I can go over those.

We're live this evening on Channel 27 and on PC TV.

We have Spanish interpretation.

And we will allow three minutes for speaking in person.

And then those of you that are on Zoom.

I will go ahead and turn it back to Chair Gordon.

And it looks like we are short to plan commissioners.

Can we have a roll call, please?

Yes.

Commissioner Delago.

Here.

Vice Chair Hernandez.

I am present.

And Chair Gorn.

I'm here.

Absent.

We have Commissioner Rems and Commissioner Ruddick.

Okay.

I think Commissioner Rims is at that at a training session.

Yes.

For the planning commission.

So he's doing planning commission work.

I wanted to.

Oh, let's do the draft minutes.

Let's approve those minutes.

We can't.

Yeah.

Pardon me.

I realize that we have a Commissioner Short.

I wasn't present for last time.

Oh, you weren't present.

That's right.

We can just hold off to those meetings.

And I recuse myself for half which is weird.

But we'll just hold off.

We'll hold those to next time.

I'm gonna open the um public comment to anything that is not on the agenda tonight.

So if you have anything to talk about that is not on the agenda online, raise your hand or in here, come to the podium.

I am seeing none.

Yeah, I have none in.

I am not opening um public comment.

And we are moving on to our first item, which is the measure D rankings.

Um that one is yours.

Good evening, Chair Gorn and planning commissioners.

Tonight I'll be presenting to you the scoring for the 2026 Measure D applications for outside of downtown.

A little overview on the meeting.

I'll take us through some background on Measure D, uh, the review process and the scoring criteria.

Uh I'll overview the submittal summary for 2026 and we'll discuss uh staff's recommendations and the actions we're looking for from the planning commission tonight.

So measure D is the city's growth management system.

This was approved via a voter initiative back in 1999 and first became effective in 2009 here in Half Moon Bay.

It requires that all new residential units first receive a Measure D allocation before moving forward with uh other permitting uh and can accommodate up to 1.5% of population growth annually.

This is split between the downtown and the outside of downtown with an additional point five percent that can be allocated downtown at the council's discretion.

Uh this is approved, has been historically approved annually, therefore measure D has been accommodating 1.5% annually.

The purpose of Measure D is to manage the rate and quality of development in the city on an annual basis, and it provides for uh limited exemptions, um just one-for-one replacements and density bonus units.

Measure D can be broken down into four key phases, such as uh the annual unit authorization.

This occurred back in December 2025 for this upcoming year, the initial application period, which we just went through in January, and then the scoring ratification is the phase that we are currently in, uh, where we're asking the planning commission to finalize the scoring for 2026.

And then if applicable, there could be transfers later on.

We'll discuss that briefly later in the presentation.

The scoring ratification phase that we're in right now is only necessary if we receive more applications for allocations than are available.

Uh so this year uh I'll discuss how many were available and how many were received, but this was the case where we received more uh people applying for allocations than we had to issue outside of downtown.

Uh so when this process occurs, staff verifies the items selected in the by applicants in the scoring table as part of their application, and then the planning commission reviews and approves the scoring uh by April 1st each year.

The scoring criteria can be found in section 1706120 of our municipal code.

This is based on early build it green items, many of which today are required through various state requirements or building code requirements.

Therefore, a lot of these criteria aren't applicable in the same way they used to be then.

So in 2020, there were some minor revisions or interpretations made to the scoring criteria to remove some of this criteria from the scoring.

And then in 2025, staff established a handbook to help guide applicants further through this process, help them understand the various questions that are part of the criteria, scoring criteria.

And then generally today we're seeing that many of these criteria are applying equally to applicants, or many applicants are seeking the maximum points they can within their control, and therefore we're seeing a lot of or minimal variation in the scoring.

The scoring criteria is broken down into six categories.

This is infill sites, home size scale and clustering, design for walkability and biking, designed for safety and social gathering, designed for diverse households and landscaping.

We do see more variation or more control within the applicant's ability to select scoring criteria in some of these categories than others, and some may be more location-based, which might be outside of the applicant's control and is based on the subject property.

As part of the scoring process, applicants fill out a checklist that's located within the application, electing for what criteria they are willing to commit to as part of a future development project.

Staff then review these applications and the criteria selected and revise where necessary to ensure that everybody is scoring correctly in line with the interpretation of the criteria.

And then staff rank these applications based on that scoring, and we go through and notify all the applicants prior to this meeting of where they are expected to have their scoring finalized and if they'd like to discuss their scores further or see a comparison.

In 2026, some key observations.

Maybe there's one or two points here and there for many of the applicants.

And then this year, 75% of the allocations applied for were for ADUs.

This year there were 70 total allocations available.

That's 47 downtown and 23 outside of downtown.

