin thinking about how to brag.

Yes, brag, about this.

Time's up, Bill.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Noreen Cooper Heaven.

Followed by Carolina Carbajal.

Good evening, Mayor, Council members.

My name is Noreen Cooper Heavenlin, and I'm with Faith in Action and also the Unitarian Universalist Coast Community.

Today's your chance to honor the senior farm workers who have for so long been the backbone of the coast agricultural legacy.

I am asking that you support the 99 year ground lease for 555 Kelly to make our promise of thanks to them a reality by providing safe, dignified, and affordable housing.

I remember a time many years ago when Half Moon Bay was known for having the lowest growth rate of new construction in the entire state of California.

Do you remember those times?

Those days seem long gone.

Probably soon.

And do you really want to be known as the only key city in the Bay Area that is out of compliance with state housing law because we failed to rezone certain properties for affordable housing, including this delay with this 40-unit farm worker project?

I mean, we get people from all over who come to the coast as tourists.

Do we want to be known as just the people who we want people who have money to come here?

This is financially responsible.

It is fully funded proposal, and you have two million dollars that you've been given by Josh Becker.

The delays need to stop.

By approving this lease, you ensure that those who have fed us for generations are not displaced.

Let's meet our state requirements and provide our senior farm workers the homes they deserve.

I urge you to vote yes.

Thank you.

So it's really sad that this project's been going on for four years and we haven't done anything.

So I'm terribly sorry.

I'm unable, it's unintelligible, and I and I can't really interpret what I do not hear.

So I I don't want to uh embellish anything or make anything up, so I wonder if anybody can get a hold of uh Carolina by text or something and let her know to maybe um do something with her microphone.

So in the moon meantime we'll move on.

So the next speaker is Evelyn Stivers.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Evelyn Stivers.

I'm the executive director of Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County.

We work with communities and their leaders to create and preserve quality affordable homes.

You know, every every city council in the state of California is required to find a place for housing, a place for affordable housing to be.

And this city has spent a lot of time, tens of thousands of dollars of staff time and consultant time and debate time and community conversations on where to put that housing.

And 555 Kelly is an incredibly great site.

And I am so proud that the city is finally moving forward with it.

I've heard that a number of council members are still very confused by the process.

We understand that sometimes small communities have a hard time grappling with things like this.

We are happy to provide any technical assistance you need.

Uh to meet people that are on the wait list for affordable housing.

Anything that you need to get to yes.

This is a solvable problem.

I hope you move forward.

Thank you very much for your work.

Thank you.

Um is Carolina ready to roll.

Okay, we're gonna have to move on and and we'll try later.

Um bringing it back to people in the room.

The next speaker is Lee Gray, followed by Art Hoffmeyer.

Half Moon Bay is the only city in the Bay Area that's out of compliance with SHEL.

Because of this, have can you hear me?

Okay.

Because we're out of compliance, we've received a letter of violation.

We might not be eligible for major state grants, and we might be sued.

Yet you would rather all of that take place than to vote for 555 Kelly.

Then to vote for housing for senior farm workers.

I don't see how you have any justification.

I don't see how you have any ground to stand on.

Yes to 555 Kelly.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Art Hoffmeyer, followed by Lenny Mendonza.

It feels spiritual to me, the decision to construct affordable housing for those who could benefit from it.

For the people in our community, for the men and women who have been there for us.

Now we are blessed to be there for them.

We all of us who live on this beautiful coast.

Simply because we feel good about who we are.

Simply because we know we are blessed.

Let's build this affordable housing.

No more hemming and hawing.

It's the right thing to do.

And thank you.

Thank you, farm workers, you who live and work so hard on this coast.

Thank you for all that you have done for our community.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Lenny Mendonza, followed by Diana Ruddy.

Thank you.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Just can't tell.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'm Lenny Mendonza.

I'm the nearly 38-year resident in Monterra.

And I just want to applaud the city council and all the staff for doing this enormous work to bring this project forward in a thoughtful way.

And I'm delighted to see the community showing up and reinforcing the importance of getting this done now.

I'm not going to repeat what everyone else says, but it's wonderful to see the community rally around something as important as this project.

So thank you for all your hard work.

Thank you, Lenny.

The next speaker is Diana Reddy, followed by Rev.

Reverend Lisa Werner Carey.

Thank you very much, Mayor, City Council members.

I'm a white woman woman of privilege.

I'm blessed with a roof over my head and adequate food on my table, including fresh fruits and vegetables that I had nothing to do with raising or harvesting.

Farm workers did that.

Farm workers who continue to work long after their aches and pains, tell them to stop.

The standard negative tropes for not building affordable housing make me sad.

And I'd like to replace those tropes with asking you to support approving 555 Kelly as presented.

This is housing seniors that have served us in a way few have deserve.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Reverend Lisa Warner Carey, followed by Christy Samuels.

Good evening.

My name is Lisa Warner Carey.

I'm the pastor at the Methodist Church, but I speak as a private citizen this evening.

You've heard me speak before.

We've all heard each other speak many times.

And I would like to thank us all for doing the hard work that it is to be community at this time.

I want to imagine tonight this project finished, completed.

I want us to imagine it as a promise fulfilled.

Now we can imagine it.

We can imagine this project complete.

Seniors who once lived in overcrowded substandard housing are now in safe, dignified homes.

The very people who have sustained our region for decades finally being sustained by their community in return.

Yes, you could see the building's height, but now it stands as a symbol of what we chose to prioritize.

The parking works because it was creatively planned.

The ground lease is solid because it was carefully negotiated and thoughtfully designed.

What once felt like concerns could become proof that we can solve problems when we choose to.

And what remains and what lasts will be the impact.

More dignity, more respect, more integrity, and more community.

But what matters most is that we kept our word.

And this project means that we care.

Amen.

Thank you.

The next speaker speaker is Christy Samuels, followed by Jocelyn Monolo online.

Hi, I was I was just passed a message that the woman who was trying to speak before but was unintelligible due to poor Wi-Fi connectivity, has moved to a different part of her house, but is also asking maybe would it be possible for her to call in where she'd have a good signal and be much more easy to understand.

So I don't know how I don't know what happens now.

She can she can call in, or you know, if we can try her in her different location as well.

Yeah.

Okay, they're going to let her know.

Um being here again and listening again.

Thank you for your promises uh to be open-minded.

Thank you for the years worth of study and work and negotiation and talking back and forth you've done.

It's a hard thing to make a big decision like this that lasts a long time and is so impactful, especially when you know there's a zero possibility that you are going to make everybody happy.

I know it's difficult when I hear people talking about turning it to a city vote, it worries me.

When I think about the years worth of time it's taken you all to understand this project the way it needs to be understood in order for people to make a good choice about what's right.

I I don't know how the voter could could dip so far into all of this and understand all of this.

I'm not saying we can't.

It's just really difficult to do all that.

What I will say is as a home care physical therapist, I've had the privilege of visiting many mercy housing complexes, including working currently at the Coast Side Adult A Health Center, uh, which is inside a Mercy housing building.

And what I will tell you is they've got it down.

They build they they are in beautiful buildings that they keep immaculately clean.

I talked to many of their um residents on a daily basis in a lot of different settings, they are grateful and they are happy.

So as far as MERSING, you know, Mersley Housing being a good partner for us in this, I'm really happy to hear that it is them.

The other thing I will tell you after years of working with seniors that in order to age successfully, help be healthy and have a good peace of mind, you need to feel safe and you need your community.

So having this building here in the middle of town where people have access to things, where they can have a uh clean, safe, beautiful place to live is crucial for these seniors.

I'm not gonna repeat what other people have said.

I'm very in favor of you pushing this project along, and I I hope you will.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

The next speaker is uh Jocelyn Monolo, followed by Carolina Carbal.

Hello, good evening.

Um I am Jessica Manolo.

Um I'm actually a council member in Daly City down the road, and I know uh you may be wondering why I'm speaking today.

I remember very clearly um the tragedy that happened many years ago.

Um and I uh drove over to the vigil when the tragedy of the farm workers occurred.

Um and I do remember the um opportunity to build more housing for the senior farm farm workers was something that was brought up.

And to see where you are all today is really really wonderful because we know that they are the backbone of our community giving us food every single day.

When I think about Mercy Housing, we actually have Mercy Housing in the city of Daily City.

Um actually two locations.

They have been wonderful partners and have been and able to see how much they provide um for the community in a decent way and have really been a partner.

And so I am in support of seeing this senior uh affordable housing because we know we need it in the county.

We know we need it in our communities, and I really really respect each and every one of you to ensure that this is something that will add to the community of yours and the community in the county of San Mateo.

So thank you very much for letting me speak today.

Um affordable housing and housing is a human right, and we want that for our uh senior older adult farm workers and older adults in general.

Um, and this is something that we all deeply care about.

Thank you very much for this time.

Thank you.

Uh the next speaker is Carolina Carvajal, followed by Vaughn Harrison.

Once again, it's it's sad that after four years there isn't any um nothing has happened.

It's sad that after all this time we continue with the same thing and everybody saying yeah we understand we understand we understand mean con la mentalidad no se va ser that all the people that are in favor in terms of it not being in favor of it then it probably won't happen dinero aunket si las personas que tienen mayor influencia no se va a ser project even though we have the money or we have the place people with the most influence if they say no then it won't happen and see esto de una forma grosera pero es triste que se necesita que pase algo malo para que a game viviendas accessibles It's been four years and I don't want to say this and have it sound bad but it's really sad that something horrible had to happen in order for this to move forward the shooting occurred the trailers were given salier on a desir gracias a nosotros gracias a nosotros and many people went out saying many people went out saying thank you thank you but unfortunately it was due to this horrible horrible event porque el Governador a dicho que estamu incompleto la la ley de construir vivienda accesible so our city is in the eye of the storm because our governor has said that their uh is not compliant with housing laws in cargadas de pagar la demanda propongo que las personas de pagar la demanda so I propose that the people that were against the housing are the people uh favoring are others perdonas que se opponentas encargadas de pagar la demanda que ponga nuestra governador so once again the people that are against are the ones paying for this uh the lawsuit thank you some person this housing is for elderly people they're tired they can't do it anymore that's enough su vida desde su juventude hasta su veges trabajando in el campo for those they're people that have worked all their lives from their youth until their old age giving it they're all for everyone so indocumentados y a veces not tienen direct and for legal status unfortunately undocumented they don't have a pension illegal no les importos a este país también documente they still worked and they gave their lives for this country as well as persons mayores not say deportados so these people where they don't have a place to go they're gonna end up on the street or their country of original project thank you for all those that support the project thank you Carolina the next speaker is von Harrison followed by David Rokoski please speak directly into it real close okay how's this okay um my name is Von Harrison I agree with many things that have been said tonight and I just want to repeat something I said last year or the year before how long how long just like Dr King said these um older people are waiting a long time for affordable housing and we have the spot we have the partnership with Mercy so I hope you'll make it happen tonight thank you thank you the next speaker is David Rakoski followed by Joanne Rakosky was smart enough to help you with all the complex contractual and legal issues you're dealing with but I'm not but I am smart enough to trust that you have staff and that you can put together

What a difference.

Good evening.

Well, I wish I was smart enough to help you with all the complex contractual and legal issues you're dealing with.

But I'm not.

But I am smart enough to trust that you have staff and that you can put together an agreement that will help this project move forward.

Is Fi Fi Facully a simple project?

No.

Is it a perfect project?

No.

Does it have universal support?

No.

If it did, it would be a unicorn.

You can describe it, but you'll never find one.

Okay.

5-5 Kelly is a worthy project.

It's a doable project.

I'll just leave you with a white hearted riff on an aphorism.

Where 55 Kelly is a bird.

A bird in the hand is worth more than unicorns in the bushes.

Thank you.

Joanne Rakoski, followed by Rabbi Moshe Haine.

Well, I don't think I can top that.

That's why I've been married to him for so long.

Good evening, Council members.

I come to you tonight again as a member of COSID Faith in Action and the Unitarian Universalist Coast community with full support for the senior housing, farmworker housing at 555 Kelly.

I plea with you to approve all the documents required, such as the property disposition agreement and the ground lease, so that this project can finally move forward.

