I want to call to order the October 28, 2025 meeting of the Half Moon Bay Planning Commission.

I'll ask Maggie to read the instructions for those attending via Zoom, and then we'll start the meeting.

Okay.

So we have the hybrid meeting participation protocols.

This meeting will be held in person and via Zoom for public participation.

Public comments may be made in person or remotely via Zoom, and interpretation will be available.

Planning commissioners and staff will participate in person.

During any public comment portions, attendees may use the raise hand feature and will be called upon and unmuted when it is their turn to speak.

If joining by phone, use star nine and raise your hand.tv.

Thank you, Maggie.

Please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I've got to flag the requirement for which it stands on the God.

May we have the roll call, please?

Yes.

Commissioner Del Nagro.

Here.

Commissioner Rems.

Here.

Vice Chair Gorn.

I'm here.

Chair Reddick.

Here.

We have a quorum.

The first item on our agenda tonight is approval of minutes for our October 14th meeting.

Are there any, is there any discussion about those minutes?

Or a motion to approve them.

Commissioner Del Negro.

I'm willing to make a motion to approve the minutes from our last meeting.

Thank you.

Second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Yes.

Aye.

All those opposed say no.

Minutes are approved.

Brings us to our first public hearing item.

The uh the commission is asked to hold a public hearing and receive uh public inform input from the public and to evaluate revisions to our draft housing element, which staff will present, also to approve a resolution recommending that city council direct staff to submit the cycle six draft dated October 2025 to the state, and thirdly to adopt the CEQA mitigated negative declaration attached here.

Yeah, I will.

And I was planning on keeping my presentation very short.

This is the fifth time this has come before you.

I think you're all pretty familiar with it.

So I was just planning on um highlighting uh the major changes in this this draft.

Um so just a little background.

Um for the housing element, um, last time we came before you, there was the outstanding issue of measure D and how HCD would consider that.

And uh since that time, uh HCD staff and coastal commission staff have been in regular conversations to address some of the issues with how housing law gets implemented in the coastal zone.

And they did specifically talk about measure D and how it's integrated into our local coastal program.

So um so we did talk with HCD staff and um they did request specific changes in attachment five of your of your packet.

Um all of the changes are highlighted, and most of them are quite minor, and they're they're really just um they're HCD staff sort of ticking boxes that they need to tick in order to approve any housing element, and then there's the measure D changes.

The other thing that's new before you tonight is um now we have an environmental document.

So we have a mitigated negative, the mitigation is um about biological resources and the consultants that prepared that are here if anyone has questions about it, so we can um we can bring them online.

Uh they're here virtually, I should say.

Um so if anyone has questions about that, um they they are happy to answer those.

I'll get into my presentation and um highlight some of the measure D changes.

So one of the changes they requested, uh something that can be done sooner rather than later is a code amendment change so through the code amendment change we would um seek approval of a local coastal program amendment to revise the allocation requirements for ADUs and JDUs from a full allocation to um some smaller amount probably a half allocation and um and we would look at reallocating unused measure D's for um ADUs and affordable housing units by rolling those over to the next year.

So those are where we've allocated and no building permit was applied and the measure D would uh expire if if not rolled over so those would be done through a code amendment and then HCD also asks that we put a ballot measure forward the soonest possible time we could do that would be 2028.

The ballot measure would revise um measure D's downtown area as the area designated as the town center in our certified local coastal land use plan so it would right now those maps are slightly different and then we would have one town center and downtown area as uh designated for measure D.

And it would also exempt accessory dwelling units including junior accessory dwelling units, JDUs from residential dwelling unit allocation limitations.

So ADUs would be exempted from measure D.

This is what um this was is what would go before voters so it's not a decision that the planning commission would have to make or council would have to make it would be a decision that the voters would make those are the um the two major changes that they requested in addition to that I sort of messed up on the wording in the resolution and I want to I want to correct that on this slide here.

So what what you would be voting on this evening is to recommend to the city counts council that they adopt the mitigated negative declaration and adopt the 2023 to 2031 that is the sixth cycle housing element dated October 2025 for review by HCD.

And that is the extent of my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions and like I said the consultants are happy to answer questions as well.

Thank you for that.

Do uh commissioners have clarifying questions for Director Leiko Vice Chair Gorn so the ballot measure idea that's something city council has to do right that's something for the city council to put on the ballot not that would be something that city council would be agreeing to put forward by adopting the housing element yes.

So if we're recommending this MND and the housing cycle the way it is are we also recommending that they put that on the ballot.

You would be recommending that change in the housing element and recommending that council puts that on essentially recommending that council puts that on the ballot yeah.

Oh but that's not our job.

Well it is in fact your job yeah what's that it is in fact your job as the planning commission to make recommendations to city council.

To make recommendations, but not on a that's a political decision that the city council that's a that's that's that's policy, right?

So we're we're not really saying that you should do this because we we haven't talked about that at all, and we're we're in where it doesn't seem like our place to do that.

What you would be what you would be doing is recommending adoption of the housing element.

And there are many good reasons to recommend adoption of the housing element.

That is a part of the housing element, and council ultimately will have to decide if that's if that's how they want to proceed or not.

Um, I I'm sorry, I still don't understand that a recommendation to put something on the ballot is part of the housing element.

It is as it's drafted now, yes.

Could I could I ask um maybe to take a step back and for some years now we've we've had pretty robust debate about the impact of Measure D on a variety of things, including the ADUs and and much stress was put on the the difficulty of changing measure D.

But I'm I'm curious.

I'm I'm I'm not opposed to this idea, but I'm I'm curious how the thinking evolved to where uh a code amendment could temporarily uh make the change in the to a half unit uh charge for ADUs and uh to allow the rollovers uh if I understand it for the period of a couple of years before a ballot uh measure could be considered by the voters.

Um yeah, uh I'll have Marlene speak to that because she and Catherine did a fair amount of research on that.

Um, Marlene, I'm sorry, um I just wanted to say I have a message from Commissioner Hernandez who cannot make it tonight.

Oh, he can't make it now.

He said he was running late.

Oh well.

Okay.

So on the issue of the the half unit allocations, that's one that I haven't looked at the details as much on.

Um I've looked more at the issue of rolling over allocations, but I know that um my colleagues have researched both of both of those issues, and our take on both of them is that um that approach, taking sort of making those changes or changes that um are consistent with the text of measure d is adopted by the voters that is not contrary to what's adopted by the voters.

Um those changes could be made by amending the code um uh uh without having um a ballot measure that amends the text of measure D itself.

And the then the changes that are being proposed are you know that that um are proposed through this um draft of the housing element are ones that would not be consistent with the current text of measure D, and that would therefore require a ballot measure to to actually change the text of Measure D itself to allow for those changes.