Outside of downtown, however, there was a phasing agreement approved by the city council in late 2025, which allowed for an affordable housing project at 940 Main Street to receive 17 allocations during this measure D year and next measure D year for a total of 34 allocations.

So that did take up a portion of the allocations available to applicants in January this year.

Therefore, only six were available, and we're asking you to finalize the scoring for and award tonight.

Downtown, we received a total of one application for two allocations, so it was a single family and an ADU.

Therefore, all the other downtown application allocations remain available, and applicants could downtown could continue to apply for those as long as they remain available or up until September 1st.

Outside of downtown, we received 21 submittals for a total of 26 allocations.

This consisted of five applications for single families with ADUs.

So those are two allocations each, 15 accessory dwelling units, and one single family.

I know it's pretty small, but here's a breakdown of the scoring for this year.

This is exhibit A attached to the resolution, which is attachment one to the staff report.

You can see in green, those are the submittals which were recommending receive allocations tonight, all of which are ADUs.

And in yellow, those are the two applicants that we would recommend the planning commission decide between or pursue another course if you choose.

And then those in blue would be deferred to a transfer or a future year.

And I can come back to this later during our discussion if you'd like.

Tonight we're asking that the planning commission determine how we should award the final allocation that's available.

This could be awarded as one allocation to 544 Filbert Street, which is the next highest scoring applicant.

Or option two would be to go to the next single allocation seeking applicant, which would be 303 Philbert Street.

We're also uh asking the Planning Commission to adopt a resolution to ratify the scoring for the January 2026 submittals.

Uh and then if you wish um consider making recommendations to the city council with respect to transfers uh if available in September.

The next step uh will be if Planning Commission's decision will be final unless it's appealed to the City Council.

Uh after September 1st, we may consider a transfer process.

Uh and then after that, as I mentioned, January 2027 is the next application window for applicants outside of downtown.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um take it up here.

Um Chris?

Commissioner Del Negro?

Would you tell me a little bit more about how we got to the 70 units for the allocations?

What's the mathematics for that?

The 70 units is based on um persons per household uh as well as the uh total population in half moon bay, and so that persons per household is multiplied by the number of building permits from a previous year to account.

Sorry, I'm definitely not explaining this well, my apologies.

I'm trying to think back.

I think I understand.

Um the reason I'm asking is because I did go back and look at the population of half boom bay.

We have not grown by one percent per year at all since 2000.

In fact, we haven't grown at all since 2000 at all.

So the allocation equation seems to be flawed at this point, in my opinion.

Correct.

Uh well, staff the allocation is considering it based off of the most recent census data.

Uh we use that data to then calculate what would 1% be in terms of the number of allocations and the persons per household being multiplied by those allocations would make up that one percent of the population growth.

Um so it is based on census data, but uh staff has considered that um as we get further and further away from the 2020 census, that these numbers may become less and less accurate, and therefore uh we want to look potentially look into that in future years.

I'm looking back to 2000.

We have not changed.

Our population is basically lower than it was in 2000.

Our one percent growth isn't happening.

So you know when I do something in a study for the type of work I do, I look obviously what the plan expectation is, and then I look reverse and look at what has happened to see that my plan is actually generating the outcome expected.

And we're not seeing one percent growth rate at all.

We're nowhere near that.

We're at zero.

If I may add one more thing to your question, um it may there may also be factors into that as to the number of applicants that we are seeing actually fulfill their measure D allocations and build these units, um, and then the actual persons per household varying over time.

So there are quite a few factors there, but um I agree that we haven't quite seen that amount of population growth, but that's where the we get that from.

Uh I'll just chime in here.

Um we also received direction from council in December to correct that number.

So even though the way the math has been done over many years is is not working for us now.

So and then start possibly a different mathematical formula.

The mathematics may change, so therefore we may actually achieve the 1% growth, at least upwards, at least a positive growth instead of a stagnant growth.

Did I say that right, Akoli?

I think what you're saying is it might be fewer allocations.

Because it's based on real population rather than the other thing.

That would be the result is that there would be fewer allocations.

But but at some point we have to correct the number rather than keep going with a number that's off base.

Is it possible?

And that's why we're not seeing the growth, or we're just not seeing the building match the numbers that we're if I may, I think there's a combination of all of these factors coming into play.

Um if we look back several you know, typically with measure D, we have pretty good data back until 2019 or so.

So looking back till then, um, you know, one, we aren't necessarily up until 2020, we weren't even seeing um one percent of people applying for these allocations.

You know, we were having leftover allocations at the end of the year.

Even when we're doing transfers, we typically have the bonus downtown allocations left over.

So um I know that would still be just one percent there, but that combined with exodus from the city, so people leaving the city and then um new construction and whether or not those are being occupied, are building permits being fulfilled with these allocations?