It was because the enormous need for housing was so apparent that the original RFQ was put forward in 2022.

And it resulted in the joint proposal by Mercy and Alas.

Multiple meetings have ensued.

This was a key welcoming farm workers to their new home.

And the key is on a lanyard that says home is sacred.

We all need and want a home that is safe, dignified, sufficient for our needs.

They deserve better.

Halfhoon Bay has the capacity to provide it.

Please move forward with these approvals so that senior farm workers can finally get the housing they deserve.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Rabbi Moshe Haine, followed by Joaquin Jimenez.

Good evening, Mayor.

And council members and everyone here in service to the greater good.

I'm Rabbi Moshe Hain, and I serve, I do my best to serve and represent the Coastide Jewish community.

I'm also chaplain for Oddfellows here in town, a member of Coast Faith in Action and Coast Pride Multifaith Partners.

I live in Cypress Cove near the housing provided for the farm workers there, and that was an amazingly successful project.

Thank you for that.

I care deeply about Hapmood Bay, and I consider many of the people here to be friends and partners in service.

And I wanted to actually hear what was being said.

There are some people here who are really angry and frustrated that we haven't done more for farm workers, and I don't blame them.

I know there are many issues to be considered and weighed and prioritized.

I am a person of faith, and my faith tells me that there is a greater good.

And I have faith that there are issues that are resolved.

If there are issues that are resolvable or relatively minor, we can find a way to help move the project forward.

However, if there are issues that are not resolvable and would negatively impact the welfare of our city, then people should know that.

I know this from a conflict in which my friends and family in Israel are entrenched that a solution will necessarily involve compromise on all sides.

Twenty years from now there will be either a large building there providing housing for farm workers, or there won't be.

It will be an amazingly successful project.

Or it won't be.

Parking might be a huge problem here, or it won't be.

And it may be harder to find a parking spot, or we might not even be using many cars then.

I thank you for your time.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Joaquin Jimenez, followed by Linda Goldstein.

Good evening, uh, Honorable Council.

City staff, members of the public.

My name is Joaquin Jimenez, and this is actually the first time that I'm gonna speak on a 555 Kelly in public.

Uh previously I have not been able to uh make any comments about 555 Kelly because I was a uh staff at Alas and a council member in conflict of interest.

Get me from making any comments or jeopardize uh the building.

Next, uh Council Murning, uh, you filed against the city, so it will be in your best interest to recuse from making a decision in this case.

That would be more honorable thing to do to recuse, just like I did when I was in the council uh to make any comments.

Compadre Sonoke, he's been working, he worked in the fields for over 40 years.

We talked about housing for farm workers, 2023, when the seven farm workers were killed.

Every politician and the mama showed up.

Where are they now?

I urge for you to build 555 Kelly.

I support 555 Kelly as it is right now, as it stands, is something that we owe the community.

Thanks to the farm workers or economy of the coast in on farming has survived.

It needs surviving.

Right now, the for agriculture industry in the county is bringing a hundred and fifty, hundred and twenty million dollars a year, thanks to the farm workers.

Thanks to Compadre Sonoka right here who was here for over 40 years working.

He gave his life pretty much.

Now he's on wheelchair.

You worry about parking, walk out of cars, you're gonna drive.

Tell me, walk out of cars, he's gonna drive.

You make a decision.

I want to tell you what it smells to me.

This smells like racism, it smells like being prejudiced against farm workers, it's also like classicism.

You make a decision.

Actually, it also smells like corruption.

So you make a decision what this is.

How would you like to be remembered?

How would you like half of to be a remember if we won as a city of half bay because you haven't complied with the building development of half on bay, housing for farm workers for low-income families?

We we can actually have a uh county and again Asiria, apologize, but I know.

Thank you, and I support 555 Kelly to build right now.

Thank you.

Uh, Linda Goldstein, followed by Chip Goldstein.

Hi, City Council members and everyone here tonight.

I am with the Coastide Jewish community, and I'm also with Coastide Faith in Action.

And I've been at many meetings at ALES and Puente to support housing for a scapegoated community.

And we need to honor them and give them a safe home as we all deserve.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Chip Goldstein, followed by Harvey Rabbach.

I have been a member, excuse me.

I've been a resident of Half Moon Bay for 24 years, and I love this community.

I've submitted written comments on this project previously.

This is my first time speaking in public in person.

I urge the council to move forward with the project.

It will help serve a critical need for those in our community who have given us so much and have received so little in return.

And one other note.

In 55 years, let alone 99 years.

I also, I failed to say at the beginning, I am a longtime member of the Coastside Jewish community and a former president as well of the Coastide Jewish community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Harvey Rabbach, followed by Bobby Ratley.

Good evening.

I've often come to clutch about uh council's actions, but tonight I'm going to commend you in advance, because I'm very hopeful that you will see the wisdom and the compassion involved in uh approving these documents.

It's really important.

I think in the future, people will recognize this council as the council that approved the project that is righteous, that uh encourages the uh agricultural heritage of the city, and I urge you please do the right thing.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Bobby Ratley, followed by online Rick Hernandez.

Good evening, and thank you, City Council and community for um your participation here.

Um I've been a longtime resident of Half Moon Bay for the past 18 years.

Um had my children here, gone to school here.

Um, my daughter, she'll be 30 this year.

And she married a dreamer.

And she and through that blessed union has had three.

I have three beautiful grandchildren.

Um they moved this year, three hours away, because they can't afford to live here.

So for anybody that says that this is about being racist, it's not.

We need affordable housing for a lot of our community.

A great number of our community can't afford to stay in the community.

And as much as I do want to support farm workers, I do believe that the 555 Kelly is an inadequate and very ill quick ill-conceived project.

I would like to ask the council that you bring this to the people for a vote.

And also continue to look for other areas that were are more adequate for the the community.

And also, how is this helping the the rest of us?

You know, I mean, it's it's it's difficult for everyone.

Uh so that's that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Rick Hernandez, followed by Nancy Fontana.

Hello, I'm Rick Hernandez, my planning commissioner speaking on my own behalf.

We need and want more housing for farm workers.

Also for teachers, first responders, our children, and the people who work in our homes, hospitals, and businesses.

Like this city council, I voted for 555 Kelly.

In the next year, 12 years, we're gonna need to add way more than 40 homes, more than a thousand units by the end of the next housing cycle.

If you approve this lease, you need to make sure it has protections to get housing built.

Affordable housing is publicly funded through a competitive process.

Projects that are too costly, too risky, or subject to challenge, do not get funded.

Projects that are not funded do not get built.

All in Mercy has testified that 555 Kelly will cost approximately 1.4 million dollars per unit by comparison.

Local projects, including Creekside, 880 Stone Pine, and 940 Main Street are closer to $800,000 per affordable unit.

The 555 Kelly project includes 40 homes.

At $800,000 per unit, the same level of investment could produce approximately 70 homes.

In a constrained funding environment, cost efficiency directly affects competitive in the likelihood of receiving funding.

Project also relies on the existence of a major transit stop.

The city, including Joaquin Jamenez, has taken the position that it does not exist.

There's evidence that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission has taken the same position.

An imaginary transit stop affects both the scoring for funding and the legal footing of the project.

After multiple extensions, there's still no clear evidence that the applicant will get sufficient tax credit allocations, a clear capital plan, or when we will break ground.

Projects that are not fully capitalized and ready to proceed or less competitive for funding.

If the project is not funded, the land is tied up, the units are not delivered, and the city remains accountable under state law to meet its housing obligations.

We're still on the hook.

If you proceed with the lease agreement, you should do so with clear conditions in the event that the applicant cannot secure funding in a timely manner.

That would include a defined path of funding, timeline for financing, and enforceable milestones.

Thank you.

Thank you, Rick.

Excuse me, Rick, your time is.

Speak right into it, Nancy.

I'm not here to talk about the project itself.

I'm focusing on the agreements before you.

And and some of the other issues, and that there be uh clauses in uh the or uh in the agreements that the city could amend things if there was there was a problem, an ongoing problem from some of the uses of the community center and that sort of thing.

Um I there might be another way to do it, so I'm hoping maybe when staff talks, they might address that if it's if it won't be a problem.

The city can exercise some other um like an enforcement type of situation that might take care of it.

The problem is is that this is a 99-year lease, and I think the city should I I think I'm glad they took extra time with these agreements.

It's important.

Um it's if it caused a delay, but it's important because it's a long-term lease.

It affects the entire community.

Yes, it's for a good cause, but you have to pay attention to those details.

It's very important.

Um the previous speaker just brought up a number of things that I didn't even know about.

Another thing I expressed last year was hoping to get an update on the cost per unit because you know, this is when the new administration came.

There were going to be tariffs.

I mean, there was a lot going on.

And I'd hoped for uh, you know, regular updates, and I keep hearing that same number, and I'm a little surprised because I know everything's gone up for me.

I'm sure it's gone up for the project.

So I'd like an update on that.

Thank you, Nancy.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Suzanne Moore.

Followed by Rohelio Nabor Martinez.

Honorable one of these works there.

Honorable council members, city staff, and coastal neighbors.

Suzanne Moore, coastal resident in support of 555 Kelly, and I make no excuses for repeating myself this evening.

555 Kelly is special.

Created with community input and designed to gather community.

Kelly stands as a testament and acknowledgement of the value of our agricultural laborers, their essential work, and their special place in our community.

In the future, when we celebrate the centennial of farm worker housing, we'll recall a time when the community in our county stepped forward after a terrible tragedy to preserve and support an invaluable coastal asset, our farm workers.

Data alone cannot quantify the contributions of our farm workers and what they bring financially, culturally, historically, and collaboratively to the coast.

Thank you, City of Half Moon Bay, and all who have been involved, and council members, please see the 555 Kelly Project Safely Home.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Rogelio Martinez, followed by Solomon Nabor.

Madam Mayor, uh Rogelio here has his statement.

He'll go ahead and read it, and then I'll provide the council with the site translation after he's finished.

My name is Rogelio Nabor Martinez and so I Trabajador Agricola de Pescadero and member of the Group del Campo al Cambio.

Siempre escuchado que la agricultura is essential in nuestra community and nuestra economía.

Escucho decir que los trabajadores agrícolas susten a communidades in todo el Estado.

But if you are escuchar is cómo se puede mejorar la vida anders que alimentar nuestras communidades.

Permiteme compartirles que la idea promedio de la Commission de member of the Commission del member del Campo al Cambio is de 53 annual.

And much of member viving in viviendas connectadas directamente as empleo.

El proyecto que su ciudad sta considerando sería un gran apoyo para los trabajadores agrícolas majors.

Les pido que a todo lo que stay in su alcance para asegurar que siga este proyecto para que estos trabajadores puedan tener una jubilation digna.

Gracias.

Hello, Councilmembers.

My name is Rogelio Nabor Martinez.

I'm a farm worker and pescadero and I'm a member of Del Campo al Cambio.

I've always uh heard that agriculture is an is essential in our community and with our economy.

Um each fruit, each vegetable in the stores are there thanks to the dedication and the work of all of the farm workers in the county of San Mateo.

I also hear that farm workers uh sustain the communities in the entire state.

Um and that without agriculture, these people uh wouldn't have a job.

They wouldn't be able to live.

You wouldn't be able to live with this comfortable life that many are accustomed to live.

Um but what I would like to hear is how we can better the lives and the health of these people that feed our communities.

So allow me to share that the average age of a member from Del Campo al Cambio is 53 years old.

We have members that are 60 years old.

As a matter of fact, we have a member that's even 70 years old, and many of our members live in these housing that are directly connected to their employers or their uh work.

When their bodies can't do it anymore, and the demands of the job are too much, they are gonna be out of work and without any housing either.

So this project that the city is considering would be a great support for these uh farm workers, older farm workers.

So I ask you to please do everything within your grasp to assure that this project moves forward so that way these workers could have a dignified retirement.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Salomon Nabor, followed by Lynette Curthois.

Once again, Madam Mayor, he's gonna provide his uh statement and then I'll go give you a site translation.