Well I uh I'd like to discuss that more, but I'm I want to be careful that we restrict ourselves to clarifying questions for the moment.

So, yeah, Commissioner Donegro.

So um I've been trying to wrap my head around the fact that we know that the ADUs don't count towards the RHNA as far as the low-income income housing requirements, and yet we're also being asked to go back and include a modification of elements in measure D to include the ADUs within our count to increase housing in the city.

There's a conflict to me in the entire plan of of what's being asked of us in this document in order to meet the RHA requirements, yet this doesn't actually change from what I can understand our ability to meet RHA requirements for housing.

Can let me have some flavor of why this is even an issue?

Why do we bring up modification of measure D to increase ADUs to not actually achieve a change in RHNA target?

Sorry.

That you're assigned.

That's that's definitely a big part of the housing element and finding those sites and all of that is I would say the heaviest lift of the housing element, but there's also other chapters in the housing element that require you to look at other ways to um to find more housing opportunities and to find more housing opportunities that are more accessible to a more diverse population.

So that's that's really where it fits into the rest of the sort of overall housing element.

Um I know that we indicate in the document obviously that um that these don't count, and we're I guess somewhat saddened by this lack of counting of that and the hotel.

I can't understand how maybe bringing that into the response in this comment, saying, look, you know, we're gonna go out this route, but we strongly encourage ACD and ABAG to start developing qualifying criteria that are more aligned with housing possibilities and actually achieving the goals that they want.

There should be some response back saying, hey, we're gonna do what you said, but you know, we feel that this needs to change in the future.

You have to consider these types of housing for cities like Half Moon Bay, where infill and doing large complexes may not be as applicable in a suburban environment.

I mean, so um just I'm just taking notes, and I noticed no one else had a question just this minute.

So the um some way to consider them as part of the RENA.

I think we'd be at we'd be somewhat in a response saying, okay, we could modify D, we can increase our housing component, the lack of inclusion of this in our ability to do a target in RENA where this is a very applicable in building an actual methodology to solving this problem should be included in the future.

And we'd strongly encourage them in the future to reconsider their position on them.

Thank you.

Um I'm kind of curious.

I'm trying to wrap my head around a half of an ADU, number one, and number two, has there been any progress with the state on their supposedly going to make a determination on this measure D issue?

Uh this so um this is the progress that we made with the state.

This this is the determination that they are seeking.

Um they had at one point said that they would provide us with a letter um and their, and then they started the talks with the coastal commission, and this is what this is what they reached, and they told us they would not be sending a letter when we talked with them.

So this is this is it.

And uh I won't put words in your mouth, but if I understand the the staff report correctly, there's been some informal feedback from HCD that uh that we're moving in the right direction with all these changes to the draft.

Yeah, so um so this is what they asked us to do, and and this is what we and this is what we're trying to to do um in response.

And um they they are ready to certify the housing element with these changes.

Uh what happens if this doesn't move forward is um they have told us that they will uh adjudicate this to see if measure D is even legal under all the new housing laws.

Um that's I mean that's their approach basically so and you just for the record when they say adjudicated, what do they mean?

Um take us to court essentially.

They they would they would find a court to weigh the specific issue of whether measure D is legal um under all the new state housing laws.

So, so just to be clear, they they would take the city of Atman Bay, the voters of Admin Bay to court.

Yes.

I mean, I don't I don't know how all that works.

I don't know if you can provide any clarity about what that would actually look like in terms of a lawsuit.

It's not something that that I've researched.

I'm assuming the lawsuit would if if a lawsuit it would be against the city.

I don't know that that HCD could bring the people of Half Moon Bay to the city, so that's um to um to court.

So the city would likely be in the position of defending that lawsuit, um, but but certainly the purpose would be to render measure D as the purpose would be to render sorry about the mask to render measure D as um i illegal basically under new housing laws.

Um the other I mean the other important thing about getting our housing element passed, I'll just put this out there, is that by not having a housing element, um, we are not eligible for quite a few grant opportunities, and we are seeking a number of grants uh now through public works, so um it's another thing to keep in mind.

It does benefit the city to have a housing element.

Yeah, thank you for that.

More clarifying questions, yeah.

Um Commissioner Del Negro, please.

I'm curious as I'm looking at the first response to comment number one and the details we go into address the um non-governmental um barriers and constraints that are discussed in chapter B.

And wondering if whether we go far enough in the explanation of some of those constraints fiscally, um job losses.

I mean, I know that a lot of the data in this document is well out of date.

I mean, we're dealing with something that's from the decade before.

We've had five years since most of this data included in all of our population growth rates, and we've seen a complete change in the last few years.

So knowing this document's out of date is really hard to obviously um for me to go back, read it in the context of when it was originally written.

You know, we've had a change in in growth rates, we've had a change in income employment, things like that that are not covered in here.

At the same time, a lot of those fiscal constraints are really applying today, while they might not have applied as much under the old statistics, things like the loss of job opportunities, um, increase in taxes, uh, decreases in um people's fiscal ability to pay for housing.

I just feel like maybe we haven't gone far enough in some of those elements in the statement that's provided.

You're talking about um the first comment in attachment five on page C4 of the housing element.

Yeah, feels to me like we can add more language here to deal with some of the more realistic impacts of how housing cost to build is going up and the ability of people to pay for housing is going down at the same time.

Um we can we can go back and add and add more language to that effect.

HCD did look at this and they approved, you know, their staff at the staff level they approved that language.

Sure.

Um that to a point, if if we've met the requirement on something, I don't think we should start creating new fires where there weren't fires before, but for a document to really represent the situation we're at, this does have some gaps in my opinion.

Yeah, yeah.

Trying to just think through what the process would look like if we added more to that.

Um I would ask that you don't add more if there was not an issue and they have they accepted it already.

Well, one thing that I mean, one thing that we could do is in our cover letter, we can add information about some of the changes that have happened since the housing element, you know, since we first started this process, and some of the things that we recognize are in the document that may not necessarily reflect where things are today.

Um does that sound absolutely.

I mean, if we can maybe mention the decrease in growth in population, the negative growth and population numbers, both locally versus the county, um stagnation and job growth locally and in the county, um, and increase in costs that are going up with uh ongoing um escalations in prices, and I would also, you know, not just for the buyer but also for the builder, these things are going up as well, as well as interest rates obviously, making it difficult.

And I do think that's a great solution is to put it in the preamble of a cover letter.

Okay, any further clarifying questions, Commissioner Rams.

Mr.

Chairman, just a point of clarification.

Uh what on these clarifying questions are we trying to clarify what's in the document or what the director just said.

Well, I think traditionally the clarifying questions are so that uh we as commissioners understand staff's presentation, and their clarifying questions will be different from in a few minutes when we offer our opinions on the on the content.