Um I think all of that is playing a role, plus what Leslie is talking about with our actual um data that we're utilizing in the calculation to calculate calculate these allocations.

All of this coming together, I think plays into that, but we wouldn't be able to land it without like a major study on one single aspect.

I'm not sure if I'm getting too off on it.

It just feels to me like measure D has a purpose.

We're not actually we're under measure D's allocation target, and that's what I'm kind of curious is what's the grace of that.

I think the purpose of Measure D is to limit it to one percent.

And so we are limiting it to one percent.

And um by going to the real population figures, the numbers are actually going to be lower.

I'm a little surprised with all the talk about Measure D.

So much, you know, everyone talking about Measure D all the time and how hard it is that the people who get Measure D's don't build necessarily.

And I think that's kind of more the issue to to address if there's something to address.

All right.

Better understanding, thanks.

Clarifying question.

Why do we wait until September to go back to the City Council to do a reallocation?

Uh is it possible that we can do this in 30 days?

It is in the code that uh downtown or it doesn't just apply to downtown.

So when I'm saying downtown, I want to be clear that the process applies to say the same way in the code to applicants outside of downtown and downtown, but there is a different procedure if there's more applications than allocations.

So typically because downtown we have less applicants than there are available allocations.

In those circumstances, the application period is noted to remain open all the way until September 1st.

And then at that point, um the code then allows that transfers could be considered after that September 1st deadline.

Um that is in our code, which is why we would not be able to do that at a quicker pace.

Is there anything in the original Measure D uh language that requires it be six months later?

Not that I've seen it so if City Council wanted to change this, it would be at their discretion to make the allocation they could make the allocation process in 30 days or 60 days if they change the code.

Correct.

With code amendments, um from my understanding with code amendments, this would likely be an administrative uh amendment that we could do to the code.

But city council would have to vote on it and approve or would it be something that's not at staff level?

It would be brought forward um for approval by both the planning commission and then ultimately adopted by the city council.

And would require an LCP amendment.

Correct.

And the Coastal Commission would be approving it as well.

Okay.

Um which was not to throw a wrench in there.

Those that were required in the housing element.

And I think it's worthwhile to look at other potential amendments that could improve the process without damaging the intent.

That's a great idea.

I have no other questions at this point.

I had a question.

Clarifying question.

So how many in downtown measure D's are available?

So currently there would be 45 available downtown.

But for transfers, only the initial point five percent are available.

So that would currently leave 21, sorry, 22 allocations available for transfer currently.

So everybody on the list could get a measure D if we would and will get a Measure D in the transfer from City Council, assuming that they do that, which they always do.

Assuming that they're all available and we don't get any more applications during that time and council elects to award them all, then um currently everyone could potentially get one.

So really all this work on the ranking system, although you know it's important, but everyone on the list can have a measure D.

It's just that they have to wait till September 1st because of the code.

And if that could change, then everyone would get the measure D's at about the same time.

I mean if we could change it, correct?

Yeah.

Yeah, it would just depend on how we would implement it into our code amendments and and then of course how many people are applying year over year, but I will say historically, um, even going back to when we were issuing all the allocations downtown and outside of downtown.

Um typically there was a pretty um those were our peak years in like 2021.

And uh since then we've consistently been seeing overall less applications than are would be available within the one and a half percent um at least in the last three years, I believe.

So all of the measure Ds would be available even with the 17 that are set aside by City Council for this for the affordable housing project.

For this for this year with transfers potentially, yeah.

Provided nobody comes forth between now and September with a new project that gobbles up those Measure D.

Could be.

Um we can take this for discussion.

Do you want to open it for I'm opening it for um public comment?

Okay.

Oh, public comment, sorry.

Um I am ready to open it up to public comment.

If anybody wants to talk, uh I don't have any green cards.

If anybody wants to raise their hand online.

Um I do have one online.

Yeah.

I will open public comment.

Amy Miller.

You are up.

Go ahead, Amy.

Hi, thank you.

Hi, thank you.

Umy Miller, and I'm the owner of 59 Guerrero.

Um, we did apply for Measure D allocation this year.

Um we are in the Miramar neighborhood, so we're in one of those properties where there are, you know, just by um location, we're we don't have access to all of the facilities that you do downtown.

So my understanding is our application was fantastic, except for those items which are obviously beyond our control.

Um and I just wanted to introduce myself.

Um my family is new to Hackman Bay.

We moved here uh in March of 2024, and we are in hopes to build an ADU to bring my aging parents from Santa Cruz uh to Happen Bay to to live with us so that we can take care of them.

Um we're we've already blended into the neighborhood well.

Everyone in the neighborhood is excited for my parents to join us.

And so I just wanted to introduce myself.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And welcome to Half Moon Bay.

There you go.

Um Thank you.

Uh anyone on the audience?

No, we're good.