My name is Salomon Navor and various of my companies representando el grupo Communitario del Campo del Cambio para expresar nuestro apoyo y project of the viviendas dedicado a los trabajadores agricultores mayores.

Este proyecto ya había proposedo ando mucho esperanza when se avanzaba.

Essencial beneficiado a la communidad a nivel local.

Pero a pesar de los años que han pasado desde que este proyecto fue proposed for primera vez aún emotion Avanzada.

Good afternoon, esteemed uh member members of the Council of Half Moon.

My name is Salomon Navor, and I am here accompanying with many of my uh peers uh representing the group uh community group del Campo Alcambio, and we're here to express our support for the housing project that's dedicated to older farm workers.

Our group is formed by farm workers that live and work in Pescadero.

We focus on advocating for the necessities or the needs of our community.

Um and housing has been the most urgent need here from since a long time ago, and we know that we're not the only ones who need it either.

We want that our friends uh we want all of our friends that live in Half Moon and different areas around uh to know that we support them uh with this project.

Um when this group was formed in 2022, this project was already being proposed, and it gave us a lot of hope when it was moving forward.

We uh deeply felt uh grateful for the city of Half Moon to have recognized the importance of taking care of the older farm workers that have dedicated years of this essential work uh benefiting the community on a local level and beyond.

But even though the years have gone by since this project was proposed for the first time, we still haven't seen any significant advance advance.

Um so council members please show us that you value the farm workers and help us uh move this pro this vital project forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Lynnette Curthois, followed by Tony Serrano.

Hi, thank you.

Um don't want to restate what's already been said.

I'll just say that I am uh resident of the coast side for 30 years and have worked lived and worked on the coast, and I currently reside in Halfun Bay and work on Main Street.

I care a ton about the character of this community and the beauty of our lands that we get to enjoy every day, and that's why I support this project.

I think the intense development in the urban core is what we need to be able to provide homes for all our residents without paving over our beautiful habitats that we all live here and value.

So I have uh I appreciate the many strong minds that went into the legal analysis of all these documents and the long, careful, thoughtful process that's gone through developing this project.

I think it will be a wonderful resource for our community, and I strongly encourage you to support it like we have other wonderful things like our library and our boys and girls club and these wonderful public institutions that make our town so special.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Tony Serrano, followed by Rick Bonia.

Good evening, um Council members, comunidad, staff.

I am here to support the 555 Kelly project and to ask that we move it forward with urgency.

In my work, I regularly meet families who are doing everything they can to stay afloat, working, contributing to this community, and still living in overcrowded conditions, sharing rooms, sometimes entire apartments or multiple families.

This is not rare.

This is what housing looks like right now for many of the farm workers who sustain Hafam Bay.

That is why 555 Kelly matters.

This project is not just something in paper.

It is a real opportunity to provide stable, dignified housing for senior farm workers who have spent their lives contributing to this community.

And yet we are con we what we continue to see is delay.

From what I from what we understand, the challenge with 555 Kelly are not about whether it can be built.

There are about how long we allow it to take.

Say out loud.

There is a pattern we see not just here, but everywhere.

Support for housing in principle, the resistance when it comes to actually building it.

I say this with respect, because I understand concerns about change, about neighborhood character, about process, but at some point we have to ask.

If not here, then where?

If not now, then when the reality is those delays have consequences.

They mean people continue living in conditions we will not assess for ourselves or our families.

Even Governor Newsom has made it clear that the time for delay is over.

And that cities must follow through on their housing commitments.

This is an opportunity for Half Home A to lead, you know, just in wars but in action.

Thank you, Tony.

Thank you.

Rick Bonia, followed by New Meyer.

Can't make out the first name.

Sorry.

Hello.

Hello.

Speak right into it, Rick.

Thank you very much.

I am Rick Bonia, former mayor of City of San Mateo, uh, chair of the board at the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County, and a member of the Housing Action Coalition of California, and a member since 1977 of the Carpenters Union.

I'm here tonight to speak in support of this project, and I want to thank you, Councilmember, for assembling here tonight.

I want to thank the staff for producing this report, which correctly I think uh recommends approval of all the items listed on the report.

I also want to state that I think Mercy Housing is eminently qualified to produce not only a quality project, but to manage it responsibly.

So that said, I want to move on to a separate issue.

And I want to thank everybody for being here tonight, whether they're in support or not.

We need to hear all these opinions.

So thank all of you for being here.

There is another issue that's come to my attention, which is that there has been some discussion about a contractor possibly being considered for building this project.

Uh the project is called Precision General Commercial Contractors.

I have in my possession documents issued by the California State Labor Commissioner's Office date data June 28th, 2024.

It is it's a it's a civil wage penalty assessment saying that this contractor owes for failing to pay prevailing wages or failing to manage their subcontractors to pay prevailing wages.

1 million and 78,000 dollars.

This was in 2024.

This is not some recent distant thing.

This took place on a job in Solano County, just a few miles away from here.

This needs to be considered.

I can set that up.

You know me, Mayor Ruddick.

I can set that up.

Thank you very much.

I would appreciate it if you if you have anything in writing now that you could share with staff, that would be great.

But I do think we need to get back to you on this.

I can do that tomorrow.

Yeah, thank you.

New Meyer, I'm sorry, what's your first name?

Everyone?

Okay.

Hi, everybody.

We're following uh Jennifer Moore, you would be next.

Thank you.

My name is Grenon Meyer, and I'm a 12-year resident of Hoffman Bay.

And I came out tonight, I think like the overwhelming majority of speakers before me to voice my strongest support for this project.

And uh I think I'm not gonna rehearse any of the many pros and perhaps few cons of this project because at this point I believe you've heard them at nausea probably over the last couple of years.

So the only comment that I want to add is that as a Christian, I really hope that I live in a town in the place of the 21st century where the church does not have to be the tallest building in town anymore.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Jennifer Moore, followed by Rocir Avala Garcia.

Hi, Council, City Manager, everybody.

Oh, closer, sorry.

Um I just want to say that I'm here to talk about compromise, what's best for the farm workers, how to get it through faster.

I believe that there should be a compromise.

I believe that us as the public would like clear answers on the funding that will be coming from the ANA issue uh through the federal government or through the federal government and how that will be affect this unit.

I think it's very important to get the community to understand that this goes to local farm workers, not out of state, not anywhere else.

Here we want to support them here.

That is one.

Does sorry.

Does Jessica Evans, senior housing policy specialist, is she allowed to make an interpretation of what mass transit is.

Thus, does that really make us meet the requirements?

I think that's important.

Sorry, I'm shaking, I don't know why.

Um I also have this email that came from Ray Mueller, uh Becker, Burnham, and Sam Licardo, right?

So it's talks about in here referendum, right?

Do we want to avoid that?

Then maybe we need to make some compromises on the size of the building.

Honestly, I don't want this to go away.

I want it to be compromised to where everybody's happy and we get what we need for our farm workers.

I personally believe they need to have stuff that's done like at Stone Pine, where they have their own homes, yards, playgrounds, areas to barbecue with their families.

I don't understand why that's hard to ask for for our farm workers that work so hard for us.

Um I don't know.

Those are my strong feelings.

If you want to avoid referendum, I think that it's something you should consider.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Rocio Abola Garcia, followed by RJ Jennings.

Once again, Miss Avila is gonna provide her statement and I'll provide you with a site translation after she's finished.

Good evening to all.

My name is Rocío Ávila, and I'm here representing all of the uh farm worker people uh in our community that are here waiting to have a dignified housing.

All those people that at the same time um were always afraid to expose themselves to come because of the necessity of housing before the community and before the council.

So we're waiting that you as a council um could approve this project and construction of 555 Kelly, and that way uh give a how a dignified housing to the farm workers um that are here advocating and exposing all of their necessities and giving reasons why it's important to have this housing.

I don't know if at any time in your lives um any one of you has gone through a necessity to have affordable housing, and for any reason not be able to get it in that moment.

So I'm asking you to think about how you would feel.

Would you feel sad?

Would you feel anguish and not knowing where you're gonna go sleep?

So I'm asking, have a little compassion for these people that need this housing.

I've been present here for a very and that have been present here for a very long time.

So this decision is in your hands.

We ask you to make the correct choice and say yes to 555 Kelly.

Thank you.

RJ Jennings, followed by Sid Young.

Honorable Mayor Reddick and City Council members.

Um thank you for for this time.

Uh and believe it or not, I'm sort of lost for words, which is rare.

Uh, I think the support for 55 Kelly has been well stated.

What I'm looking for are good ancestors.

I'm looking for you to look into your heart and remember what it was like when we had this disaster of a mass shooting and how our hearts opened and looked for ways to to rectify this.

That this is a way for us to do the right thing.

You know, my parents and my grandparents, my great grandparents have been coming to city councils to Board of Supervisors, to governors to the privileged begging to be seen, to be heard, to be taken seriously.

And it's up to you to begin to shift this that we see unjust acts around the globe daily, and we have a chance to create a ripple here, a ripple that could be positive.

So I'm asking you to to reach into your heart and do the right thing.

And thank you for all your hard work and and time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sid Young, followed by Rita Mencera online.

I suppose the pressures are for the city to do something for 39 senior age 55 or more farm worker families, even if there are only 17 on-site parking spaces for them.

Um I saw that the there's going to be three 411 square foot studios, and the rent with subsidy will be 274 a month.

There's going to be 34 545 square foot one bedroom units at 258 per square.

I mean, 258 dollars per month, and three um 955 two-bedroom units at only 183 a month.

And I don't know why they're less than the other ones.

But anyway, um my main concern is perhaps a tiny living will suffice for them, but that's small.

And I know they'll be appreciative to get some kind of roof over their heads with subsidized rent, but um they real it's really not living in my thought.

I mean, I I would myself prefer a little bit of outdoor space and more place to move around on the inside of my unit.

Um lot of them might not be retired, they may just be older and still working.

So they'll still own vehicles and they still need to get to and from work.

The parking I saw in that book over there, they'll have 23 weekday parking spots.

Only uh eighteen of actually seventeen of them will be on site, and then fifty-three weekends.

So I just think they deserve better.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sid.

The next speaker is on line is Rita Mansera, followed by Patty Ramirez.

Good evening.

Uh thank you so much for making this space.

My name is Rita Mancera.

I am the executive director of Fuente de la Costa Sur serving the South Coast.

And I know the housing is complex in our area.

We are just trying to renovate a building in Pescadero, and and it's pretty hard.

You actually have this great opportunity here in Hafen Bay to make this happen.

Uh you have everything in your hands to to do it.

I arrived 20 years ago and do my job I have been visiting farmworker housings uh pretty early on, and I have been shocked to see the housing conditions.

A studio compared to some of the things I see is actually a great improvement.

Uh and you know, we have done work to advocate for better housing to provide tenants rights and a lot more, but we know that the real solution is affordable, dignified housing for farm workers.

So please do listen to Rogelio and Salomon and other farm workers that have laid out what they need, they know what they need, they know what they're dreaming for.

And I actually want to point out that we need more housing than these studios.

Yes, eventually having houses with yard spaces and more room for families to move around.

We also need that.

But having these apartments is a very good start to a big uh very big and complex issue that we have.

So a lot has been said about this project.

We have uh full support for it, and I hope that you will uh move on the project forward.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Uh Patty Ramirez followed by Sandra Sanciona.

Once again, she's gonna provide her sta uh statement, her comment, and I'll provide you with the site translation after she's finished.

Commenceare por un pensamiento.

El character de una ciudad no se mide por sus edificios nuevos.

Este voto is para serrar esa deuda con ellos.

Vivienda estable para ellos reduce costos de salud, reduce crisis in via publica y try fundos statales a nuestra ciudad.

Is fiscalmente responsable moralmente correct.

Estimados membros del Consilio, podemos ser el Consilio que studio problema por muchos anjos, or el Concilio Kelly OI.

Uh good evening, members of the city council.

My name is Patti Ramirez, and I want to remind you that I left 555 Kelly on August 18th, 2018.

I'll begin with a thought.

The character of a city is not measured by its new buildings.

It is measured by how it treats those who built it with their hands.

I believe that no one who fed this city should have to beg for a roof in their old age.

This vote is to settle that debt.

