423, which introduces some of the provisions of SB35 into the coastal zone.

We'd like to focus this presentation mostly on discussing the design standards themselves, but I will start the discussion by providing you guys with some background on the state legislation, why we're here, and some of the applicability throughout our jurisdiction.

So SB 35 requires streamlined ministerial approval process for jurisdictions that are not making sufficient progress on their RENA numbers.

Half Moon Bay has been identified as one of those jurisdictions.

So we have a certain affordability requirement that requires us to allow for streamlined approval of those projects.

We have a um thank you.

So that would thank you so much.

No worries.

So through the streamline ministerial approval process, it does allow for jurisdictions to implement design review through objective design standards.

And previously, this did not apply to the coastal zone, but effective January 1st, 2025, it will apply to the coastal zone through SB 423.

It is limited to certain site restrictions, which I will get more into in a later slide.

But it does have applicability here, and it would be applying to projects with just a 10% affordability aspect.

We have lost the screen again.

Okay, thank you.

No worries.

Additionally, uh AB 2011 and SB6 also allow for streamlined ministerial approval process with uh a differing affordability component, so not the 10%.

Um it has a few different ones, so I don't want to get too deep into it as our main focus really is SB 423, but thought it was good to mention that that could have these design standards could have app applicability under those provisions as well, and that applies within more uh commercial jurisdictions where it's been identified as an underutilized commercial site, and there's specific provisions to that within the legislation, but again, um don't want to get deep into that at this time.

So we're here today to continue to work on developing objective design standards for multifamily housing.

Uh our goal is to develop some objective design standards that will align with Half Moon Bay's eclectic characteristics.

Um we know that Half Moon Bay isn't necessarily defined by any one architectural style, and we want to try to find one that allows some flexibility while still aligning with uh Half Moon Bay's community.

Uh so objective design standards are a broad set of definable standards, so it can't be left up to any human interpretation, it needs to be consistently applied throughout by anyone's uh interpretation.

There should really be no room for interpretation.

Uh so to qualify for ministerial review, a project would have to meet all of these objective design standards that we would be implementing.

Um if they were choosing not to, they would still apply for discretionary review as we have we currently do.

Uh same with if it's located in an area where uh it does not apply, and again I'll get to that in a f in another slide here, but if it's on a specific site where these provisions cannot apply, they would still have to go through discretionary review as we currently do typically with architectural review or coastal development permits.

Umards are still applied, so these objective design standards are not overriding our existing development standards, they're simply an addition to specifically we have very minimal uh design standards, if any, that actually apply to multifamily housing.

Uh some of you might know we have single family design standards, but those don't apply to multifamily, and again, and those single family even are somewhat subjective, so we're trying to get a more objective uh standards in place here.

Uh density bonus law could still be used in some circumstances to override some of these objective design standards dependent on the level of affordability if they're applying density bonus law, but it's still important that we have these implemented.

Some amendments would be required to our code as part of this.

This would require amendments to the municipal code as well as the local coastal land use plan.

The provisions of SB 423 would require that any approval or denial would have to be based on objective standards.

So we would need to have these objective design standards where we're looking more at the design, but also uh at a future in future updates, would need to be updating more of our code to be objective within these, so that can also be applied.

Throughout Half Moon Bay, it would and in general SB 423 applies to sit zone for multifamily, including mixed use, and this is for permitted use and conditional use.

Um but it can't be within prime agricultural lands, flood hazard areas, areas subject to greater than five feet of sea level rise, um, or areas within the Coastal Commission's appeals jurisdiction, which is typically between the sea and the first public parallel road or the first 300 feet of any beach or mean high tide line.

Um there's also some other provisions that would prevent it, but they are somewhat less applicable to Half Moon Bay, such as fired hazard zones and items like that, but those would also prevent uh a project from qualifying under these provisions.

And it also is required to be within an urban area, which Half Moon Bay is defined as.

So, in developing these objective design standards, we went through a walking tour with our architectural advisory committee members, as well as one member of the planning commission who was appointed to be part of the ad hoc subcommittee.

Uh as part of this walking tour, we also had members of the public attend to join us and provide some comments as well.

Uh the tour visited several housing sites existing and one vacant potential future housing site.

Uh, and the goal was to explore some of these design preferences uh throughout Half Moon Bay.

And then that was provided in the some feedback on that was provided in the existing settings analysis, which is attachment one to your ICE staff report.

Uh, here are just a few of our existing multifamily sites that you can see.

Um these have aspects that are well liked about them that are worth considering and continuing to think about what you might like to see included within the objective design standards as it relates to these architectural features, color, um, massing, all of that.

Today we're gonna focus the SADI session, as I mentioned, on the design standards themselves, not so much the legislation or the process that we are going through.

We really want to work on getting feedback from both the planning commission and the architectural advisory committee on different areas within the draft objective design standards that you have that you might like to see developed, incorporated.

There's some specific uh blanks you might see that we'd like feedback on getting that filled in.

Um so I just wanted to reiterate that because I'm going to end my portion of the presentation and allow our consultants to take over during the discussion to guide you guys through that discussion, but first wanted to open it up, conclude my portion of the presentation and allow for any clarifying questions on what I've gone over thus far, but uh and then allow for public comment.

I would like to uh there will still be opportunity to ask questions on the design standards themselves throughout the discussion.

So I'd encourage that clarifying questions might relate more to why we're here or the process that we're going through.

Thank you for that uh very good presentation, Akoe.

Before we go into clarifying questions, I want to open up the public hearing.

Um typically that's the process we use before we go into clarifying questions.

So at this point, I'm gonna open it up to the public.

Mike Ferrara.

Good evening, uh, Chair Gossett and uh commissioners.

Uh I I read this with interest.

Um, and apparently I'm getting the impression that what's being offered here as design standards is just look and feel stuff and not the more important things such as size, etc.

And uh I am somewhat concerned about the need for speed here.

Uh in my little history of this town, speed has often had not so great results, and we have a good planning commission.

I am pretty sure that they would look at things, and from all the angles they need to be looked at, and I don't see the time here to do that, and I do not think that January 1st is a necessary deadline because I'm not aware of any significant major projects coming at us that would need SB 423 or SB 35 or SB9 or any of the other current uh legislative um contraction of your ability to shape things.