And anyone online, raise your hand.

Oh, we have one more.

Okay.

David?

That's not me.

Go ahead, David.

I'm gonna attempt to unmute.

Uh please confirm if you can hear me.

Yes.

Okay, great.

Hi, my name is David Beaumont, and I'm representing the uh CARE trusts.

Uh we have one awarded point in your allocation system tonight.

Um if this is not the time to speak to that, I can uh defer this until a later point.

I just heard that it was uh uh that the chair opened up for public comment.

Can you inform me before I proceed?

You can talk about anything you want.

Well, no, I um should I wait until a later part of your session to uh speak regarding that?

That's what I'm asking.

No, go ahead.

No, now is now is good.

Okay, great.

Uh I'm appreciative of uh both uh Commissioner uh Hernandez and Del Magro's uh uh comments and inquiries uh regarding uh the September as to why that's something I've always wondered.

Uh and also uh Michelle Del Magro's uh uh study or review of the less than one percent growth.

Uh those are both very apropos.

Uh before I go directly to the matter with respect to which I'm here to this evening um because there's a uh potential awarding of a split awarding for that.

I just wanted to, for the newer commissioners there, just very briefly recap uh that in 2022 and 2023 uh there were efforts underway uh uh and in fact it was reviewed by the city attorney to um place a citizen sponsored initiative to defer or rather to uh exempt ADUs from the uh process.

Um state HCD was already aware of that and was concerned about that.

And uh at that time, this is three uh planning directors ago, um, we were told that the city was going to be revising that uh short.

This is this was 2022.

That did not occur any time between now and then, the ensuing four years.

Um more recently in October of 2024, state HCDs, the enforcement arm uh informed the city that it was in violation of the newest version of the state uh legislation with respect to uh quote local growth control ordinances as being uh exempt or rather exempting uh ADUs from them.

Um so it has continued to be a mystery as to why ADUs are are uh deemed and and required a full point.

Um there are some workarounds now a full year and a half and actually three years later after these efforts to look at uh half a point or a quarter point or something of that nature.

Uh it's just unclear because the the state legislation is absolutely crystal clear.

It says uh local growth control uh ordinances not withstanding uh ADUs are not to be counted.

And unfortunately, ADUs, as you can see, uh aside from uh developments, affordable housing developments are all uh counted in the system.

Another component of that is affordable housing.

Again, in 2022, uh three directors ago, uh there was a an effort from staff um directed by by city staff to have uh uh affordable housing also exempted.

It's notable that within your very own uh ordinance uh uh density bonuses, and this goes back to 2009 are exempt from that for affordable, and yet the actual affordable units are not exempt.

That that's a that's a head scratcher.

How are affordable units not exempt but the density bonus affordable units exempt?

So moving on to the present uh and the matter uh before us now.

You have um the staff rather has proposed there's two options that ours, which is a single family home plus an ADU.

They're proposing to award one unit, excuse me, only one uh point, which is one unit.

Uh and we understand uh why staff uh needs to do so because you only have a certain number of points.

And so um we uh could accept that, except that it it's inverted in the uh staff uh proposed uh option tonight presented as option one, it says it suggests that the ADU be awarded, but not the House, and then in September, the House would be awarded.

Well, if you both look at both state law and your local ordinances, in fact, you can't do anything with an awarded uh measure D ADU because you can it cannot be built first, and there's nothing that can happen.

So we would be basically uh waiting for several months.

If you invert that and instead award the point for the home, of course the home cannot be constructed, nor even can a building permit be submitted.

However, the uh somewhat lengthy process, which is very involved, it involves staff time and involves hearings and involves uh a design review, that process could be uh being put forth during the summertime, so to speak, until your September date for that residence.

Obviously, the uh building permit could not be issued, and in fact the coastal development permit can't be issued because the full terms of that, but at least the design review and the applications and all of the necessary reviews that staff conducts could be uh engaged with between April and August.

And then at September, the uh second point for the awarding of the uh ADU could could go forward.

I'm sorry to interrupt the can you just wrap up a uh pretty soon?

Okay, very much.

So well, at the very um this evening, just very briefly I did hear from one staff member who was concerned that the uh he wasn't sure that could happen because of the coastal development permit requirement.

However, your section 17 um uh uh the applicability section very clearly says that it an applicant seeking to construct must apply for the allocation.

We're not seeking to construct at this point.

We're we're sort of we're compromising with you and asking that you invert the one point instead of being an ADU uh for a home.

If if there's further clarity necessary, I realize my time is up.

I'm happy to explain uh the basis for that, which actually harkens directly to your ordinance in several instances, which I have before me.

So I'll let the I'll uh Yeah, thank you very much.

And if you could stay um we may we may call on you later.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Is there anyone else in the audience or online would like to talk on this issue?