Our senior farm workers harvested this city's food for decades.

Today, many face old age without a home.

Stable housing for them reduces health care costs, reduces crisis on our streets, and brings state funding into our city.

It is fiscally responsible and morally right, esteemed members of the council.

We can be the council that studied the problem for many more years, or we can be the council that solved it today.

Vote yes for this dignified housing.

Thank you for your time.

Sandra Sancion, followed by Jordan Grimes.

Good afternoon, honorable city council and city staff.

We live in a rural community where access is essential.

555 Kelly is in a prime location, providing critical access to not only medical care, mental health services, but other community resources and access to our own community.

During my time in this role, I have taken dozens of senior farm workers to their medical appointments, walking them through the medical system, holding them, caring for them, just as they did once for their children.

The Farm Worker Resource Center speaks to this truth.

Having on-site support will continue to facilitate this for our aging senior farm workers who have given their lives to feeding us.

555 Kelly is a model.

Last week I was in New York attending a food justice convening with leaders from across the nation.

And one truth was very clear.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Council.

Good evening, Council Honorable Mayor.

It's my understanding that once you attend ten of these, you get a free public comment.

So let me know where to redeem that at the appropriate time.

In strong support of the project tonight and strong support of advancing the Crown Lease and the other agreements.

There have been a number of biblical references.

I'm I since we started on that, I feel like it's only appropriate to close on that.

There is, I reviewed the Ten Commandments while we were sitting back there, and there is no commandment uh there that says thou shalt not build more than five stories tall in Half Moon Bay.

Um so just wanted to clear that up.

Um I think it's been uh demonstrated uh via the letter from HCD, via the governor's statements, um, that the city really is under the gun on this one.

Uh this isn't gonna be one where you can wriggle out um you do need to do what's right here.

I think we all know what's right.

Um I think in terms of uh letting the perfect be the enemy of the good in terms of um you know, really not allowing a project that would do so much benefit and create so much benefit for so many.

Um I just I really hope the community doesn't let this slip through your fingers.

I hope you advance it tonight.

Um, and I I hope that many of the people in this room can live there one day.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We're now going to take a 10 to 15 minute break.

Mayor.

Before we close the public hearing on this, we should check with Mayor or Councilmember Brownstone to make sure there's nobody at his location that wants to provide public.

Good point.

Is there anybody in Croatia who would like to address this item, Robert?

Well, they're not there might be, but they're not in the room with me, so um by myself.

Hopefully, it's early in the morning.

Well, maybe you can get a cup of coffee and some toast, and we'll be back in a few minutes.

I think I shall see you in a few.

All right.

Thank you for being here.

Thanks.

And I'm closing the public hearing.

Yeah, it's not your thing.

Interview.

Yeah.

Hey, fucking.

I'm happy to see that this uh recommended support for all of this.

I know it's not gonna happen.

Oh, you're right.

Oh, I like the way he wiped it back there.

Yeah.

Oh hard yes.

I gotta do here.

I was getting here with her.

I was ready to go out and just make up.

So yeah, it's like it was really similar to the everybody did, but I thought it was really good.

Oh really?

The rest of the meeting maybe or what do you think?

It depends on how much you're gonna vote.

It will be both.

Yeah, I don't think this is nice for people to have opposing way.

What's your price?

There's a lot of people.

I don't know.

This is really uh back and forth.

See, okay.

Fingers crossed.

I didn't hear that.

I know I know.

Why?

We need to have coffee.

It's green part of any works on the fish.

Oh my god.

Oh, yeah.

Well, I know.

It's okay.

Some things are worth it.

Yeah.

Oh, no.

I don't think so.

If you're going to stay for the balance of the meeting, please take your seat now.

Okay, thank you.

Um I think council needs to answer something that the I think the first speaker asked about who responded to the questions asked by the council members that were posted online.

Yes.

So if you go to our five five five Kelly web page, and now if you go to the actual agenda for this meeting, there's a table attached that includes uh several questions.

Um, by some of our council members, and it indicates which council member asks what question it includes their questions.

And then the answers were uh provided um by either Mercy Housing, by city staff, by our city attorney.

Um were intended to, you know, provide the best response at the time to those council questions.

Yes, and um the questions sometimes were asked to Mercy and sometimes asked to staff.

So that's why different people uh responded.

Um Vice Mayor?

Yes, uh there's been some discussion tonight in the room about uh the preferences for who would be chosen um to occupy the proposed units at 555 Kelly.

I wonder if our attorney could um go over that again.

Yes, thank you.

Uh Councilmember Penrose or Vice Mayor Penrose.

Yes, the so the preferences are um in both the lease agreement, the ground lease agreement, and the aid affordable housing and property disposition agreement.

And um they provide um the first preference, the second preference, and the third preference, and I went over those during the presentation.

Um ultimately those preferences will that preference program will need to come back to the council in the form of an ordinance or resolution.

That's also in the agreements that's specified, um, so that the council could consider that program and adopt it.

Does that answer your question?

Yes, and the the preferences in uh place place one preference is half Moon Bay, retired or older farm workers, the second preference would be coastside farm workers, and then the third and then the third would be countywide.

Correct.

Thank you.

Any other clarifying questions before we start digging in?

Okay.

Um Councilmember Naggincast, do you want to start or respond to anything raised by the public?

Thank you.

Um I just see there was a dump by Mercy Housing gave us a bunch of information just now.

So I mean what I want to relate to the public is that a lot of uh the questions that I had over 50 questions probably, and and they got published today.

Is that correct?

Uh yes, this this morning.

Or last night.

They were published last night.

Yes.

So uh and there's six new documents that were as attachments on this.

So um I can speak for myself and I want the community to know I I've spent most of time since this weekend, and I know staff got emails from me, and I know staff was busy on it too, but trying to understand and ask for things and uh items we could have.

Now I just noticed because one of my questions um, and I don't did I get maybe I should ask Mercy.

Did we get an operating budget yet?

So in those documents that were published this afternoon, um there were some clarifications and an additional document.

Um so what Councilmember Nagest has been asking for is a five-year operating budget.

Um the the Mercy financial plan provides a 15-year pro forma.

And in this supplemental document, what you what you'll see is a one-year operating budget, and then the pro forma is based on that plus a CPI or a cost of living adjustment over the 15 years.

So that's what has been provided by Mercy at this point.

Okay, and I'll try to find I I'm gonna look for it.

So I'm gonna spend some time looking through 148 pages.

I think we can tell you what page it's on.

I think it's on 140.

135, I believe.

Is it possible?

Right towards the end.

Is it possible that you could bring it up on the screen, the operating budget?

Um yeah, if you give me a few minutes, I can we can work on pulling that up.

And then all the do I ask about the uh the county program, the sub the subsidies that are shown in pro forma, but I guess they're called vouchers.

No.

No.

What's the vouchers then I'm seeing?

So I probably it's I mean, we can answer these to the best of our ability.

I think it probably is better for Mercy to respond to some of these questions if that's okay for you.

Whoever whoever best knows it.

I was curious, you know, what and that led into that whole pro forma budget.

And there was another line item that it was some type of state uh uh what is it?

Depth service and what that item was.

Right.

There's some things under Proforma if they could explain that, but I guess if we were doing the operating budget first.

Sure.

Um Madam Mayor, is it okay if we have mercy come up and answer some of these questions?

Perfect.

Thank you, Remy.

Okay, so now it's on.

Yeah.

Um so apologies.

I I think we misunderstood your request uh when you said you wanted a five-year operating budget.

We're like, oh, we're gonna give a 15-year proforma, uh, which we thought was more than what you asked for, but um now we understand that you wanted to see the more detailed budget.

So while uh Maggie is pulling up the um exhibit, um we'll just uh kind of reiterate what Matthew was explaining is when we uh work on an operating budget, you know, we look at what are the expenses going to be to uh basically manage the property, and we do that budget um for our for a full first full year of operations, and then that budget allows us to set the 15-year pro forma, and we um we don't make this up, but we have to follow you know certain criteria around how we escalate those expenses beyond the first year into the second and third and fourth year.

So the custom that all of our funders use is to escalate by three and a half percent uh for those expenses in the operating budget.

So what Maggie has pulled up here is um the year one first full year of operating expenses um in a you know very detailed way, and um and so you can take a look at that um you know uh now or outside the council meeting, but it does uh it is based on our um operating experience here in Half Moon Bay because you know we have another 40-unit senior property here in the city, um, and we also look at um current costs for kind of comparable properties as well.

If could I ask specific questions that maybe are they trade secrets or something or I don't know depends on your question?

Go ahead.

Okay.

Uh like say for insurance, what's included in that?

What what what is that insurance number is based on um property insurance and liability uh workers comp auto um crime.

So those are our coverages.

So what but is that what typically was in the agreement?

I was that you know I I had to ask about earthquake insurance or uh and I don't know what wildfires have done recently, have or haven't.

Includes fire as well.

We um we typically do not buy earthquake insurance because it's cost prohibitive, and that is actually um uh I guess affordable housing industry standard because it is so costly, and we consulted with our risk manager, and he estimated it would be you know possibly 200,000 a year here to get earthquake insurance.

So um the good news is that the building codes are um pretty pretty strenuous when it comes to seismic standards, and um you know we have a geotechnical engineer and a structural engineer um that analyzed the site and designed a system that would allow for minimal damage um in a earthquake that would be equivalent to um the um Loma Prieta earthquake.

And I'll just share in those documents that were received today, there is uh a description of in more detail than what Ramey just shared about the earthquake and seismic issues that have been explored.

Understanding that you didn't get to see those before the meeting.

Correct.

Yeah.

Okay.

And and then this is why you're here.

What on the Proforma?

What is that state of California debt service?

It's pretty flat all the way across.

Yeah, so we have two sources of funding that the State of California Housing and Community Development Department have committed to specifically to 555 Kelly.

So one is about 2.7 million dollars of infill infrastructure grant, IIG, and the other is um over 13 million in the um CERNA farm worker grant program.

And uh so HCD says here we're gonna commit to this funding for you.

You're gonna use it to help build your your development, but we in exchange, and you know, you don't have to really pay us back, you know, unless you have excess cash flow, you know, excess residual receipts.

Um, but we do have like a mandatory payment that we need you to make to us every year, and so that's what that mandatory debt service is.

But it's to HCD.

Correct, to the state of California H C D.

That's kind of interesting.

I at the first time and a lot of the the information is first time we're seeing it too.

And didn't see any of these till now.

So and again, I it's hard for the community to understand that I keep hearing you know, we're delaying it, but I I back I'm an actual engineer.

Well, I guess I'm not an ex winch and an engineer, I'm always an engineer.

So my problem is detail.

And so that's what I do, and that's why I'm I'm following up asking these, trying to find out these questions, and in a short period of time.

So I understand.

And I'll try to scroll some things.

I think there were some other items that I would be curious to have included, you know, in the documents.

I think it would be maybe constructive to make those recommendations uh now.

I mean, if you have specific changes you want made, and then you know, we can have any subsequent discussion.

Because some of it too, and I I need to scroll through the new information that was provided to see what else, you know, some of my questions, the things that I've been looking for, and thank you though for the information.

I've been asking on that.

Because there were, you know, I I think the big item in to talk about is that it it seems like we get in this forever do loop too.

We were increasing in NAIS because we're still trying to find the financing.

And if we don't have the financing, I mean, when does it end?

You know, I wonder if we should put a date certain to try and okay, you know, when's enough's enough, because to me, if this stays open-ended forever, but ten years, you know, when would the money?

I know I heard through 2027 possibly.

I thought I heard at the last meeting that you may have to do the tax credits.

I heard that year, 2027.

So, you know, if we had a date certain.

You're talking about a date certain for to get finance to get financing and then just say, hey.

You mean to commence the project?

Well to have the financing and let's move on.

If you don't have the financing, we need to stop this.

Madam Mayor, if I if I may.

What I'm hearing, Councilmember Nagengast requesting is a potential uh end date for termination of one of the agreements, say the affordable housing and property disposition agreement.

So right now it terminates um when the memorandum of ground lease is recorded.