Okay, so there will be an opportunity to comment on the content.

Sure.

Thank you for the clarification.

I had a clarifying question in relation to the prior question about the um measure D and this body proposing or pushing a forward a recommendation for putting something on a ballot.

Um the recommendation is that there's an evaluation of putting something on a ballot, not that we're standing behind a specific modify a specific measure language or purpose or change.

It's just that something needs to be done to put it on the ballot to meet the requirements.

Is that correct?

Um, well, the language the language that's in the housing element is pretty specific to first revising that downtown area and then excluding ADUs and J dues from measure D.

So it is specific in that way.

Um one of the maybe what you're getting at is the language in the resolution could be more about asking council to evaluate that rather than making a recommendation that they do that.

I mean, I I guess for me it's whether I want to take a political stand and present something, saying, hey, you know, this needs to go on the ballot, or I want to say that putting this on the ballot meets a requirement of this document, and therefore putting it to the public to make a decision is a valued effort.

Like I'm comfortable with the second, but not the first.

I'm not gonna stand here with it and propose a measure for a ballot on my on the language and stand behind it.

Something I'm I'm supporting, but I'm willing to support the idea of going to the public and saying, hey, this is being asked of us to vote on.

We can do that.

So I want to understand that that the language is saying to city council, we recommend the placing this in front of the populace for a vote.

Yeah, I think this is a pretty substantial question, and I I think we're drifting a little from clarifying questions into deliberation.

Before we do that, I want to see if there's any members of the public that want to comment on this.

Maggie, do we have anyone online who's we have no online speakers with their hand raised?

This is the time for folks who are participating in the meeting remotely to raise your hand if you want to make any comments on this item on the hearing.

So seeing none, we will not open the public hearing and instead go to uh deliberations on the part of the the commissioners.

I um yeah, with Vice Chair Gorn and Commissioner Del Negro raise interesting points about the relative roles of City Council and Planning Commission in this matter.

Um I I personally I'm I'm in a place where I think it is a legitimate part of the Planning Commission's scope to look for ways to improve our overall housing element and the housing situation in the city and measure D's role in that and whether the improvements to Measure D would help that.

Not to mention the political, the important political issue of getting this housing element uh approved by the state before relatively negative uh uh results could come from that.

So I'm I also am perfectly confident that the city council will do what they in their wisdom want to do when uh when our version of this goes to them.

So I'm I'm not um I understand the the concerns about the planning commission taking that step, but to me it seems rational in this case that that we could recommend the the uh that pass this resolution uh recommending the uh code amendment changes to measure D as well as the as well as the coming of the ballot measure in 2028, but happy to happy to deliberate with you all.

I one question, Chair.

Do we need to open the public input to meet the requirements of tonight's meeting?

I don't think so if there's nobody wanting to speak.

Okay, I just read that we have to actually have a hearing for public input.

I just want to make sure that we achieve that goal with you, okay.

Yeah, we have we we have Maggie says you need to open the hearing and close the hearing.

Do we?

Okay, the public hearing is now open.

Any members of the public who want to comment are welcome to do so.

Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing, but thank you for pointing that out.

Thanks for the technicality.

Um, I actually like what you're saying.

I mean, I I do agree that obviously we need to make a recommendation here.

I just want the wording to be that in order to achieve the requirements of this plan, we need to recommend this to City Council.

Like, if you put it in the context, I'm totally comfortable with it.

Instead of taking a political stance of hey, like we believe in this, let's do this.

It's whether I believe it or not, I don't think that's really what I'm ready to do tonight.

Well, I mean, we've worked on, you know, you guys have worked on the housing plan for so long, and there's so much work in it, and it's so um, you know, I've seen so many drafts of it.

Um I don't have a problem with the the you know with what's here.

I think that sort of um adding in last second, hey, Planning commission needs to recommend to city council that they put this on the ballot is really like we haven't discussed that.

We haven't, that hasn't been an issue.

Um there have been certain times when, you know, the planning commission has been presented with that before, and we've said no, and and I just like to be have this sort of sprung on at the last second as like, okay, and here's our housing plan.

And maybe you just make a political statement as well to the city council.

And I just don't I don't feel comfortable with that.

I think this, you know, measure D was passed by the voters, and I'm really hesitant to make a recommendation to city council that they do something uh uh with something that was put into law by the voters.

I just don't, I have a hard time with that.

And um I think it I think it does exceed our bounds.

I think saying, you know, that we approve the housing element and we we would recommend that you approve approve the housing element is great, but I don't think that a political statement about a ballot measure belongs in the housing element.

So I'd be really happy to approve all this work on the housing element, but I but I don't I'm personally not really prepared to recommend to city council that they put something on the ballot.

I don't I don't think that's really right.

Vice Chair Gorn, I'm I'm sympathetic to that view.

We've in planning commission discussions about this over the last what two or three years we've we've talked about this same thing.

Um to me it makes uh the two things stand out here.

One is that I kind of feel like the state is requiring that ballot measure commitment as as part of this process, and secondly, it's not recommending it's not asking the city council to recommend passage of the ballot, but rather asking the city council to let the voters decide on this question, right?

But so and the the big big sword out there is that they're gonna sue us, right?

And I mean, if they want to sue the city for the the voters for passing a ballot measure and saying that that's illegal now, then that's something that should be decided in court, and it probably will be if they continue like they'll they'll get this little piece and we'll get that little piece, and they'll put keep pushing.

Um if you give a mouse a cookie, I kinda want a glass of milk to go with it.

So clarifying question on your position, um, Vice Chair Gordon.

Is it's you're not don't have a problem with the reallocation of half to one uh one to half.

You don't have uh any I guess difficulties with the uh reallocation of ADUs on cyclical year, it's the measure proposal.

Okay, great.

Yeah, so we've I mean we've discussed all of that so much, and you know, I do have um, you know, I raised questions in the past, and but I'm really willing to forgo all that in the interest of getting the housing element passed.

I think it is really important.

I think that you know, I don't like everything that's in it personally, but um I think it's such an important document that I feel like it really needs to get um to and through city council personally.

To the chair, please.

Does anyone here ever remember a situation where the state or a body of government at the state and county level has forced a city to put a measure on the ballot to meet their demands?

Because that's what this technically is.

We're being forced to put a measure on the ballot by a government agency that is for the state and county.

And that that does have some implications of doesn't feel right, but I also understand the stronghold.

We have basically uh the risk of the sword, the lawsuit, if we don't meet these requirements, and this is not new with the requirements for changes in housing elements have been very strong-handed across the state for a decade now, and they're not gonna go anywhere, they're gonna keep coming.