I am seeing none.

Okay, I'm gonna close public hearing.

And take it back to the dais.

Does anyone uh Commissioner Del Negro?

I still had a question of of the ADU, in fact, before the last speaker spoke, which is the single family housing unit versus an ADU, that there's no priority given to one or the other directly, or there is according to the six criteria.

ADUs are pretty heavily incentivized via the criteria.

Um some of the criteria provide points for just having an ADU, some uh contribute to the density factor uh which plays into the scoring.

Um so ADUs are more incentivized than single families, which is also part of why you see the majority of single families including an ADU in their submittal, um, because without single families tend to struggle to score high enough to compete.

Okay, that's I'm assuming for the density part and the infill part is where they score high yes, if I there's a point on there where you get five points just for having an ADU included with the submittal um for the density, you get a minimum five points if you have an ADU included with the submittal and you may score higher depending on the size of your lot.

Um in fill is less affected um by incorporating uh incorporating in ADU or not, um, but we do award full points for infill for ADUs.

Okay.

Um landscaping, obviously, is there any difference in points between single family and ADUs?

Um for ADUs, typically for the majority of items, they receive full points, um, unless there is something that is not existing there or um clearly doesn't match the criteria in there, such as like there's one on impervious surface, if if the whole site is mostly impervious service and it's an ADU, they wouldn't receive points there.

Um, but there are some criteria where the interpretation is that an ADU has minimal ability ability to impact the overall landscaping of the site or to make some of those changes, and therefore ADUs tend to be awarded full points on many of those items.

All right, thank you.

Um can I ask you what the reasoning is to recommend the ADU portion of this uh project?

Yeah, this stems uh partially back to the discussion from last year when we ran into this issue as well.

Um part of the thought process is that um awarding the ADU first ensures that they have to still include a single family or include the ADU with their submittal, you couldn't have an ADU without a single family.

Um and therefore throughout the process, if there were some change in staffing or something where somebody came in and was looking at it, they would see that okay, only an ADU has been awarded here, they still need a single family versus it potentially slipping through the cracks as a single family only application because so much of that scoring is tied to that ADU.

Um if they were if they had just submitted as a single family home, they would not be at that spot in the list where they are.

Correct.

Is there anything that prevents the applicant from going through the design review process if we, as a planning commission say, hey, let's leave the allocation the way staff have recommended it, but let them go through the design process uh between now and September with the assumption they're going to get an allocation?

Is there anything that like are you prohibited from allowing them to go through the design process?

So the applicant based on our code would not be able to apply for the coastal development permit.

Um but that wouldn't prohibit the applicant from applying for preliminary review of the project.

Um they would still have to seek a coastal development permit later on, but you could apply for preliminary review without your measure D allocation because you're not getting any entitlement from that.

You're just getting feedback to inform your project in the future, ensure you can be well prepared for a complete submittal when you're submitting for entitlement.

So that could be an option, um, but they wouldn't be able to submit for an actual entitlement permit, like a coastal development permit or building permit associated.

And because they received um placement on the list and their measure de allocation, they wouldn't be able to appro apply for a CDP in any case until they had both the allocations that were required.

Correct.

But they could go through the preliminary design process between now and September.

Based on my interpretation, I I would say so, but the director, yeah.

Okay, great.

Um last question.

Can we get confirmation on that?

Is that right?

Yes, that that is correct.

Thank you.

In the September allocations, does somebody who has this type of situation get any advantage in the list that they've gotten ADU already, they're just sleeping for the single family unit.

Uh during the transfer process, City Council has discretion as to how they choose to award the transfer allocations.

They don't have to go with the scoring like we do right now.

Um the code uh allows for more flexibility there.

Um and so there could be a recommendation from the planning commission.

I believe that occurred last year where it was recommended that some of these applicants write at the line or with discrepancies would be um prioritized during that transfer process.

Um and so the council could choose to prioritize this applicant to ensure no matter how many transfers, this is the first to receive it.

Thank you.

Commissioner Hernandez, I'm opening up to discussion, yes.

Um it is my understanding that City Council has provided direction um on the measure D so that a half allocation for a measure D would be counted for an ADU, zero for a JDU.

Um, and that's something that's working its way through city staff and would uh require going, I think I'm not sure if it's going to come to us, but it's certainly going to go to city council for approval.

It it will come to you.

It will be an amendment to the code and to the LCP, so it'll come to you first.

And do you have a time frame on when that would happen?

Well, it's interesting.

Um I were just discussing that today.

So our our first priority is to get the rezoning done that the that HCD required of us, so we can be in compliance with the housing element.

Second priority is then the code amendments for measure D.

And all the while that that is happening, we weren't we're also updating the implementation plan.

So it could be that those code amendments get folded into the implementation plan update.