So what I'm hearing is he's asking for some type of termination date that is like the earlier of either the date certain or the um so you're you're talking about replacing the language that says like um no later than 194 days after providing a date certain.

Yeah, I was just trying to but if there's interest in providing a date certain.

Well, I I would support a date certain.

I don't know what we would what dates certain we would say, but you know, we have the the problem of the property continuing you know to sit there, this old house um and I recall seeing the the CUSD district old house, you know, sit there for years and it became a giant nest of raccoons that terrorize the neighborhood and I'd like to avoid that.

And um I noticed that one writer to us was worried about a similar thing, and that maybe we could even set uh a date certain on when the property needs to be cleared, you know, as opposed to you know waiting in indefinitely uh until sufficient low-income house housing tax credits are accumulated.

I I don't think it it serves us to have the house sitting there.

So I do favor a date certain.

I'm not sure what that would be.

Um and I would like to see some commitment early on to clear the property.

Um you know, to be able to pr potentially to use that property.

In other words, if they're if if they have taken ownership of it, and yet they don't have all their money and they can't start construction, you know, can we still use that property?

Maybe it's cleared and we can use it for temporarily for parking or something like that.

So I I do think it needs to be firmed up a little bit.

And I think that would give comfort to the people who are seeking housing as well that this might go on for several years.

There's no reason to believe that you know this is going to happen quickly.

So for all use, all you folks out there thinking that we would approve these agreements and then the house the housing would immediately appear, you know, the way this is set up, it could potentially take another several years before ground is even broken.

So I don't think that's good for our property, and I I don't think it's it's it's it's good for the potential residents of the facility either.

So maybe something can you know, conversation with Mercy about what would a date certain look like can I provide some additional context based on what I'm hearing from from both of you?

Um and from a lot of the comments we've heard tonight, and then of course Mercy I think can fill in the gaps.

But we've talked a lot about this with Mercy, um, especially around the financing.

So a couple things that I think are important to understand is um we've heard a lot of statements that Mercy keeps asking for extensions because they don't have all the financing.

But really, Mercy has obtained all the financing that they're going to be able to obtain until these agreements are in place.

So the the two remaining sources of financing that they're working on are uh county affordable housing funds, um, there which ANOFA uh a notice of funding uh availability opens what the next two months.

They had a previously applied for it, and the county's response at the time was we're supportive of your project, but you don't have all your documentation with the city lined up, come back when that's done.

So if these documents were approved, they would apply for it in this next round.

There's no guarantees, but we've seen the letters of support and we've heard from the county that they're supportive of the project.

And so presumably once these documents were in place and the AHPDA was signed, then they would be eligible to get that county funding.

Then they'd have all the funding they need to leverage to pursue the the tax credit financing.

So the two areas that remain for financing, they're they're not going to pursue until we have all of our agreements in place.

So I I know a lot of people think, well, let's wait till they've secured all the funding, and then we can talk about signing these agreements.

Uh correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not really the way it's going to work.

The the agreements have to be in place, and then they can pursue the remaining financing.

So I'm sure they can speak more eloquently than I can to that, but that's been my understanding throughout this process.

When we talk about the house, um, right now it's lined up that they're not going to demolish the house.

It would be in the first phase of construction, that once they had everything lined up and the funding was there and we gave them the go-ahead that they would work on rebuilding the parking lot here and demolish that house and get the site ready for construction.

In the meantime, I I hear the concern.

We've got examples in the community of these government-owned properties that sit fallow and it causes an issue.

We we utilize that space right now.

We store equipment, we store records, and it is regularly accessed.

And part of the reason we do that is to prevent just that situation.

We didn't want a piece of property to just sit kind of unseen, uninspected, unutilized, um, because there's a lot of different issues that can come up.

We have staff in there very, very regularly to ensure that we don't have those types of issues.

Um we will continue to use that under the AHPDA.

It's still our property.

We still control it.

They don't get control, and again, correct me if I'm wrong on the nuance.

We don't get control until they start construction.

So I think there's still that opportunity to continue to use the land if the HPDA were to move forward.

Whether that's we decide that we want the property, the house demolished sooner, we would probably have to do that ourselves and maybe work out an agreement where we would get reimbursed if and when construction moves forward on the property.

Um I think all of that is important context.

Um I think it would be good to have Mercy explain why they have concerns about a date certain because that is something we've talked about, and it has to do with funding as well.

Well, yeah.

But remember, they may not get low-income housing tax credits in the first round.

Right.

It's very competitive.

And in fact, so the value of the individual credits are going down.

And so they have to issue more credits.

But there's like you know, developments worth about 44,000 units of housing competing for these.

And I asked at a previous meeting, what happens if we don't get it this round?

Well, then we'll try again.

So you know, there may need to be multiple rounds, or maybe they don't even get all the low-income housing tax credits that they need, you know, at one time.

So potentially looking at a few years in the future.

Yeah.

So I think it's worthwhile having the discussion.

I think 194 days, you know, is quite a long time and it's indefinite, and you know, I think it would be more accountable to have a date certain if we can work that out.

Right.

Um would it be okay for Mercy to respond to the question about dates certain and the challenges that they observe related to that, and and then maybe we could maybe there's a different way to approach it that still gives the city some assurance that our land just doesn't sit encumbered forever, but it gives them the flexibility to continue to pursue the funding for the project at least for an amount of time.

Um so we uh wanted to be able to leverage the financing that's already been committed from the the two sources of state funding that I mentioned, um, the Becker funds that are um gonna be administered by the city for the 555 Kelly development, excuse me.

Um, and then you know, we uh recently got a letter of interest from the county housing department to provide an operating subsidy that allows the households to pay a very um minimal amount of their income for rent, uh, which we we advocated for at the county because we wanted the seniors to not be economically stressed and be able to um afford to stay at 555 Kelly.

So, and that's that's pretty huge.

Um I understate how how uh big a commitment that is, um, that letter of intent.

So there's some conditions attached to it, but we want to be able to leverage the funding that has been committed thus far and um get this affordable housing property disposition agreement and the other documents approved so that we can then say county we want to apply for um some more capital dollars and um and then to the tax credit allocation committee early next year to apply for tax credits.

We think that the funding that has been committed thus far puts us in a very competitive position for both the county uh fund and the um tax credits.

Um and we've um of course you know um set ourselves up to be competitive as much as possible in the tax credit application, because as you pointed out, Mayor Ruddick, it's very competitive.

This is something that we analyze all the time for our portfolio and our pipeline.

Um, but we think that we have a very good um chance to get tax credits early next year.

We yeah, we could we I'm sorry, uh set aside in the tax credits.

Are you applying for?

I'm sorry, saying again, which set aside aside.

The rural set aside.

Can you do that since half moon bay is not a rural area?

I think it qualifies under the um the tax credit definition.

Okay, I checked, and it's it half moon bay is not located in one of the areas designated as a rural area.

So you might want to confirm that.

Okay, we'll confirm that.

Yeah.

Um, and then my understanding also with the operating subsidies is that the county can't decide how much to allocate because it depends.

I guess the individual renters have to apply for it.

And and so they don't determine whether to issue operating subsidies until they know who's going to be living there, something like that.

Um that was not our understanding.

Uh we worked directly with the director of the department of housing, and um the way that we structured it with with Director Hodges is that for 15 years for all of the units except for the manager's unit, um, we would um have like a contract, if you will, with the county where the county would provide um a subsidy that allows us to cover our operating expenses for any given year, and um so whatever that is, and then the difference um between that and what the residents can pay, and what we um talk to the county about is let's assume that the each household would pay about 350 dollars a month per unit.

Um they may pay more, they may pay less, um, but we wanted to be able to um assume a very low um housing cost for them, and that would be their rent plus um an estimate of what their utility costs would be, what the tenant paid utility costs would be.

And that's per a chart that we have to follow that's issued by the county.

So it's it's not um it's not uh it's more of a contract, uh kind of an assurance of contract payment from the county for any given year so that we know that we are able to cover our operating expenses.

Well, would it be possible to formulate a date certain that could be changed based on circumstance, you know, come back to the table, we renegotiate something as opposed to 194 days after a certain thing happening?

I mean, I think I think we would really like the opportunity to um apply for tax credits next year.

So assuming we get the county um funding uh this year, uh this calendar year, and then that that allows us to then take we hope the final step of uh getting tax credits in 2027.

Um so um you know perhaps like a end date of uh end of 2027 or early 2028, that gives us um a year and a half from now to be able to secure two more sources of funding that would allow us to start.

Yeah, I would even say like you know, December 31, 2028.

Just that that's very fair.

Yeah.

But it's still a date certain, but it gives you some flexibility based on what may or may not happen.

It's two years, two and a half years.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

I I mean I I'm always uncomfortable having not a date certain, just uh maybe that works the date.

I do want to clarify December 31st, 2028 is a year and a half.

Right.

No, I guess all of 27 and all of 28 is what you're referring to.

Yeah, okay.

Sorry.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Yeah.

What what while you're there and when we start talking about the county, I think originally we were going to talk about the county, uh it's a voucher, but this is um these are those rental subsidies.

And this is the because I'm seeing this letter dated April 24 from uh DOH county.

Is that the hot yeah, the Hodge?

Department of Housing.

So the board still has to approve it.

Right.

So that's correct.

Right.

So it's typically I thought I heard uh Mayor Reddick mentioned normally individuals have to apply and they go through the process, but what you're doing is putting it all together as one package.

Is that why it's it shows up as I think it was 600 some change, right?

Every year.

Yeah, there's um I think what you might be thinking about is um individual like vouchers like section eight, where a family might apply to the housing authority to get a voucher, and then that voucher, they take that voucher and try to find an apartment, you know, in a um a local.

Yeah, that's section eight, the federal that's federal.

Yeah, so that's correct.

And so this this subsidy is more of a not that model, but more of a contract.

And uh housing authorities have similar uh contracts.

Uh so um the county modeled this subsidy after that concept where um instead of having each individual household having to you know advocate for themselves um the if it's more of a contract committed to the property um so that there's an assurance that um as long as we meet you know the county requirements, um then that county subsidy will be in place, and that allows the rents to be much much more affordable for those households.

Okay, and then um there's some specific sections of agreements that I was uh wanting to bring up.

Sure.

But you know, how about while you're here?

Um I was gonna just do a general ask because I was told I could ask.

And I'm gonna ask Mercy if there are things that should be done because it's been brought up a few times, whether we we know we don't have a major transit stop now.

That's been declared in 2025, or 2024 actually, in December, and there was talk about it.

I've been hearing it tonight.

And it's somewhat you know how we got there.

We have a project, but are there things we can ensure that the project would provide that a major transit stop would have?

But because you because the project didn't have to do things because there was a major transit stop, were there things that could be provided by Mercy?

And I don't know if that's you know, 24-hour shuttle.

You know, it's that whole 15-minute fixed route service to get somewhere, or if it's uh I don't know if they're you know, we've gone back and forth on parking.

Parking wasn't necessary because it was a major transit stop.

And I don't know if there's anything more you can do about the parking.

I don't know.

But just I'm just trying to think in general as an ask.

Is there things Mercy could do to maybe vouchers?

I I don't know, provide uh uh a shuttle service, you know because we don't have a major transit stop.

It's an ask, it's not a requirement.

Yeah, I um I think I think what we would do is um work with our senior service provider um experts to look at what are the resources available to make sure that the seniors would have transportation to the services that they need.

Um I'm personally I'm not familiar with what exists in Halfham Bay in the city, um, sorry, in the county, but uh this part of the county, but I know that there are a lot of um services that will um like parish para-transit, you know, that will pick up seniors and help them get to their uh appointments, for example, or you know, ALAS or other resources would be available to be able to do that.

Okay, I'd uh um the uh the intent there was an I forget the name of it's the intent letter for the um sublease for Alice to have their that floor, or maybe it's more than a floor, but the ability to do uh to use in the building, and I'm trying to understand I I take care of the tenants, you know, that's the number one priority.

Of course, and concerns I have brought up and and wanting to see the sublease all along, but just to know what type of uses might be done, because I I'm concerned there could be uses.

I know there's 16 hours provided to the city during the week, I think it was a weekday.

We define what a week weekday is.