So I think the balance of that does bring up some questions to me about can I even remember a precedent where this has happened where this the government agency has come from the state and told the city you have to put a measure on the ballot, how how would we feel if the planning commission uh approved a resolution recommending that city council consider such a ballot measure?

Um personally, I think the city council um knows the issues, and whether we put um something in here or not, city staff is gonna go to city council with the same thing, and they're gonna decide what they decide because they set policy like that's their job, and whatever they decide, I'm good with.

If they want to put on the ballot, that's fine with me.

But that's that's you know, that's their job.

That's to and I think getting a recommendation from planning commission that we think that's just you know great, and we think they should do that because that's really important, that's different than deciding it themselves.

Like it's the the planning commission approval carries weight, and you're you know it's not just that we're approving the housing element, which I want to do, but we're also recommending that they put something on the ballot, and because HCD says we have to, and uh that, you know, I um I feel like the state is kind of like being a little bit of a bully here, and I don't really like bullies.

Perhaps I could ask uh Marlene and Director Lako if you have a view on uh the importance of the planning commission recommending to the city council to uh put in process that that ballot uh measure rather than uh uh letting the count the city council be free to do whatever it wants in that space.

Um well I think there's I mean, I think there's language we could probably put in the resolution that might get to your point.

Um so we could change the resolution to read something like the Planning Commission recommends city council adopt the MND and adopt the 2023 31 housing element, um, and strongly consider the issue of including the ballot measure.

Um, yeah, or we could say or something to that.

We could say that a ballot measure has been requested by HCD, the planning commission does not um recommend or um what's the word?

Like, doesn't want to take a position.

The standing stand on it and and so, but HCD has requested that it be part of the um housing element.

Um actually can we pass this housing element without that being part of the housing element?

Because I have really hard time with that.

I could anyway, sorry.

Um but I think but I think just kind of like saying like I think we need to be clear about it and not sort of like so.

Um I think we can say out loud what we think, which is uh we don't we don't think that that is necessarily needs to be part of the housing element because it's not it's it has nothing to do with the reino numbers and housing development.

Commissioner Del Negro.

Can we pull up the language that was in the actual response that asks for the measure D?

Can we pull up the language?

I want to see very clearly what they requested.

Was it no, you need to put this measure D on the ballot?

You need to consider.

I think Maggie's gonna try to do it.

I think I'm looking for it here.

I'm not sure if you're in response or response letter.

City revisions to the program 6.8.

Okay, here it is, yeah.

Program 68.

Yeah, so that's very end.

Oh, you got it.

Can you guys see it okay?

Yeah, we can now.

So the on the left, this is the exact language that response we got from HCD in that second column.

And on the right column is our proposed response.

Uh let me check to let me check to make sure it's exact.

Um that's in a different attachment.

Just a second.

Um let's see.

Program six.

Do you mind if I just read it to you?

Sure, because I don't see anything mentioned on their comment about measure D at all, except for the very beginning about the JEDUs.

Program six, eight annual review of residential dwelling unit allocation system commits to address constraints on accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units production due to measure D allocation limits.

So it's saying that this program already makes some commitments to address those constraints, including exempting ADU and J dues from residential dwelling unit allocation limits.

However, as noted in the prior review, the program should provide alternative actions with discrete timing if the local coastal plan is not amended to exempt ADU and JDUs from residential dwelling unit allocation limitations regarding alternative actions, HCD in collaboration with Coastal California Coastal Commission will follow with more detailed guidance under separate cover, which they did not do.

They instead came to us with basically the language that's in there now.

So if HCD thinks that the Coastal Commission would join a lawsuit to get rid of measure D, then HCD can do that.

And so I just don't see why we're doing HCD's bidding in the housing element, politically.

I'm still having a hard time finding where this is saying you need to put something on the ballot.

Now it may be somewhere else within the document and feedback we've gotten previously says that.

Yes, I'm um I think HCD has said that in the past.

Um and I know that that has been sort of a city staff response to HCD in the past, and so maybe it's again a city staff response to H C D as like here's a possibility.

Um, but yeah, I haven't I I don't I however it got there.

Um it's it's clearly like a um director like directed by um by HCD.

Director Leiko, you have some more news about that.

Yeah, yeah, so I'm sorry, Commissioner Del Nagro.

I didn't realize you were looking for that specific language that HCD has had written down in a letter because they did not write that down in a letter.

They came to us and told us that this is you know, when we met with them on several occasions, this was their request that we amend the housing element in this manner for them to be able to move forward with it.

Um, and then I guess the other point of clarification is um I don't think the coastal commission would join them in a lawsuit.

Um, yeah, I think the Coastal Commission has um has really helped us in this as much as possible.

And those conversations that they started with the Coastal Commission are what brought them to the table for conversations to begin with.

Yeah, I think they were hopeful that the coastal commission would be amenable to do this, and it became clear that that was not the case, which is why you know the in this letter that that you put up before, it does threaten that they're gonna get the coastal commission and together we're gonna sue you and overturn measure D.

And I just feel like that's sort of like you know, um not real.

So it is their opinion, it is an opinion by a very you know big agency, but um but it's but their threat of a lawsuit and their threat of getting Coastal Commission really shouldn't affect what is our actual draft housing element, which is really pretty well done.

So that's what I think.

The the draft of the housing element that we're asked to approve tonight, does it make commitments about this ballot measure?

I mean, I see the discussion of the ballot measure in the attachment five, which you just read to us, but yeah, it actually um it actually uh says well, like this actually this is not where I want to be looking.

It actually says that we would uh prepare a ballot measure for the 2028 election with a substantial public communications process that will revise measure D by revising to define downtown area as the area designated as the town center in the certified local coastal land use plan and exempting accessory dwelling units, including junior accessory dwelling units from residential dwelling unit allocation limitations.

So, and again, that is that is an agreement that HCD staff came to with Coastal Commission staff and brought to us.

And that was sorry, the chair.

That was captured in minutes and in some type of discussions and letters back and forth between, or that's just an oral conversation.

There's a conversations, yeah.

I don't I actually don't know how HCD and Coastal Commission staff conduct their staff to staff meetings, so I don't know what's there.

I guess we without this like documented history of understanding um word for word, then making commitments on paper towards what their expectations are.

It also kind of makes me feel like the liability here becomes very murky, even still, not because the staff wasn't listening responding.

Um you guys are brilliant and obviously capturing the information requested, but to me, this is an indirect request coming with very broad implications and well above what I understand to be normal process for just creating measures.

Um it gets a little harder and harder as night's going on here for me to really grasp you know the legitimacy of being asked to do this to recommend we put a measure on the ballot, um, as opposed to asking city council to evaluate whether or not you know something needs to be done on this issue for a measure on the ballot.

I mean that's a separate thing.