Um just because we're we're pretty much um redoing the entire implementation plan.

So is that a complete overhaul.

So is that 2028, uh October 2026?

No, we would bring we would bring the measure D amendments forward sooner.

We wouldn't wait until the end for that.

But what what a Koei and I did establish today was that we can't I wanted to do them together and we can't package them together because the research required for the Measure D amendments will slow down the zoning amendments and we need to get in compliance with our housing element.

Unfortunately.

Okay.

I mean fortunately we can get in compliance, but unfortunately we can't package the two together.

So thank you.

Um I mean um would be to if the applicant at uh I think it's 544 Filbert wanted to let 303 Filbert go first, then I'd be sure that's great.

But it sounds like their intent is to get their allocation taking their partial allocation taken care of today.

So I'm fine with that.

And uh it's not something I feel super strongly about.

I will say that the direction we've been given from City Council has been to get more housing done more quickly.

I think the bigger issue is um, and maybe it doesn't work this year, is we don't need to wait six months for the reallocation process to happen.

I would recommend a 30-day uh process um or something that's administratively workable given that there might be um um uh whatchamacallit appeals that are filed, so maybe a 60-day cycle or something like that.

Just that's that's the thought that occurs to me.

But otherwise I'm fine with approving this uh as it's come before us.

So Commissioner Del Negro.

So to be clear you'd like to attach a recommendation onto this for the 60-day.

Yeah, I would like to attach a recommendation for um the allocation to happen 30 to 60 days um whatever is administratively feasible.

Um do you have anything else?

I do not.

I mean the my biggest question coming in tonight was you know about that partial uh um assignment.

Um clearly I've heard from both the applicant and from um council what's going on.

City.

I think you can make a motion.

I'd like to make uh motion to approve the item before us um that we have received the measure D allocation ranking.

We've reviewed it and we approve it, and we uh approve the 544 Filbert to get a partial allocation.

Uh we also have a recommendation that um city council consider uh changing the reallocation process from downtown to a 30-day uh period versus a six-month period uh if it's administratively feasible.

Second.

I will second that.

Uh roll call Bridget.

Commissioner Del Negro?

Yes.

Commission or Vice Chair Hernandez?

Yes.

And Chair Gorin?

Yes.

Motion approved.

Congratulations on your approval.

Um before Kloe gets up, I just wanted to let you know this is her last planning commission meeting.

She is moving on, unfortunately.

But she did manage to secure herself a nice senior planner position in another city.

Congratulations.

I don't wish ill in any other city, but I hope it's a terrible experience and you come back.

Thank you.

Uh that moves us on to our uh item one B.

It's our 2025 housing element and general plan annual progress report.

Um Scott's gonna take care of that.

And that is Scott Phillips, and um and this is just two uh confirm receipt of this progress report.

Scott.

Thank you, Chair Gorn and members of the planning commission.

As mentioned, this is the housing element and general plan annual progress report.

I'll go through a uh quick presentation, a little overview.

Let's see.

So the general plan is uh consists of seven required elements, uh the land use, circulation, open space, safety, noise, conservation, and housing.

Uh general general plan uh annual progress report is after uh the city council takes a look at it, is submitted to the governor's office along with the annual progress report for the housing element, and both need to be submitted by April 1st.

Now housing element uh according to state law, all housing elements must identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs, and uh uh have a series of goals and policies and establish objectives and uh identify financial and other resources that may be available in each city.

Now uh housing element we're in cycle six uh 2023 to 2031.

Uh this is the third uh report of eight uh during the cycle six that we'll be presenting to the planning commission.

And uh we are on our way to meeting our uh required uh regional housing needs allocation or referred to as RENA.

Uh and um one thing to note uh our housing element was certified last month, so uh we're very excited about that.

Uh a couple of follow up follow-up items.

Uh let's see, and then more about the uh regional housing allocation numbers.

Uh this is uh essentially table B within the housing element report.

Uh it kind of gives us a snapshot of the uh the arena numbers that are required uh for Half Moon Bay and then the uh what we fulfilled this thus far.

And this is based off of uh residential building permits issued.

So the the intent is that uh once uh a new residential unit building permit is issued, it's gone through measure D and uh coastal development permit process, uh building permit review, building permit is issued, it's assumed that uh the unit will get constructed and count towards our uh required RENA numbers.

Uh now uh per HCD's direction, eight ADU affordability levels uh are uh spread across all you know the uh various affordability levels levels that you see on this chart.

And notice that there are two new ones this year.

We have acutely low and extremely low.

So those are the two uh that have been added.

And um as for right now, uh per HCD's guidance uh they uh they count towards uh our very low uh remaining arena uh counts.

So all three categories count towards very low.

Uh now uh just a couple of notes.

Uh Creekside was definitely our uh biggest producer of RENA numbers this year.

