I would like to call the order.

The City of Happy Planning Commission meeting of America to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible.

Thank you, Bridget.

Do you have protocols?

Yes.

Um just wanted to welcome everyone this evening, and we are filming this on PC TV's website along with Channel 27 local station.

Um we have interpretation this evening that is live for anyone that's needing that.

And we will allow public comment during each item as well as general public comment at the very beginning of the meeting.

Um turn it back over.

I can do roll call.

Okay, we're gonna do roll call very slowly.

Yes, I can.

Um, Commissioner Rems.

Um here need another chair up here.

Oh, we will get that for you.

Um Commissioner Ruddick.

Here.

Commissioner Del Negro here.

Vice Chair Hernandez.

I am present.

He is here, and Chair Gorn.

Here.

All commissioners are present this evening.

I do that again.

Uh first up on our list is the minutes.

We have three different uh sets of minutes.

Um there have been a few absences here and there, so um, I need to look them all up.

We can start.

Yeah, I can help.

Yeah, so does the um April 14th minutes?

Um the three that were present were Commissioner Hernandez, Ruddick, and Rems, and we haven't had that consistent um since so we need to get those approved.

That was uh the telecommunication tower, um, and the CLT presentation.

So if I can get a motion for those, so we'll um if anyone has questions about that one, or if anyone has PI questions, I move we approve the April 14 minutes.

And do you have a second?

Thank you.

Okay, you want all right?

Um Commissioner Hernandez?

I Commissioner Ruddick.

Yes, Commissioner Rems, yes, and Commissioner Gorn and Del Negroin.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

I have those done.

Great.

Then we now have 512.

Yes.

So May 12th um was approved the last meeting.

Um for those that were here.

Um, however, um they were reviewed and there were some edits made, and the red lines were posted during the packet distribution.

So planning commissioners, I let you know that you needed to review those again due to the red lines so everyone saw those.

Um, and so if everybody is okay with that or not, just I need a motion, second, any comments or changes.

Yeah, I mean, if you didn't see them, we could um delay it, but I'll take a motion.

All right, looked at a mic, make a motion to approve those minutes.

Okay, Travis.

Second, second.

Okay.

Roll call.

Um Commissioner Rems.

I'm not sure I could vote on this because I wasn't here at that meeting.

Uh you were at this meeting.

This was the queues from the second half, second half.

You can vote on the minutes.

Yeah.

I think present for the last couple of yeah.

Yes, just like you can sign the minutes of the meeting if you weren't there as the chair, but you're just acknowledging, but I can double check.

Is that correct?

I think it's fine to vote, right?

Commissioner was at the last half of the meeting here.

Yeah, abstained for the last half of the meeting, but was here for the first half.

You can still vote on the minutes.

You technically don't need to be present at the meeting to vote to approve the minutes, it's just the official record of the meeting.

Right.

Commissioner Rems.

Aye.

Okay.

Commissioner Ruddick.

I'll abstain because I was absent.

Yes, you are.

Um Commissioner uh Del Negro.

Yes.

And Vice Chair Hernandez.

And um Commissioner, or sorry, Chair Gorn.

There you go.

All right.

Um, thank you.

And we still have 526.

And those are the most recent minutes.

Correct.

I've read them, I'll review them.

I would like to make a motion to approve the minutes from the 26th of May.

Do we have a second?

No, it's not going to move.

Roll call.

All right.

Uh Commissioner Rems.

Commissioner Um Ruddick.

Yes.

Commissioner Del Negro.

Yes.

Vice Chair Hernandez.

Was absent.

I will abstain.

And Chair Gorn.

Yes, please.

Motion approved.

Thank you.

We're caught up.

I wanted to give the public a chance to comment on anything that is not on the agenda tonight.

So if anyone has a comment that is not agendized, now is the time.

I don't have green cards on anything that's not on the agenda.

And I don't see anyone online.

Do you?

Same.

Okay.

All right.

I won't open that public hearing.

And we'll move on to our first item, which is the sign program architectural review and sign permit for 201ateo Road.

That would be Scott.

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

And Scott Phillips, the project planner for the Texaco Sign Package.

And I'll start out by showing a aerial photograph of the site and surrounding area.

The proposed sign program is mentioned as for two oh one San Mateo Road, which is on the southeastern corner of Main Street and San Mateo Road or 92.

The site is adjacent.

The site is also on the northern boundary of the downtown specific plan, which does have some language, some policies in it applicable to signs and signed programs.