Hey, City Council, we're punting this to you because it's a political decision that's you know, while it's relevant to planning commission isn't necessarily something we should be recommending, is that we put a measure on the ballot.

Yeah, as Vice Chair Gorn said at the beginning of deliberations, if if ever there was a policy question, it's that one.

I I think I could live with the concept of the planning commission asking City Council to consider the idea.

Even that seems kind of extraordinary to build into a housing element, but maybe these are extraordinary times.

I wonder if we might approach this with a vote on a resolution to separate these questions into two resolutions.

Well, I think I might have some language.

Um here goes.

Um PC hereby recommends city council adopt the mitigated negative declaration and evaluate whether to include a ballot initiative in the housing element prior to adopting the 2023 2031 housing element, et cetera, et cetera.

I'm sorry, Leslie, I I missed uh in the middle of that what you what you were saying.

Just so the first adopt adopt the the MND, and second, evaluate whether to include the ballot initiative in the housing element prior to adopting it.

So um I think that sounds like a recommendation, and I would say um if you want to put something at the end of this resolution, we could say in like in English, in addition, HTD has pushed to include a ballot measure, and the planning commission is not taking a stand one way or another on it.

Um that is pretty clear.

It's part of this housing element that we're approving, um, but that we are not approving this um, you know, this uh sort of secondary issue that we're approving the what's what is the housing element, but this isn't the housing element.

And I think we can make that clear.

Commissioner Del Negro.

I like where this is going, uh by Surgeon Dorn.

Um the one thing I could think of is it's just on addition to that saying we leave it in the hands of the city council to make the determination.

That's my yeah.

I mean, I think that's a given also, like, but but if we say that we're you know, I don't know what the what the language over here was, but it it sounded like a recommendation.

Just it's c I think we should make it clear that it's not.

Yeah, I it sounds like there's a part of the challenge is that HCD will require or would like to require the commitment to the ballot measure to be in the housing element, and we uh and uh I'm in favor of city council being the policy makers in this case, but that makes it a little bit awkward for which version of the housing element do we uh recommend.

Well, surely we can work out the wording of the thing.

Well, I think we can just say that we recommend the housing element.

Decided by the city council.

I will also point out that not only does the language go to the point of saying recommended ballot measure is a separate subject that if the belt measure fails.

I don't know, suggestions for some clever wordsmithing to capture our intentions here.

Um, uh, um, uh, Oh the thing.

Oh, the the little thing.

What is that?

We're concession now.

So you folks were working on uh language to approach what I think you've heard from some of us about intent to uh urge the council to approve the uh urge the council to submit the housing element of the the need to consider the valid sure.

So if you have suggestions to us on language, we'd be happy to hear it.

We have three different options.

I think Marlene's gonna read the first one.

We don't have to read all three.

If you like the first one, you know.

I want to hear them all.

Before you start, could we just pause one moment?

PC TV is just trying to catch us up online, and I want to make sure that everyone can hear this.

Okay.

Oh, it looks like we're good now.

Thank you.

We're back.

Okay.

So the first option we have here is the that the planning commission recommends that the city council adopt the MND and that the City Council adopt the housing element, but that prior to adoption, the city council consider whether to revise program six-eight to omit the HCD requirement that a measure be placed on the ballot in 2028 to revise measure D.

What's what's the second one?

This one here.

So a little bit stronger.

And then the third one.

And oh, for review by HCD, the PC further finds that HCD has required the inclusion of a ballot measure in the housing element on which the planning commission has not ruled.

Would you read the first one again, please?

Yes, so the first one was the planning commission recommends that the city council adopt the M and D and that the City Council adopt the housing element, but that prior to adoption the city council consider whether to revise program six-eight to omit the HCD requirement that a measure be placed on the ballot in 2028 to revise measure D.

Thank you.

So all three of them basically leave it up to City Council.

Yeah, thanks.

If you send that to me, I can put it in.

Yeah, I concur that it seem it captures the totality of what we've evaluated by going with the first one.

Commissioner Rams, did you have anything you wanted to add?

I would support that uh first to first uh recommendation.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Gorn, any deliberation?

I'm good.

I'm actually good with all three of them.

Any of the three is fine with me.

So I'll be happy to make a motion at this point.

Please, but I would ask clearly before the motion goes are we gonna be talking about anything else in here or we're gonna do the motion first and then go back to this?

Oh we should talk about everything first.

Uh if if I recommend that if you want to deliberate on other parts of the housing element that we do that before we vote.

Yeah, I agree.

Can I bring up a few things?

You may, yeah, just uh uh I'm troubled by uh Mr.

Chairman by uh on page uh 242 and 243 on site uh three of the opportunity sites, 300 block church street.

Um with the apparent uh maybe it was just inadvertent omission that uh the archdiocese, if I recall correctly at the city council, the letter was read from the archdiocese that they opposed uh having anything to do with the site and the pastor had a letter at that council meeting that essentially said the same thing that they were opposed to in inclusion of their site in there.

It's not clear in here that that was brought up.

You're left your the reader is left with the impression that the archdiocese at one time was for it but never against it, and so I'm wondering if there's uh way that that could be updated or clarified so that we're not put in a position where there may be some repercussions later on or there may be other issues that result from maybe a mischaracterization my words of what I read here.

So I'm just curious about that.

And then I have a few other comments on the rest of the document.

But that was the biggest thing that when I when I skimmed it and tried to make sense out of that of all of the deliberations that went on in the public hearings and over a hundred people at the council meeting and letters that were being written none of that is included in here as being part of this you might say public response to the inclusion of that opportunity site.

And so I think we need to get that flavor in here somehow so that it's a balanced presentation of that site.

So I would just like to ask staff if that that's possible at this point or not possible or how do we handle that?

Oh I'll I'll defer to staff if they have more complete um comment on that my memory from planning commission and city council treatment of the earlier draft was that the state law requires the city to list opportunity centers without um uh making comment one way or the other on what the intention of the landowner is at this point so it certainly doesn't obligate any landowner who's mentioned on the the opportunity list.

That is that is what this would make one more comment.

Okay.

But it says right in here that the archdiocese was for this so that's where the reader is left and in reality the last that I heard from the council meeting in the letter that was read that the archdiocese changed their position and were not for it anymore and deferred to the pastor who was against it.

So from a clarifying standpoint like I say the reader is left with the impression that the archdiocese is for this and I don't think I think we ought to remove all of that or put in you know the current position so that there's a balanced presentation of what is there.

Director Lako did you have a comment well I actually can't say one way or another where the archdiocese you know came out on this and um and what the debate was at the time because a I wasn't here and for me to make that change in the document I would have to go back and actually research what the comments were and watch the meetings.

So it that may be a relic of an earlier time I really have no idea.