But there's outside of taking care of the tenants of the building, there's uses that never been defined, and maybe they're not even known.

And I'm a question I would like to have the city council approve any uses that would be um outside of taking care of the building, the tenants, because that's to me the right the number one thing we we want to have happen.

But you know, I don't know what other use will be done.

And and the reason I bring this up, typically projects go through a planning commission to determine the use, to determine you know whether there's parking, whether there's noise, whether there's light issues, uh, and and there's conditions provided on it if it's gonna impact the neighborhood.

Could I ask that you make a specific recommendation?

Uh rather than this could be important so that we manage our time appropriately.

Yeah, I know.

That we try to keep discussion focused on specific recommendations.

You can ask questions too, but I would make, you know.

Mayor Ruddick, may I just clarify just because I know there have been a lot of documents coming, and I just wanted to clarify um the letter of intent for that space.

So we um drafted that letter of intent, which is really, you know, you can think of it as like a term sheet for the lease that we would have with ALAS for the 2600 square feet plus or minus up on the ground floor.

And so there's two main um purposes, and it's written in the LOI that I think looks like Maggie's looking for it.

Um is that the space would be used to provide supportive services to the residents of 555 Kelly.

So ALAS, you know, knows the farm worker community very, very well.

They uh would recruit different services, nonprofits, county folks, to be able to um come there and provide services, health, wellness, education.

I mean, I think there's some very great needs that these households have, particularly seniors.

So that's the primary use of that space is to provide supportive services for the residents upstairs.

The second would be the multi-purpose aspect where we would open up the space to the community for the 16 hours per work week, and we uh used your definition Monday through Friday.

And um that would be through um a reservation system that the city would manage.

And what we asked, you know, in negotiating with uh the city manager and the city attorney, we asked that for the opportunity to collaborate with the city on what are some of the potential uses for that space during that 16 hours, because we want to make sure that this overall space is successful for everybody.

So we you know, we would look at like what are the types of events that would happen here that the city would want to facilitate through their reservation system.

Okay, is the space designed appropriately for that?

Let's make sure though there's a match there, you know.

So that's built into um at least one document, maybe both documents.

Okay.

And so um so that kind of collaboration um is built into the documents already.

So I think it might address what you're um after in terms of making sure that the uses there are appropriate for case.

But no, what I what the city does, and that's during the week, but what happens outside of that 16 hours, the weekend say that uh community events that are out uh that are outside of the tenants of the building.

Anything that might attract others outside of the building.

Okay.

I mean, that's what I'm I I that's what I'm trying to okay.

How do we Yeah?

Can that be part of the discussion on you know the the collaboration around the how this space will be used, the different types of uses?

Well, can I make a recommendation?

So I I would actually like language that says, you know, the city, not the city manager, but the city will review and approve um the sublease for the community serving space.

And that means all the activities, you know, uses, hours, you know, that kind of a thing.

But that's already included in the agreements that the city council has to approve that.

Yes.

Correct.

And and I think that's appropriate.

Okay.

Because normally something like that would require a use permit.

So we want to make sure that the city reviews and authorizes that.

Right.

Yeah.

Because it could have impacts to traffic and parking and depending on what the use is.

And so you're saying we already have control over that at City Council.

We do, we do.

And and the question you were asking.

So there's a 16 at least 16 hours a week that is offered to that the broader community.

When that's when we're outside of that time, it it already defines what the uses are going to be.

There wouldn't be big community events.

So it wouldn't, it's it's pretty well defined already, but we can really nail that down in the sublease agreement before you approve it.

Yeah, because I mean, outside of the 16 hours, will there be you know, weddings, you know, what's gonna go on?

I mean, I think we need to have some you know authority over all those things.

Well, again, outside of the 16 hours, the space is to be used to serve the residents of the building.

Only I but I've heard other I've heard other things, so that's why I just want to make sure that's yeah, I think it's been refined to this point early on.

You're correct, it was considered a much broader space.

So but I think the point is the language in the agreements gives the city council the authority to approve the agreements and and the uses allowed within those agreements, and it's broadly shared in the LOI, and then it can get really nailed down in that sublease agreement that you all have to approve.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay, that's what I wanted to make sure that.

And then in the uh in the ordin ordinance, it it talks about in the this is at section six, it talks about a periodic review that's done.

Can we have the periodic review and the the ground lease?

And I would, you know, and it says it's uh I think it was 10 years.

Can we have it like for less than that, like maybe seven years?

Yes, it is within the council's discretion to decide um the period of time for the periodic review of the ground lease, and it would be the ground lease itself.

So the city manager, it's currently drafted so that the city manager would be undertaking the periodic review and then reporting to the council.

But that provision can be revised based on the desires of the council.

Well, I'm saying it to include items, but not limited things like insurance, uh rent charges, condition of the property, the community resource center, the operating budget budget just to see what we're doing.

I uh it seemed pretty loose in there, and I just wanted to put it also in the ground ground lease.

Um so I believe it's drafted right now to only apply to the ground lease.

But it's only in it's only in the ordinance, so I see what you're saying.

To put that language in the lead the ground lease itself.

Yeah.

I I I would agree with that that's the you know the ground lease, since that's the controlling document, ought to have language about the periodic reviews.

Okay.

Yeah, that's that's fine.

Yeah.

The ordinance was the vehicle um that's identified in section government code section 37380.

So it identifies the council specifying a the period of periodic review.

So it can, but I if I think it can go in the ground lease.

I presume Mercy wouldn't have any problem with that addition.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Since the the ground leaks controls, it seems makes sense to put the teeth you know into the ground lease.

That's fine.

Because you know, once the ordinance is adopted, nobody's gonna care about the ordinance.

They're gonna be looking at the ground lease.

Yes, yes, we can pass.

I think everybody 50 years are you gonna care?

Good point.

So um so is there a desired period of time that the council I I like a ten years to me is too long.

I I throw out seven.

I don't I don't know.

Just as a number.

And then we could list some things that we include, but not limited to that okay.

Yes, did you want to list what you're um you know the insurance coverages and costs, which uh would come up that probably show up on the operating budget because I'm gonna include the operating budget now the current year and four years out, so that gets back to that five-year.

And then you know, the rent charges, condition of property, the what's going on with the community resource center.

Yeah, the idea was that it would be the entire lease, but that would be reviewed, but of course the council could provide specific terms if that's what you want.

And um prevailing wage.

Is it thou shall?

Are we doing prevailing wage or not?

So my understanding from Mercy was that they would pay prevailing wages and that we made revisions to the ground lease to specify that they would pay prevailing wages on this project.

If we want to confirm with Mercy, that was their understanding, but that was my understanding.

Yes, okay.

But in courts of the labor code or thou shall I read that provision to say they are required to pay prevailing wages.

And say thou shall.

Okay.

It it looked to me like they were gonna they stated they were gonna comply with state and federal laws relating to prevailing wage, but it didn't actually say we shall provide prevailing wage.

So compliance as opposed to it will be our policy to to pay prevailing wage.

I think having saying that we we will provide prevailing wages is stronger than we will comply with any state laws regarding prevailing wage.

Is that acceptable?

Let me go through the download we just had at the documents that there's a hundred something pages I was gonna look through real quick.

So I'm finished right now.

Okay, so we can let other people weigh in.

I noticed that Robert had his hand raised earlier.

Robert, do you have comments?

Um oops.

There we go.

Um I think Mercy's answered the questions.

Most of the questions that I had.

And also um, yeah, having been on the ad hoc committee, I was pretty familiar with some of the questions that um Councilmember Negengas was bringing up and you know stuff that would come up today.

So uh I'm glad you're bringing those up.

Uh Paul.

And I'm glad that Mercy is here to answer those so we can get through as much as possible.

There's one thing that you're mentioning, Paul, I'm trying to remember now.

Um yeah, I think it had to do with you know, making sure you know the transit stop and you know the fact that you know mercy will be on site, yes, I think to provide a lot of those services, and the whole reason for being located where it is, is because people have access to the county.

Medical services walking distance, people will have access to some resource dentistry because it's walking distance.

In terms of shopping, you mentioned actually a lot of folks who be living there uh prefer to shop at uh local mercados that are also in walking distance.

So um it has I mean, there's been a lot of thought about making sure there's um quality services and transportation for folks, and some of that will be worked out, yeah.

There might be shuttles uh on a regular basis that can be organized.

So thanks for bringing it up.

Um I think that uh we've got a lot of that covered, and I think that Mercy has dealt with a lot of these situations in the past.

Um we've heard tonight from a few folks who are very familiar with the senior Mercy housing, and they have 40 units on the coast, so um I trust that we really have a really good developer here that um will follow up and get the funding, et cetera.

So that's the only comment I was gonna make earlier.

Thanks.

Um councilmember um Johnson or Vice Mayor Penrose, do you have comments?

Uh um I don't really have any comments.

It's a lot of I'm in favor of this project in many ways, but I'm a little disappointed on how we got here with no transit stop and and how it became a bonus density building based on something that we don't even have.

But at the same point, I'm I'm for this project because we need it.

Um, but I do worry about setting a precedence uh for height and density for the next group that comes in.

It's the only issues that I have because we don't have anything to protect it.

But I we definitely need some kind of transportation um better than what we have, and I'm a little concerned because last time we were here a couple seasons or a couple meetings ago, we had Sam trans are talking about increasing a half a cent tax rate in riderships down.

And we don't know if um ride share is gonna be around, or we and that's something I worry about.

Um these questions are great questions.

You guys are going deep into this.

Um a date certain, I think is probably appropriate.

194 days versus a date certain.

I'm hearing all that, and I'm taking notes on this, but other than that, I think we're in the right direction.

Um I'm listening and learning and and taking a lot of notes.

Thanks, Mayor.

Yeah, um, I'm quite satisfied with uh Mercy's responses to the questions.

I think that they are very agreeable and they want the project to go through.

I think um this is a very common path for nonprofits in terms of financing.

Um if you're gonna have affordable housing, you're gonna have to put up with insecurity around it.

And sure, you try to try to tie it down as as well as you can.

That's that's our job.

But there are so many variables that they have to deal with that have to do with state, county, different types of funding, tax credits, all of those things.

Each one depends on the next one, and that's the way affordable housing works.

So this is our first real dive into doing affordable housing here.

So we have a lot to learn.

But I think that uh I feel confident that Mercy is not in the business of spending two or three years on a project, which they don't think is gonna go through.

I I think they'd have told us early on that it wasn't feasible.

I think I feel very confident that it's gonna be going through.

Um in terms of a specific date, a date, yeah, I think December 31st of 2028 is very reasonable, very generous.

I think uh Mercy feels that they should be able to get things settled by then, so they're comfortable with it.

Um I don't know what a shuttle's all of what the shuttle is about.

I don't quite understand council member not gas concern over the transit stop.

Um everybody here in town has a problem with transportation.

Um, does have an on-demand um service that people can use to go to medical appointments, et cetera, over the hill.

Um for the most part, everything is totally accessible.

That's one reason why it's a great thing to have residential development in our downtowns, is that the downtowns provide most of the services that people need.

Um may not be able to buy sneakers here, but I think retired farm workers don't necessarily need sneakers.

So I don't have additional questions.

I appreciate the thoroughness with which the mayor and council member Nagengast have gone over these um documents.

I went over them and didn't come up with a lot of questions, so that shows you how good I am at reading documents.

Um at any rate, um that's where I am for right now.

Thank you.

I'll go then.

Um I I do uh support the recommended changes to the CEQA section and the ordinance section two SEQA recommended by council, so I would support those.

Um already covered some um we discussed prevailing wage.

Um I I think um I would like some changes when the language refers uh to the city manager.

Um just to clarify that the city council has some authorities for a review and approval.

Something like when references made to approval or consent of the city manager, the city manager um shall be entitled to confer with city staff, attorneys, consultants, and the city council prior to giving his approval or consent.

Some some language like that.

I I would support that.

That way council always has a way to come in.

Okay.

I was concerned about a statement relating to when they were talking about, I think it was in the restoration section of the ground lease, where it said that the tenant won't have any obligation for restoration of the structure if any damage to it is not covered by insurance policies.