We issued um a building permit for the fourplex that's under construction uh fairly close to the community center here, uh four single family residences, and then one ADU more to come in 2026.

Uh so we're very happy about that, and our uh housing uh uh developer that's close to here to the community center.

And um, just a little bit about the program implement implementation.

Uh this is table D in the uh the housing element uh report uh program one-two objective design standards.

We do have the interim standards that are in place.

We intend to return to the planning commission for permanent uh ODS review uh in the in the near future.

Uh program one-five production of a you know uh sort of encouraging the development of uh ADUs.

Uh we did issue 11 building permits in 2025 for ADUs, so uh that's a uh roughly about the same as last year.

Uh so we're also happy about that.

And uh our you know, our housing resources.

Uh we we uh have uh various resources on our website.

We uh try and encourage the uh development of housing and um work with uh some of our partners in the community, uh including abode and coastside hope.

And uh let's see programs three-4 and three five.

Uh we have a central workers and uh uh large households uh that uh we try and encourage the development of some examples of that, uh 555 Kelly, Stone Pine Cove, and then the fourplex at Creekside.

Uh all uh the idea is to cater towards essential workers.

Uh now program 548 also is related to this, uh encourages the development of affordable housing on publicly owned lands.

Uh we, you know, as I mentioned earlier, 555 Kelly and Stone Pine were both uh public lands uh set aside for developing uh housing.

You know, as mentioned earlier, the this is really more of the uh you know opportunity for the planning commission to uh uh review and acknowledge uh receipts of uh both uh progress reports.

Our next steps are to uh present this to City Council on March 17th, and then submit to HCD uh as well as the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, LCI by April 1st.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

What happens if we don't hit the number by the end of the cycle?

What indications have we gotten from the state about what the implications are?

I don't know the answer to that question.

And I you know I I do know that it's pretty common for cities not to hit the hit the mark and uh is builders remedy something that comes into play if we don't hit our number between now and the end of the cycle.

They will um the HCD will hold us out of compliance, um, in which case builder's remedy is possible.

However, um it is the city's position that builders remedy does not apply in the coastal zone.

Understood.

Uh the last time we got an update on uh our last progress report we had, I asked that um we have kind of a an indication of where we would be based on projects that we saw that were foreseeable.

Um so like 555 Kelly or this project on Main Street.

And um I think before this comes back to City Council, I know the mayor will want to see the likelihood, you know, the probable projects that we have before us that are in the planning process that are going to allow us to hit that number because I understand the city's position, but I don't want us to have to litigate with the state because we're a small city, and builders' remedy should be taken off the table if at all possible.

So it'd be great when this comes back.

If you have the numbers in front of you now, great.

But I think more importantly for City Council, I know they're gonna want to see um the likelihood that we're gonna hit our number, and that kind of opens up a conversation around what we can do to make sure we get there.

Thank you.

We'll make sure it goes to council Del Negro.

I'm not sure I know of any city that hits their number.

Has every, I don't know how many cities have actually hit their number.

Um I don't actually I don't think I can name a single one.

Um so I I think the process here obviously is uh a target that's unachievable for anybody.

Um holding everybody accountable is probably unlikely.

Um same time um obviously we do our best to enable as much as possible to meet our goals, but um I don't see litigation as really a a likely outcome from this because of that.

I think litigation abuse.

Um I mean it's just it's time, effort, and energy, right?

I mean, if we have a goal, we should hit it, we should protect our community and do if nobody hits the goal, that's one thing, but other communities do hit the goal.

And they're going to hit the goal.

So anything else.

Do you want to open up for public comment?

Pardon me?

Public comment.

Um if anyone is online and wants to raise their hand now, is the time to do it.

And seeing none, I am not going to open public comment.

Um take it back here.

I I agree with you.

I uh the formula is a mystery.

Uh I'm I'm and my understanding is the more housing you build, then the more housing you have to build for HCD, right?

So it's it's a formula based on on how much you have.

But I think you look at what's going on in Pacifica with the builders' remedy problem they're having there with this massive project, you know, it's I think it's something we want to try to avoid if at all possible.

It's I think it's something we want to try to avoid if at all possible.

Well, just to be clear, the only one who has said the words builder's remedy has been the builder.

So do we have a motion?

I make a motion to acknowledge that we've received the progress report and provided direction that we um uh forecast what we know uh when this goes to city council.

I can second the motion.

Uh we need a roll call.

Commissioner Del Nagro?

Yes.

Vice Chair Hernandez.

Yes.

And Chair Gorn.

Yes, please.

Motion approved.

Great.

Um that brings us to director's report.

And um I know that you have a few things to talk about.

I'm assuming that one of them is going to be the letters that we've gotten from uh Birgita Bauer.

Is that right?

Yeah.

Okay, good.