Question to the chair we ask Commissioner Del Nagro as the floor.

So the question I have is was there a letter from the archdiocese that you're referring to Commissioner Reigns?

Yes it was read as I recall it was read at the council meeting along with a letter from the pastor that I presume it was submitted.

My yeah my statement would be that well instead of making a judgment or trying to reinterpret the document right now is just to include the letter as part of an amendment or as part of a um element of the document if a letter was provided to us as part of the public forum.

Yeah, I see your point that that makes sense to to wade in and try to uh re-characterize the history of that would be a big job and and frankly one that wouldn't be important or a good return on investment given that it's just an opportunity center and it isn't in any way legally binding.

Vice Chair Gorn, please.

So the the part that Commissioner Rems is talking about is it defines some of the history, and then at the and then to sum it up, it says identification identification of the site as an opportunity site does not restrict the church or a private party from seeking developed the parcel for any other allowable use, and that the city hasn't received any kind of coastal development permit application for any development school or other building on the vacant site.

So it it really just says that this is one of the possibilities in the future as as just a it's a parcel is the idea.

Right.

Well, no, I have Mr.

Chairman.

I just said I do have an objection to on paragraph three on page 242 when the city embarked on identifying opportunity sites for cycle six, met with the owner, Arch Dyson, who indicated interest in future affordable residence blah blah blah, and acknowledged the local parish would be part of the conversation.

That leaves you with the impression that they're supporting what's going on here and and they actually either changed their mind or they took a different position to that stand, and there it's not clarified here.

That's that's my point.

Because it gives you a one-sided, like, oh, they're for it.

So let's move forward.

I'm sure that's not the intent of it to indicate that.

Well, that's why I'm asking for clarification, and if that could be either modified or somehow supplemented, attaching the letters would be great, and maybe just the footnote that says see a different position or something with uh see the footnote of the letters, you know.

Director Lako, is that is that an easy thing to make happen?

Director Lako, is that an easy thing to make happen attaching the letter to alleviate Commissioner Rems' concern?

I I don't know if such a letter exists.

Um, but if it does, I'm I believe that Maggie and I could take a look for it and see, and if it exists, we can um we can attach it.

Um it might it might be attached as a cover letter in the same way that we addressed the comment from uh Commissioner Del Nagro earlier.

Might be the easiest way to do it.

Um, thank you for that.

Commissioner Rems?

Just a few more things.

Uh so you're gonna look into that.

That's that's good.

Now on page 243, I'm just kind of uh confused if this is a typo, it refers to cycle eight.

Um last paragraph one, two, three, four, the fifth line up from the bottom, sixth line up from the bottom at the right-hand side it says cycle eight.

Cities retaining the site as an opportunity site uh section has acknowledged that cycle eight represents an eight-year horizon.

It's probably cycle six.

Is that just a typographical?

They all represent the yeah, I think that's just a typo.

Okay, um the housing elements are eight-year cycles.

Lastly, um when I was looking for I'm not sure how it was characterized, exhibit five or attachment five.

I think it's actually attachment three, so there's there's a disconnect there in the table of contents and the actual labeling of the attachment.

The attachment to the meeting materials today.

Say again.

Are you referring to the attachment to the meeting materials for today?

Yeah.

That I haven't completely read.

So you were saying that attachment three was mislabeled.

I think so.

I I think it's more of a why don't you take a look at that?

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Any other deliberations?

Commissioner Del Negro, you had been brave enough to volunteer to make a motion, I believe.

I've been brave enough to volunteer the motion.

And I can't read that from this angle, but I will angle over.

An extra degree of difficulty.

The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the MND and that the City Council adopt the housing element, but that prior to adoption the City Council consider whether to revise program 6-8 to omit the HCD requirement that a measure be placed on the ballot in 2028 to revise measure D.

Is there a second?

Second.

Did you want to comment, Commissioner Rems?

I don't.

I'm ready to vote.

Mr.

Maggie, would you have a roll call, please?

Yes.

Commissioner Del Nagro?

Yes.

Commissioner Rems?

Yes.

Vice Chair Gorn.

Yes, please.

Chair Reddick?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you all.

Item one B on our hearing tonight is for us to receive a briefing from Director Lako on the progress of the project to uh to develop the local coastal plan implementation plan.

Okay.

Maggie pulled that up for me.

Thank you, Maggie.

Yeah.

So as you're aware, um the 2020 LUP was passed.

Um a little while ago now without an implementation plan in place.

And there were some measures that were taken to um to make sure that we'd be able to get by without an implementation plan.

Um, but it has been a bit of a struggle, and getting an implementation plan passed has been a priority for a while now.

So we have a grant from the California Coastal Commission uh to help us with that update, and we also council has um set aside some additional funding for that update.

Um so I was gonna take you through uh I I don't want to walk you through exactly what's in the staff report, every task, but I wanted to sort of go through some of the highlights and some of the places where I think the planning commission um having the planning commission weigh in and participate will be most important.

And I guess the other thing I'd like to say before I start is that this is really not just the implementation plan, but all parts of the code that really affect planning permits.

So not every planning permit is included in the implementation plan.

And the really the major objectives for this are to develop the zoning and the procedural codes to effectively implement the LUP, to incorporate procedures for complying with new housing laws, and to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of our municipal code related to planning permits within and outside the implementation plan.

One of the early major tasks is to conduct an analysis of the full scope of the updates and to create a phasing plan.

This is going to be a pretty major overhaul of our code, so there's there's really not going to be any good way to do this in bulk.

So some of the first tasks are to conduct some analysis and identification of the codes that we're going to update to develop that framework and phasing plan for project completion, and then after we after we take those those initial steps, and we have a framework to bring that to the planning commission with a staff report and a presentation and get your input there, and that would be the full planning commission for that.

One of the other major tasks, which is very much related to how the project is phased, is the outreach and engagement plan.

And in this slide, I just I just took everything from the staff report that we want to accomplish here with the outreach and engagement, which is which is a lot.

We basically what I'm trying to show here is that we really want to be inclusive in our engagement here.

What is especially important I think for this project is having a stakeholder advisory group or a series of focus groups where we can really bring in a diverse group of community members to weigh in on this, and then a technical advisory group, so individuals with more technical expertise.

So the technical advisory group would be an ongoing working group.

It would be great to have a couple planning commissioners, we'd have a staff member from the Coastal Commission, and we would probably have someone from our public works department, so people that are experts in our land use plan and can uh and provide good guidance on this.

Um we would also consider a survey.

Survey is really nice for a project like this because you can reach more people and you can get something close to empirical data, which is always really helpful, would also be a good way just to get some feedback on our permitting services in general, too.

Um then the other major components, our planning commission and city council public hearings.