And then various signs on the gas station pumps themselves.

So the planning or the AAC, they were definitely, they're fully supportive of the signed program, and recommended approval to the planning commission.

Now this slide more specifically shows where all this all the signs are located within the signed program.

And the question that's probably coming to your mind is okay, all these signs are more or less existing.

There are some new signs that are included in the sign program.

And building permits were issued for that.

Now, in total, 13 signs are included with the sign program.

And normally businesses are allowed one sign plus one additional sign per business frontage.

So in this case, uh per the sign code, three signs would be allowed uh with a net total square footage of the sign area of 100 square feet.

So what's proposed is meets the maximum allowed sign area, but exceeds the number of signs that would normally be allowed by the sign code.

Therefore, that's sort of that's the reason why we're processing a sign uh program to allow the business owner to have a little bit of flexibility as far as the number of signs, and this is pretty normal, you know, that's normally seen at a gas station.

Now I'll go into this uh the signs included with a little more detail.

This is the the monument sign out front.

Uh no change would take place to this.

This is an internally illuminated cabinet sign uh that was permitted back uh a number of years ago when the uh highway 92 was reconfigured.

This slide includes all the wall signs that are included in the sign program.

Uh there would be a new wall sign above the entrance to the convenience store, uh, sort of reconfiguring the extra mile sign as well as new entrance and exit signs to the car wash, along with an additional wall sign, uh sort of uh channel letter wall sign to uh allow people to visually see the car wash a little better.

Uh the business owner has mentioned that it's at times customers don't know where exactly where the car wash is.

Uh so the car wash sign will help with that sort of uh wayfinding.

And then last but not least, the gas station pump signs, uh various signs on the pumps, uh a couple, you know, on the the trash can, the uh the pump header signs.

Uh some of these are exempt from sign permit requirements.

For example, the sign just below the pumps.

Uh there, it's integral to the sign, you know, similar to an ATM machine.

Those are exempt from sign permit requirements, but so they're shown uh just for illustration purposes.

Uh the signs on the the trash cans themselves would be new.

Uh and then the signs on top of the pumps do require a sign permit.

So those are included in the signed program as well.

Now a little bit of the anal about the analysis.

I touched upon this before.

Uh sign code uh requirements.

If uh you know if a business owner is uh feels that it's necessary to have a little bit of flexibility beyond what's allowed by the sign code, uh a signed program is appropriate.

Uh we've uh processed signed programs for various businesses throughout town uh at you know when it makes sense.

And now also the downtown specific plan, it does call out the uh architectural review committee, which uh has been disbanded.

We now have the architectural advisory committee.

Uh that will be updated at some time in the future when we update the downtown specific plan.

But uh, you know, for all intents of purposes, the architectural advisory committee uh covers the responsibilities of the previous architectural review committee that the city had.

So we did present this to the architectural advisory committee, they were supportive of the signed program.

Uh downtown specific plan also calls out uh Maine in 92 as a gateway uh very you know sort of consistent with uh language and applicable policies in our land use plan.

Now I highlighted some of the policies uh in our land use plan that apply to signs and gateway enhancements.

Uh we do uh given the monument sign was previously permitted.

Uh no change is really proposed uh with the monument sign, just including it in the sign program.

Uh let's see, the um, you know, policy 934 uh does really focus on signs and it talks about you know phasing out monument signs, but in this case, you know, like I mentioned, it it was previously permitted, so we feel that it would be appropriate to maintain the monument sign, and then sign permits and signed programs are uh normally exempt from CEQA.

We we feel that that would be appropriate in this case.

And uh that concludes my presentation.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

We also have the architect here uh this evening as well as the landowner, they would be happy to answer any questions also.

Thank you.

I'm gonna open up to planning commissioners with any kind of questions you have about this.

Do you have questions?

No.

I got one.

We have a question.

Commissioner Done there.

I often use the air there.

There's is there an air and gas sign included in this for the air and um uh water station?

I don't see that.

I know the front of the machine has something on it, but something like that doesn't qualify for a sign, does it?

Just because it's labeled on the machine.

No, it's exempt from sign permit requirements.

So they're not planning on putting one above it.

To my knowledge, there is not a air and water indication sign for the air pump at this point, but it and it the previous owner did not have a car wash sign up on the car wash or an entrance and exit.

Entrance and exit, yes, but not the uh the wall sign.