Thank you.

Um I can start there, as a matter of course.

Um yeah, so you have a couple letters um from Brigita Bauer who lives uh in El Granada about the RV park in the harbor district that's right next to Surfers Beach.

Um so she she alleges that there are public access improvements that were never put in, and that the Harbor District is out of compliance with their city permit.

Um Scott and I have visited the site together uh met the Harbormaster out there.

Um we found that they are largely in compliance with their permit.

They um there are some sort of what we would term outdated requirements, and we did identify improvements that could be made to signage in the public access, which the Harbor District is working on, but those really go above and beyond the permit requirements as they stand now.

Um and then there is one uh minor violation, they were supposed to submit a report that tracks the RV usage over a full year.

So we gave them extra time to do that since there's a lot of data that they need to put into a report.

Um our position is that they are largely in compliance.

Um that's where we hold it now.

If you would like us to put this on the agenda to discuss at a future time, we're happy to do that.

Um from that, um going backwards here on my list now.

Um last week you heard the Pillar CEDO's Creek Fence Project and you approved it, and you recommended that uh our last meeting I should say, and you recommended that we extend the fence to Belleville.

And um I just wanted to let you know that our public interim public works director has communicated with the property owners.

Um those are the property owners that showed up to the meeting, and they've given permission to run the fence along their property along the edge of that trail all the way to Belleville.

Um so that looks like it will be doable.

Um we are talking to the consultant who worked on the CEQA evaluation, the biological report on how we extend that to cover the fence, and we think we're in good shape there.

Um that's so quick.

Thank you.

Yeah.

We'll have to thank Todd for that.

Um also uh we hired two new planners, uh, an associate planner and an assistant planner.

So we um we had two vacancies, one from our former housing coordinator and one from uh our former senior planner.

And we underfilled with an associate and assistant planner in hopes of promoting in the future.

Um the day we made the decision on who we were gonna hire, I heard from a coe that she was leaving.

So we will go back out to hire again.

Um and we will once again look for a senior planner.

As you know, we we looked for a senior planner last fall and we didn't find any candidates we were happy with.

So we'll start there again.

That's a Doug Garrison position.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um since we last met, uh, we issued a couple tree removal permits uh and a sign permit for Half Moon Bay Brewery.

Um that was it.

And next meeting, we will bring before you a project at nine two five San Mateo Road.

That's at Curly and Reds.

They are proposing storage units in the back of that lot.

And um Scott will bring forward a Verizon Tower on Carter Hill.

Thanks very much.

Yeah.

Um, I will bring it back to commissioners.

Um I had the great pleasure of sitting in a webinar by um Cal Wilde uh today.

Uh they talked about photography of wildlife in the uh in California and what's being done to protect the wildlife.

But uh the photos are amazing.

Um I'm gonna get a recording and I'll I'll share it uh with you guys.

But it's um one of my favorite parts of it is this guy captured photos of uh bobcats in the area, and they're just absolutely stunning and spectacular.

And it's it's inspiring to see somebody who's in his early twenties just getting national recognition for the photography.

And he also uh was the first person to photograph uh a particular shrew uh that uh had never been photographed alive before.

So uh it's it's pretty cool.

Um, but anyway, uh it's one of the great things about the work we do here is we are protecting wildlife.

And um, you know, sometimes you gotta squint to realize the good work we're doing.

But I think it's uh something I'm proud of.

And um, yeah.

If you guys I'll send you the link after this.

Thanks.

I guess I will share that um I had opportunity to see the um contest across the street for the robotics.

Uh and it was really awesome to see that many kids that excited about something and doing so much in California.

Yeah, it was impressive.

And I love seeing all the number of people that were came to Half Moon Bay for these tournaments, shopping downtown, seeing Half Moon Bay.

Uh, it's always a positive.

I think any time we have a chance to promote, you know, academic tournaments in high schools, competitive sports tournaments, you always see great turnouts.

You know, they went to the world championship their first year.

Yeah, I heard that.

Oh, awesome.

Let's go pumpkin bots.

Yeah, pumpkin bots.

Well, let's just say congrats to the high school uh basketball team, both the boys and the girls.

Um but uh what happened tonight?

They're playing in the middle of the day.

I know they're playing tonight.

Um it's the NORCAL Division Four championship.

So that's cool.

Good for them.

Anyone else?

I have one other thing.

Um recently neighbor fell down, nobody there to help.

You know, people keep an eye out for your neighbor.

Uh I haven't seen somebody in a while.

Want to check on them, knock on the door, say hi.

I think it's always a good idea.

I'm glad that we had somebody in our neighborhood did it for a neighbor next to us.

So it was actually quite a nice thing.

Just a reminder.

Thanks.

I'd like to make a motion to adjourn.

Do we have a second motion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

We are adjourned.