Um there would be multiple public hearings over the phasing of the project, and the schedule for the project.

This um the first part of the schedule is is pretty uh easy to predict, and that is to hire a consultant and complete the outreach and engagement plan and complete the framework and the phasing plan, and that would bring us through October of 2026.

The second part of the schedule is a little more difficult because we don't know what the phasing is gonna look like yet.

I mean, I can I have some ideas, but I don't know exactly what that's gonna look like.

So um after after that first phase, we will also start our CEQA document.

Um so for LCP amendments.

Uh a CEQA document is not required, but because we're also updating other sections of the code, we will have to do a partial sequa document um and then generally for our code updates um what I expect is that um we will bring uh eventually um and in phases but we'll have code updates draft updates to the zoning code the zoning maps our associated ordinances um the all of this will be consistent with our LUP and this includes and this is important to the Coastal Commission and our grant it includes our policies related to coastal hazards and hazard adaptation resiliency social equity and environmental justice um our housing element what will be then our new safety element fingers crossed right um and new housing laws so we also in that mix we have to allow coastal commission staff six weeks to review every time we submit an LCP amendment to them they need six weeks to review it so for each phase of the projects we have the project we have to include those six weeks um and then really what we're looking for in our new code is something that uh where we have standards that are either quantifiable or objective where applicable and we're using concise text tables and diagrams which uh we have in some parts of our code now but we really want to make that the standard going forward a little less less wiggly interpretation so um and so the schedule for that um the rest of it brings us through to December 2027 and um that is when our grant will expire um so we definitely want to have the implementation part of the phasing up front and any other things like our tree permits and our sign permits and our architectural and landscape review um code that those will definitely be part of the third phase just to make sure we we satisfy the requirements of the grant um so that that's what it's looking like and um I would love to hear any feedback that you have.

Well thank you Director Lako are there uh clarifying questions for director I do I do have one um so I get the need to have our code conform with state law like that's a big one um but then I was looking at this and trying to figure out if there's anything in particular that you're trying to fix and I at first I thought maybe it was the permitting you know smoothing out the permitting but I can tell you like especially with the online permitting system people are loving how much easier it is.

Seriously I've I mean I've heard it from multiple people really nice to hear thank you.

Yeah it's really like it's but also when people apply for something that's outside of the city they know it's gonna take forever but when they apply for something in the city it doesn't and so it's um I think that's actually a change in the last whatever three years two two or three years but the online permitting system helped a lot too so thank you for that.

But so if it's not necessarily streamlining permitting I'm trying to figure out what exactly what's what's the main thing you want to fix.

Like why why is the fix here?

Thank you.

So yeah, well, there's there's so much there.

Where do I start?

Um, right now we have zoning designations that do not match the designations in the LUP.

So that's a big one.

In fact, that's a huge one, and it also requires a fair amount of mapping.

Um we also have zoning designations that um are much more general in the LUP than they should be to implement them on a permit basis.

So you know that a land use plan is a is really a policy document, and it's sort of usually kind of up here, and then the code gets into the nitty-gritty where you know you're looking up very specific things about each type of development, and we don't have that available yet for a lot of the newer parts, newer zoning designations that were incorporated into our LUP.

So there's that as well.

And then a common practice in most cities is where there's a part of the code that needs interpreting, but you're not ready to do a code update.

You um you write out um a a zoning officer's um interpretation of the code so that you're applying it consistently and you keep that in a file and everybody applies it that way, but you don't want to rely on that for very long, and so we have a long list of those interpretations at this point that we need clarification on that's actually in the code and not in a writ writ you know a separate written document.

So yeah.

Okay.

So um all of that is a little, so it's a little esoteric.

Like it's a you know, the zoning and uh code implementation, not something that most people deal with.

Wondering about the survey, like why is why is the survey in there?

Like, I don't what what would you survey people about?

What are you trying to get from them?

Yeah, I think that's a really good question.

Um the survey is the the benefit of the survey would also be generally a about our procedures and how they might be improved too.

So it wouldn't be it there would be some parts of the survey that would be specific to our code, and and we would I'm sure we could get benefit, especially by sending that survey to builders.

Um, but part of it would also be just about the procedures and the process in general.

So uh it's a little outside the scope.

You nailed it on that one, yeah.

So survey would be more for people in the business basically in in government and and in you know construction and that kind of thing.

Or any any homeowner to deal with the code, yeah.

Any homeowner who's been through the permitting process, okay.

Thank you.

I will reiterate that I really love that comment because I have talked to quite a few people who have had projects recently who have a lot of feedback on some things like the consultants for um uh evaluating the per I guess their permitted work.

Um I think going and getting some surveys of people who've just completed projects would be highly valuable for where we can improve.

Um I do I did like hearing that.

I just want to comment on that positive.

Commissioner Rams, do you have a clarifying question?

Um no, I would just like to volunteer for what the director said they're looking for a planning commissioner or two.

And perhaps with my background and experience that may be helpful to uh look at some of this stuff doesn't mean we're gonna change it or anything, it just means we're gonna look at it, I guess.

You know, thank you for volunteering.

So any other clarifying questions?

And ask Maggie if there's anybody who wants to be heard.

There are no online speakers.

I hear some crickets.

The public hearing is closed, so we can deliberate on this.

I I uh I thought when you were talking a moment ago about the survey, that yeah, feedback from all of the city's stakeholders is always welcome.

I I took to heart though the the deadline for running out of the of the grant in two years.

So I'd I'd warn us to guard against feature creep and make sure that we don't uh get too excited by the opportunity to hear from people on a all whole number of topics and and wander away a little bit from the focus.

The the other thing that I hope is I'm not sure there's anything we can do about this, but I hope that the state housing laws are not the moving target in the next two years that they've been in the the last two or four years, because that that's gonna make it difficult to do and potentially it could make it difficult to do an implementation plan.

I I guess that the city subscribes to some service where we know about legislative initiatives in Sacramento that are gonna affect us or have the potential to affect us.

Yeah, well I mean we learn uh several different ways.

Um we we have subscriptions um you know to to track legislation, but when it comes when it's specific to housing, we also have 21 elements, which is a fantastic resource, and they're they're not just tracking it, they're helping us interpret it and figure out what it actually means.

And of course then it's always different in the coastal zone.

Any other comments?

I think the only thing I was reading on the objectives um with what you have written here.

Yeah, we when we talk about climate adaptation policies and we focus on fire safety for vegetation.

You know, obviously there are still risks locally of tsunamis and of course uh rain issues as well.

Is that something that will also be incorporated as safety?

Not just fire.

It yes, yes.

So it so it's something that's already addressed in the LUP, um, and so uh so our job is gonna be to figure out how to incorporate that into our code.