Right.

So what if there is an earthquake?

There's no earthquake insurance, and say it's the damage is above a certain value of the property, and they go, uh no, the provision in this says that if we don't have insurance on something and there's damage, we don't have to pay for it or restore it.

I've got a I've got a big problem with that one, because then the city is stuck with it, right?

So I think we either have to have all the insurances like earthquake insurance.

I don't see anything in their operating budgets about deductibles or you know, right now a lot of people who have homes are subject to wildfire exclusions and very high deductibles.

So suppose it's damaged by a wildfire, and nothing in our provisions deals with that, and they come to us and say, yeah, we're not going to fix the building.

We're just going to leave it in a shambles on your property, and we're not going to do anything about it.

So we've got to find a way to rectify that situation with new language.

Um, if you're not gonna have things like earthquake insurance or wildfire exclusions, and you need to change the language to say they will be liable for any and all damages, irrespective of insurance coverage.

So Madam Mayor, did you want or do you want me to respond or Lisa to respond?

I'm sure she'd be happy to talk about that particular provision.

Well, she can talk about it, but I'm actually asking for a change in the language.

Because the language is unacceptable.

It looks to me like it creates real vulnerability for us.

If there's some damages, like say the insurance even says, well, we're only going to cover up to 30 percent, and you know, the damage is 50 percent, and you're you're on the hook for 20 percent, and then you know, they decide, eh, we're leaving.

We're gonna we're abandoning ship, and you're stuck with it.

And that's not I I can't approve that.

Can I comment on that?

Sure.

So I would need to know from mercy.

In fact, any actually um portable housing.

Oops.

Provider in California, especially where we have the constant threats of earthquakes.

Um is that even feasible, like to have half Moon Bay alone provide some language that would say that they're not respond that we're responsible, they're not based on all the all the other properties they have with uh with or you know what kind of earthquake insurance do they have.

I don't see how we could be an exception if there's a standard here that's followed throughout California.

Uh with affordable housing units.

I don't know.

That's what I'm I'm asking.

Like, what is that even possible?

So maybe real estate council can comment on that or mercy, but I think that section is problematic.

So do you want Lisa to comment on it, or would you rather hear from Mercy on that?

Oh, we can hear from Lisa and then maybe mercy.

Okay.

Lisa, can you respond um to that particular provision and maybe provide the essentially summarizing what it says and what would happen if there is uh a scenario where there is not sufficient insurance proceeds to cover the loss.

So we're the insurance proceeds we're speaking about right now are those that are obtained by mercy.

So if they were inadequate and one of the parties elected to terminate um the city could potentially have to look to its own coverage in order to um either reconstruct, demo demolish, depending on what needed to be done, but they may have to look to their own coverage.

Um I don't typically see affordable housing projects obtaining earthquake insurance.

I would assume that's because it's prohibitively expensive, but I have not done that investigation myself.

And just to be clear, we're talking about section 13.1, correct, Lisa?

Uh yes.

Thanks.

Is that it?

So I think either they have to, there has to be language that they pay up, or they have to have add we have to work with them to make sure there's adequate insurance coverage because I don't know about a future city council, but if I were one, you know, I wouldn't want to inherit a damaged property that had become my responsibility.

I'm not willing to accept that risk.

Well, as Lisa pointed out, it is the case that essentially no projects, and you know, I've spent a fair amount of my career working on the market rate side of commercial development.

And very few, if any, in my experience, um properties carry earthquake insurance.

Um it's just not uh economical.

It's it's economically prohibitive.

Um the restoration provisions that are in this lease are also I think really standard provisions, and an obligation that required Mercy to restore the property after some sort of catastrophic loss would make this unfinancible.

The the lenders would not accept that risk and the project would not be able to go forward.

We could consider talking about you know, essentially the lease would end, so the city could then do with the property as it wished.

You wouldn't be obligated to continue operating the project.

Um but I don't want to have to clean it up and send it to a class two landfill and pay for it.

You know, it's it's one thing if it's on your own property.

It's on property that Mercy owns, has acquired, they own it, they're responsible for it.

But a project on publicly owned property and exposing the city to that kind of risk, if there's you know a huge wildfire or if there's an earthquake or there's a terrorist attack, and then we're left holding the bag on a damaged building and it sits there because the city doesn't have any money and it becomes blighted and we don't have redevelopment anymore to clean it up.

You know, to me that's that's really a non-starter, I have to say.

So uh Madam Mayor, I have a few suggestions.

So to address your concerns, I think there's a few ways we might want to consider doing this.

We could add a provision in section 13.1 that says that if the damage or destruction to the property or the improvements is such that there um there the insurance proceeds proceeds are that are available don't cover that loss, that mercy returns the site to its original condition.

Alternatively, we could look at the insurance limits and consider increasing those to ensure that there is sufficient insurance proceeds to cover a loss.

Another alternative would be to adjust the um the percentage amounts uh on section three point 13.2 and 13.

Uh 2.2, which are the restoration proceed percentages.

So you know, like right now it's set at 33 percent, we could adjust those.

So those are some options that you consider that address your concerns that may be feasible for Mercy as well.

Yeah, so I would direct that you consult with Mercy and um Burke real estate attorneys and and develop a solution and bring back you know next time.

Um we take a break and you consult and you agree on language, but it's like either you got to increase the insurance or you gotta pay, because the city can't accept.

Yeah, yeah.

To be clear, we will have property insurance for the replacement value.

It will exclude earthquake.

So you know, w we can't we're already going to provide replacement value for the covered perils under the property insurance, of which earthquake is not one.

Um we're talking mostly about fire and you know, well, except that the building is uh is proposed to be built on a site that has already been designated as highly liquefaction, subject to liquefaction, and that was identified in early studies, you know, for the project, which also increases you know the risk.

So I would say, you know, if you'd like to take a a break of a few minutes and discuss it, and we can come back, or we can just you know, you recommended the language that covers this concern and bringing it up.

Maybe maybe we could see if there's any other revisions.

Sure.

And um we can take a break if necessary, but if there's if there's if this is it, then yeah.

I I just have a couple more things.

Okay.

Um can I just finish mine?

Yeah.

Okay.

So the ground lease, it talks about the right to audit and inspect.

And um I'd like to increase the maintenance of the records to seven years, and I'd like to be able to have audits, you know, any time.

I think the city should be able to audit any time.

I don't suspect we will.

We don't audit our current grants.

But I think I'd like to increase the term for keeping the records.

Um at the point where the the lease is terminated, I want to make sure that the city gets everything it needs, like keys to the building, any pass codes, security things, everything we would need to take back, you know, control of the building.

I want to make sure that the language provides sufficient cover there.

Um then I think the last thing was the um I I know I think it maybe it's in the ordinance or one of the other documents that talks about the disabled definition and references the Fair Housing Act and the ground lease.

I don't think it's it refers to the Fair Housing Act.

And the language that says a potential disability doesn't really work for me very well.

So I understand you know that the Fair Housing Act, California Fair Housing Act is a little more generous than federal ADA regulations.

But I think we want to make sure it's not too loosey goosey, you know, because if we were to provide somebody coverage for a disability when they only might become disabled potentially, that's a little too loosey-goosey.

So maybe just provide the citation for the California, the definition for the Fair Housing Act.

Just so it's clear we're we're complying with with the law, the legal standards, that's all.

And I think that's it for me.

And uh I did ask a lot of questions, and staff and mercy did answer a lot of questions, and I was able to, you know, review those unfortunately only the last couple of days, but um I appreciate the effort that went into that.

You ready to go?

So and in this download we got today, and the letter I see dated today.

Last but not least.

148148.

Because I was interested in having something in agreement.

You know, there was some conversations about government code 37380 versus 37364, the ability for uh referendum.

I see a letter dated today from them totally disagreeing with everything, and I would ask.

I assume I'm gonna hear, but I wanted in the ground lease, Article 6.1 to have language that in accordance with government code 37380 in the event of a referendum, the city has no control over any outcomes, and ground lease is rejected, the city is held harmless.

But then I see their letter, and of course, but we've been you know, we've been it's been talked about in the community a lot.

And then 37380 has been our position.

37380, oh, yes.

Right, the government code.

Right.

And they're I see they're saying, no.

We don't agree.

I guess.

But I get that in the sec in the ground lease.

Can you give me the language again, Councilmember Nagingas?

It's in uh ground lease article 6.1, there's talks about you know, things I think if the uh rent goes away.

I just wrote this down the uh section number because that's where it seemed to fit that as landlord, there's a conditions in there that we're not held harmless for.

But I wanted something that in accordance with government code 37380 in the event of a referendum.

I mean, I don't know how that referendum would go anyway.

But if the ground lease is rejected, the city is held harmless.

Yes, so uh the timing of the ground lease would be such that it doesn't go into effect until the memorandum of ground lease has been recorded.

And that's after the age PDA has been entered into and the conditions precedent have been set.

So my concern would be putting it in the ground lease itself may not achieve what you want it to achieve.

Well, maybe in the AHPDA.

Right.

That's what I was going to suggest.

So uh as I understand it, you want to include some language that says the city basically has no control over whether a petition for referendum is filed or not, and um the city shall not be responsible for held responsible or liable for the outcomes of that.

Right.

If that's filed.

Right.

And if and agrees in uh in the ground lease it's rejected, I if the vote well, the ground lease, right.

Okay, then if the project gets rejected, or I I don't know how anything would be worded.

We can't predict how the pet the referendum would be worded, but you know where I'm going with this.

Yes.

Okay.

If there's a referendum, right.

We just want some link.

You you just want some language that basically says the city is not going to be held responsible if that occurs.

Right.

We're indemnified whoever sues us to vote on that after.

Right.

Right.

Um, so that we can we can definitely write some some language up to that effect, and maybe that's something that we can speak with Mercy at the break about along with the other provisions.

Okay.

That's okay.

Do you well I mean, still scrolling?

Yeah.

So in the meantime, maybe I'll just ask the council members, we have a long list of additions here.

I assume that if a council member was opposed to any of these revisions that have been proposed, they would voice that objection.

I'm assuming at this point that everybody is amenable to the the revisions that have been proposed so far.

Okay.

I don't have anything else right now.

Um Denise and I have been kind of conferring, and maybe we can kind of read back the the items that we're hearing need to be addressed before the council would really want to consider the agreement.

Okay.

So we'll take a short break, five-minute break.

Um thank you for giving us some time to sit down with uh Mercy staff and to go through the list of items that we heard from you that really need to be modified and updated and addressed before you want to consider the agreements.

Um we worked through several items.

There are a couple that um there are questions on.

And um I don't know, Denise, do we want to go through the ones where we're able to quickly come to consensus?

Um it's up to the mayor.

I have the list ready so I can go through them.

Okay.

So of course, there are the two changes that staff recommended um at the in the presentation.

So revising section three point four and the change to the SQL language.

I'm not going to go through those.

Um starting on the provisions of the agreements.

So there was a discussion about uh revising section seventeen point sixteen of the age PDA, uh, which would be the termination date provision.

And so we would propose to revise that language to say this agreement shall automatically terminate upon the earlier date of either the following one, the recordation of the memo of ground lease, which is the date upon which the ground lease commences, or two December thirty first, two thousand twenty-eight.

Mercy requested that we add language that specifies that the parties will meet and confer prior to that termination date.

So we would propose the parties shall meet and confer no later than ninety days prior to December thirty first, two thousand twenty-eight, regarding a potential extension of the agreement beyond the December thirty first, two thousand twenty-eight date.

Uh resource center use and property.

Revise Section 16 of the ground lease and 5.8 of the AHPDA to state that city manager may consult with city staff, city attorney, and the city council in determining um his duties under that section.

Section 4.6 of the ground lease, which relates to the audits and maintenance of records.

So uh Mercy was amenable to revising it to require them to maintain records for a period of seven years and to allow uh the city to conduct an audit of records at any time, but of course, practically that would be limited to the seven years the seven year period thought it would only be able to cover the seven years where the records are maintained.

So next up is section 5.3 of the ground lease, which is uh the provisions relating to surrender of the property, and it is that provision that we would add that at the point where the lease is terminated, the city will receive any information, keys, pass codes, et cetera, to uh take over and maintain the building from that point forward.

Uh for the definition of disabled, which is in the ground lease, the AHPDA, and I believe it's in the regulatory agreement as well.

We would propose to add uh that change the definition of disabled to uh be consistent with government code section 12926, which states that as uh any mental or physical impairment that limits a major life activity, or as and this part we would add, or as otherwise defined in state or federal law.

So those are the the provisions where we were able to come to a consensus on and revised language.

There are two provisions that um remain outstanding, and so one provision we I think there needs to be um some further clarification on what is desired, um but the other one mercy uh will be able to speak to that.

So um I'll let Mercy um address those two issues.

And the the two remaining out is issues that are outstanding is the language that Councilmember Nagingas suggested about the referendum and um the revisions that the mayor suggested about uh revising section 13.1 damage or destruction of property or improvements.

Okay.

We hear from Mercy now.

Okay, sure.

So if you could come to the podium and address those two items.

Regarding the insurance provisions, which we spoke about earlier, um, although we take your point, um, I think that as I said before, this is uh standard provision under uh what we know to be the terms that uh our lender will be looking for.

Um we would have to uh you know remediate the site after a catastrophic loss or something like that would be an obligation to just you know to the extent that there aren't insurance proceeds available to address that.

There aren't other proceeds that the uh that the operator, the limited partnership, would have to address that either.

And um adding that obligation would make the project unfinanceable, and so it's just not something that we can agree to take on.

Um I think that we would be willing to incorporate some sort of um you know meet and confer language, and of course, to the extent that insurance proceeds are available, we would be happy to um to apply those to uh to that effort.

But um unfortunately, I think we're just um we're stuck uh with respect to this issue.

One thing that I would point out is um I mean I take your point about this being um public property and the city's property, and I think that you know it's worth noting that that or that that this issue is um what and parcel of the ground lease structure and the partnership between the city and the developer in developing this property.

It is sometimes or even often the case that cities convey the property in fee to the developer to develop the project, in which case, in the event of a catastrophic loss, rather than the dilapidated building sitting on public property, it would be sitting on property that's owned by the developer entity.

But that's not the structure that we have here.

And so unfortunately, again, take your point, but I just don't think that there's anything that we can do in order to address your concern and uh receive financing for the project.

Related to this, I just want to um clarify that there was additional comments that were provided in one of the emails per one of your questions this afternoon regarding the seismic um issues on the property in liquefaction.

And what I wanted to provide is that while I am not an engineer, we do hire a geotechnical and structural engineer that designed the building to meet strict California building codes, and those requirements specifically are designed to seismic safety standards where that are up to codes of being with able to stand 7.0 earthquakes, which is similar to the Loma Prieta earthquake.

So there's very minimal um risk on that level of earthquake.

Um but those some of those questions are addressed in one of those QA's that were provided today.

Yeah.

I think the other issue related to a request that uh the developer indemnify the city around a referendum.

I I I think we just need to understand a little bit more about what it is that you're requesting.

I'm not sure exactly what the ask is here.

What we what we I interpreted the ask to be.

So if you want Councilmember Nagengast, I can start with that and you can correct correct with me or correct CJ.

So I understood that you were seeking some sort of indemnity provision that specifies in in the AHPDA that specifies that in the event of some sort of legal challenge, if the referendum is filed and successfully uh defeats the ordinance, overturns the ordinance adopting the agreements, that Mercy would defend and indemnify the city from that third-party legal challenge or a challenge raised by Mercy.

Yes.

But yeah.

Right.

So that the city wouldn't be responsible for any lawsuit if a lawsuit is filed against the city based on a potential petition for referendum.

Yes.

I'm sorry, I think I still don't quite understand how that would play out.

Is so the scenario would be that there's an effort to gather signatures for a referendum and a third party sues the city to claim that the referendum is invalid.

Is that uh that's not what I said.

I if if the election, if the referendum is successful and the ordinance is overturned and the ordinance is overturned.

Right.

Or invalidated, it's not overturned.

Well, in in that scenario, the age PDA would never become effective because the approval would have been voided.

So uh, you know, I I don't think that it addresses this concern to put a provision in the AHPDA because that document doesn't have any force or effect.

Um in terms of the lawsuits, again, um I I'm just struggling to understand what we would be protecting the city against in that case.

Um I think if you're asking for mercy not to sue the city to recover, for instance, all of the time and effort and expense that the that Mercy has incurred in pursuit of this project in the event that it's ultimately overturned by a referendum.

I guess I would have to I would have to think about that a little bit more.

Um I don't think I'm not I'm not sure what our claim would even be there.

Um so I don't think we're gonna do that, I guess is what I'm saying.

I I think if that if that's the way that plays out, I don't think you know that's the end of the road for for um for mercy.

I think it is possible that um, you know, again, theoretically, just thinking through the ways that the claims could play out.

I think it's possible that either Mercy or some other party could sue the city prior to the referendum, uh in order to you know essentially invalidate the referendum process um under a claim that it is not an action that's subject to referendum.

Um I don't think that we would be willing to indemnify the city for that sort of a claim, nor would we be willing to waive those claims ourselves because that's an open legal question.

Um again, if you can help me understand what the harm is to the city that we would be holding you harmless from, then um I think that would be helpful in my understanding how we would uh how we would address this.

I'm just trying to, you know, now that I see your letter dated today, right?

You just submitted something today.

You don't agree at all with 37380.

Correct.

I I do not believe that 37380 is applicable to this uh lease.

And I'm trying to get in as much protection I can for the city.

You know.

That's why I tried to throw out something there.

Right.

Yeah, and I I think we that I think I understand what you're trying to achieve, which is just that the city wouldn't be held responsible to pay for the defense of litigation that arises from essentially this project.

Because it's uh the the a petition for a referendum, that's you know, California Constitution allows that.

And I you know, we have no control over that.

Right.

And uh and I I agree with you, but I think what Mercy is saying from their perspective is that the if a referendum is successful and the ordinance is overturned, none of these agreements would go forward because they're enacted by the ordinance.

So even if we included the provision in the AHPDA or the ground lease, if there is a petition for referendum that goes to the people and the people say we don't want those agreements approved, then the agreements go away.

So the the provision in the agreements wouldn't help us at all.

No, if you're you're satisfied, we don't need any of the Well, I I think that I understand why you want to achieve that, but I don't have a mechanism by which we could we could require that.

I will say there is an indemnity provision in the CDP.

I I believe there is.

There is typically an indemnity provision that is attached to a con uh coastal development permit or any other entitlements that are granted by the city that could apply.

Um but I'm not sure that as I sit here today.

Robert, you have your hands raised, you'd like to comment.

Yeah, just real quick, just for the benefit of the public uh in terms of the point this discussion with the point quality, if it was the city that went ahead and said, Oh, yeah, we're gonna have a referendum on this, in other words, not by a petition, but by an action by the city, then that's a different story.

But what Paul is talking about is if there's a petition and then there's a referendum, and the referendum is you know, against um approving um these lease agreements, then to Paul's point, we don't have any control over that, in which case there's really no one who can bring a cause of action against us, you know.

It's like a legal act of God at that point.

We have no control over it, and therefore there's no uh cause of action that someone could bring against us.

So and again, you know, for some folks, you know, tuning in, you know, about this.

That's it's a process issue, but legally it has a big impact whether um it's by a referendum or not that we didn't have control over.

So because like you said, constitutional right to have a referendum, and then the results of that referendum are final.

So that's all just want to add to that.

Do you have more in the way of okay?

anybody else?

So could you go over the the scenarios open to the council this evening?

Sure.

Talked about earlier.

So if the council the the council could introduce the ordinance tonight with the revisions that we've identified and that were agreed upon with Mercy.

Um and the and um then it would be introduced and then it would come back for a second reading on May 5th.

Alternatively, the council could continue this item to the May 5th hearing.

And if the council needs more time or wants to consider it or wants to see the revisions finalized and presented, then it can be continued to the May 5th hearing.

The notice requirements would follow, and the ordinance could be introduced at the May 5th hearing.

Alternatively, the council could decide to not take any action tonight and do something totally different.

So it's it's really up to the council.

Vice Mayor.

Yeah, I I think we ought to introduce it tonight given that we have had a long discussion.

We've made a bunch of revisions.

Um the revisions seem to satisfy council.

Uh so I think we ought to introduce it tonight.

Yeah.

The caveat I would add is if those two provisions are issues that the council wants to have further discussion on.

So if those two remaining items that we couldn't negotiate tonight, the council feels strongly that we need to go back to Mercy, come up with some other solution, then it might be worthwhile to have that matter.

I would just offer that I think the the two holdout provisions sounds like non-starters for Mercy.

So I I'm not sure what additional that's that's pretty much what they what I think that's the word they said in the room.

So yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Patrick?

Uh I think we've hammered out a lot, and I think the details have been excellent.

Uh yeah, I'd like to move forward so that we um what is it, May 5th?

He said well, so we can introduce tonight with the revisions that we've discussed, except for the two items that we couldn't come to an agreement on.

And so if that if it's introduced tonight, then it will come back on May 5th for adoption.

Second reading.

I like that because then it gives a couple days if there is any last minute.

But voting to introduce I will say that once it's introduced, then we can't have substantive edits between the first reading and the second reading.

We can make minor non-substantive changes.

Um, if there are substantive changes at the second reading adoption, then it has to be reintroduced.

Okay.

Paul, do you have a preference?

No.

So can I make a motion?

Go for it.

Um can you put up on the screen?

It's a lot.

Well so and we need to read the whole number one because um it is an ordinance, and we're introducing it by title.

All right, Ray.

Can you read it and then we can do it by we can make uh so move kind of do you want me to read it?

No, I I'm happy to read it.

Okay.

I move that we conduct a public hearing and introduce the introduce the first reading of an ordinance of the city of Half Moon Bay, approving the affordable housing and property disposition agreement, ground lease of real property for a term of 99 years, memorandum of ground lease, affordable housing regulatory agreement, and declaration of a restrictive covenants regulatory agreement, and other ancillary agreements between the city of Half Moon Bay and Mercy Housing, California 110 LP for the senior affordable 40-unit residential project for agricultural workers.

APN's zero five six-150-22 partial and zero five six-one five zero-two hundred, including two thousand six hundred and fifty-three square feet of community serving space authorizing the city manager to execute the agreement and take other actions necessary to implement the foregoing agreements, finding and finding the approval of the agreements and related actions exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA guidelines one five three three two.

Could that be discussed at the May 5th meeting?

Yes, like we could bring it as a separate item on May 5th, because to some degree we want to know where this is headed first, anyway.

Yes, I would just do that.

Okay.

So just the item one then.

Do I have a second?

Second you did the second.

Oh, Robert did the second.

Okay.

Um could I get a roll roll, please?

Councilmember Brownstone.

Yes.

Councilmember Johnson.

Yes.

Councilmember Nagengast.

I hope the agreements are solid and I will continue to promote safety, but I can't get there.

No.

Vice Mayor Penrose.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Mayor Raddock.

I'm going to vote yes to introduce.

Motion carries.

One clarification I want to make.

Um typically this the second reading would come forward on consent.

Um, given the fact that we're going to be tweaking and you know, making those updates.

It seems to me like we would bring this back on uh regular agenda.

Is that as a business item or would it need to be a good idea?

I would request that it comes back as a regular item.

Okay.

Yeah, that's up to the council.

Okay, great.

And then we'll bring back the grant agreement as a second business item separate from this the next meeting.

Yeah.

So and on the second item, maybe we could have a formal motion to continue the item two to the May 5th meeting so that the notice follows that as well.

Move to continue item two to the May 5th meeting.

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

We do need to do roll call.

We do need a roll call on that one.

With him, yeah.

To continue, we need a roll call.

Yes, for everything.

Roll call, please.

Uh council.

That's right, because Robert's remote.

Councilmember Brownstone.

Yes.

Councilmember Johnson.

Yes.

Councilmember Nagangas.

Yes.

Vice Mayor Penrose?

Yes.

Mayor Ruddick.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Yep, Deborah Penrose.

I think we're adjourned.