And then there's additional codes that are changing that we're also gonna have to address.

Um those are mostly in the building code, but they will definitely affect projects as they go through the planning process too.

So um in the most recent set of state fire maps, you're probably familiar with this, um, for the high wildfire severity zone.

Um a lot of the city of Half Moon Bay is in that zone, and even the downtown area.

And so there are new.

There's a new code um that is not in effect yet, but is will probably be very restrictive about.

I guess I bring this up.

Um I know that I had a conversation with the other commissioner at a prior meeting about um sustainable development with Vic Hernandez when he was present, and I mean he would be remiss not having the opportunity to uh make sure that things like materials for that um purpose of safety um are included in that conversation.

So it sounds like we're not just talking about vegetation for management of fire, but also building materials that are fire resistant and designs that are fire resistant.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah.

Any other comments?

Commissioner Rems.

Mr.

Chairman, I'd just like to add that I think it's a good idea to periodically, you know, look at the codes and other things, doesn't mean you're gonna change them, but it helps to you know purge that which is no longer useful, and uh update or clarify or make better those codes that are kind of getting the yellow around the edges or little cobwebs on them, you know, so that we could you know uh the things a little more streamlined and uh maybe cut down a lot of the you know issues that come up before the council and the planning commission.

So I think it's a good idea.

Thank you, Mr.

So I think you're right about the uh the aging of some of those.

It's a uh a doubly ambitious project here given the new LCP that was certified in 2021, as Director Leiko alluded to.

Would staff like the commission to acknowledge the receipt of this briefing?

Um sure.

I mean you can we have no preference.

Mostly I I just want to put it at the front of your minds and make sure that uh I'm keeping you informed as we as we go along.

Yeah, we appreciate that.

I actually appreciate um the conversation about obviously outdated codes and confusions in the codes that you brought up, uh Commissioner Reigns.

You know, like I wanted to build a fence recently, I wouldn't look to the codes.

Fence codes are very confusing in there.

It is not clear in our codes on what exactly meets the design standards.

Yeah, they're very tricky.

Um and of course also, you know, like uh can you put an awning on a window if it's gonna encroach within the the space over you know a uh boundary line of a property and the setback and some of those things need to be clarified and it seems to me like even with our objective design standards meeting last week that some more flexibility needs to be added for um the quality of our community's designs and features in houses.

Thanks.

Yeah, a good point.

We'd have those issues even without the new LCP.

Would someone like to make a motion that we uh acknowledge the briefing from staff on this project?

Commissioner Rems.

So moved.

I'll second that.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All opposed say no.

Thank you for that briefing.

I think you're up for director's report too, Leslie.

Okay.

Well, I don't have much to add, um, except that um at the last meeting I informed you about an upcoming director's hearing.

Um so all three of those projects were approved.

Uh those were all two-story houses with ADUs.

Uh one was at 495 Filbert, one was at 614 Myrtle, and the other was at 615 Grove.

So those were all approved and issued.

Thank you for that.

Yeah.

Is that the end of your report?

That is the end of my report.

Sorry.

Thank you for the brevity.

Commissioners have any communications?

Vice Chair Gordon.

So um, Leslie, do you have a that picture?

I just went out to the um uh Tom and Pete's.

I I mean I did a bunch of pictures.

I just held this for the um, but I just sent you one.

Is this this is about a communication?

Is that what this is?

What do you mean?

Yeah, this is my communication about um pumpkin vestival.

Oh, I see.

So this is not about a communication.

This is y you want to say something about the the site uh highway ninety-two and Cabrillo Highway?

Okay.

But I just it's not an agendized item.

I don't I don't I want to check on the procedure.

Do put up a photo.

What is the he wants to bring up what he was talking about in the last movie?

Okay.

Which is the project number of the I don't I don't really understand.

I mean I guess I could have um put it at the start of our deliberations and report it as a as a citizen, but I also thought since we've already dealt with this issue and that it's passed, that it's not it's a it's a good question.

Pardon.

What do you want?

I don't understand what the what the issue is.

I'm just I'm just bringing up a procedural issue.

This is the you're wondering.

Actually, if we're gonna talk about something we put it on the agenda, and that's sort of a brown act that so the picture that you don't want to show it's up, is of um there it is.

That's just um that's common feeds.

That's the that's the restored field.

That's the field that was restored.

When was that picture taken?

Do we have a date on that picture?

A couple of days ago.

Okay, they did some seating over there under the under the bridge, they did some seating.

Caltrans did some seating under there, the hydro seating.

Chair, Maggie.

Yes, um, I would just like to point out that this item has not been agendized, so a discussion should not take place.

If it was something that we did want to discuss, we should have perhaps added at the beginning of the agenda as an additional item or nothing to say, okay.

Okay, thank you so much.

Well, thank you for clarifying that.

It does raise the the question on um how substantial planning commissioners' communications at the end of the meeting uh have to be before they wander into the definition of agendized items.

I I guess they've been less formal in the past than this.

Um, so when I had a comment about that common peats area a long time ago, um I appeared as a citizen, which everyone said I shouldn't do that, and I should just have it be part of the planning commissioner statements at the end.

So that's what I did.

So I don't actually have anything to say about it.

It's just uh, you know, other than that it's a mess.

So there you go.

All right.

Well, yeah.

It's too bad that's confusing.

We ought to we ought to clarify that going forward.

Right.

I have two communications.

Please.

One is uh I guess they had a opening taco day at the Taco Bell a couple days ago.

Kids came home with a lot of tacos, and obviously it's very nice to see a new business in town that's uh you know uh feeding more people at a nice rate of uh spend.

Uh the other one was that um obviously it's Halloween.

Anybody mind drive slow next couple days with the kids on the streets in the dark.

That's about it for me.

Yes, a new business is always worth celebrating.

Commissioner Rems.

I didn't know that they opened.

Um I'm um excited.

I don't think they're actually legitimately open, they just had a free taco day.

Really?

Uh every day I go back by there twice a day, you know, I always look and they've they've got the tape up or or science is not open yet, or we're come coming soon and all that.

Anyway, my um I've just reminded uh I'm signed up for tomorrow for some climate seminar in San Mateo.

I don't know if any other commissioners are.

No, no?

Just me, huh?

That is the planning commissioner training that's offered by 21 elements.

I'm so glad that you signed up.

Um I would be there with you, except I have my cert training tomorrow.

Well, there's only one reason I signed up because it's right next door to my one of my favorite restaurants in San Mateo, Jack's Jack's restaurant and bar.

I have an excuse to go there to to have a beef dip sandwich.

So now I shared that with you.

It's a win-win.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

May we have a motion to adjourn?

I'll be happy to make a motion to adjourn our meeting.

I'll second it.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, say no.

The meeting is adjourned.