Why not?

Was there a reason?

There's no reason.

Okay.

Yeah, uh that might be a good question for the the landowner.

I'm sure you could provide some background.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, wanted to open this up to public comment.

Does anyone have anything to say ask about this issue or comment on it?

Um now is the time to raise your hand online, or to in the audience.

And I am seeing none.

I'm gonna pass by that, open it up to uh the commission again, and planning commissioners.

Vice Chair Hernandez.

Thank you.

Um, I had a clarifying question I wanted to go back to, except for the monument.

If this were coming to the city, greenfield brand new building.

Would there be any issues approving the signage on this project?

Minus the monument sign, no.

And um, even though this is in the gateway, I don't really see anything that sort of promotes and maybe I missed it that promotes you're in half moon bay.

This is the entrance to the city.

Is there any kind of signage to that effect?

No, there is not.

Would that be something you would expect of a new project that would be a greenfield project coming in?

Certainly.

You know, in this in this case, this this subject was touched upon at the architectural advisory committee meeting, and the conclude the unanimous sort of feeling from the AAC members was that this is a gas station, and there's really not a whole lot we can do here as far as um enhancing the gateway.

You know, maybe you're right, maybe with a new building there would be more opportunity, but in this case it's a gas station that that's existed for quite some time now.

So, and I'm under the impression that there's gonna be a conversion of the garage space into retail.

Yeah, we have had we have received some inquiries on what it would take to do so.

And that's part of the reason that this uh signed program and sign permit was requested, and that after digging into the city records, we did not find any history on some of the signs.

So the idea was to you know clean up the sign, you know, the approvals of the signs, and then move forward with some sort of conversion.

Uh at this point, it's an inquiry.

We haven't we haven't received any formal application.

So there's a future potential project that hasn't been submitted, but the applicant is the one who came forward and said, Let's clean all this up.

Let's get this before the planning commission so there's no doubt.

Correct.

This was not a result of any code enforcement case or anything of that nature.

Great.

I have no further clarifying questions.

Thank you.

Sorry, I thought you said you didn't have any.

Does anybody else have a discussion of this topic or clarifying questions?

Commissioner Reddick.

Thank you.

I just wanted to say I agree with the architectural advisory committee and staff that there's nothing unusual or of concern in the context of this being a gas station on Highway 92 rather than a historic downtown fronted, so I have no problem with this.

Commissioner Del Negro.

I even went on and looked at the uh old pictures of the shell station, was still a shell station, and signage pretty much looks the same then as it does now, just a different color, same locations.

I don't see how there's any issue here for me as far as approving this.

Anyone else?

Um we could entertain a motion.

Anyone have a motion?

Move to approve, Mr.

Chairman.

Commissioner Ms.

I'll second it.

We have a second.

Uh roll call, please.

Commissioner Rems.

Yes.

Commissioner Reddick?

Yes.

Commissioner Del Negro?

Yes.

Vice Chair Hernandez?

Yes.

And Chair Gordon.

Uh yes, please.

Motion approved 50.

So our next item is uh SB 35.

Um, and I know this is uh not for uh a vote, it's an informational um presentation.

Um usually we have people in from the public talk afterwards, but if there are quite a few people who want to talk, I think we should have them talk ahead of time.

Is it um does that work for you?

Or should we do the presentation first, which is what we usually do?

Uh I'm sorry, are you talking about people?

Planning commissioners, no commenting, but public.

We have a lot of public here.

However, you want to handle it, says Mary.

It occurs to me, Ms.

Chair Gorn, if you're open to it that after the presentation, people wanting to comment will have a better idea whether their comments are relevant to the issues at hand.

Uh that'll be fine.

Um who is presenting them?

Um SB 35.

I'll go ahead and introduce um Mary Wagner from the city attorney's office.

Mary has a great deal of experience with housing law, as much experience as anyone in this state can have, given how quickly the laws are passed.

And um she has been helping us uh with our negotiations with HCD, the rezonings, and the ADU ordinance that we've been working on.

Um, we're grateful to have her on board.

Um, and I I would also just like to remind everyone that we are talking about SB 35, the housing law tonight, and we're not talking about a specific project tonight.

So, and with that, this is Mary Wagner.

Thank you, Chair, thank you for that introduction.

And thank you, Chair, uh, members of the planning commission.

As indicated, I'm Mary Wagner.

I'm with Burke Williams and Sorensen, um, and part of your city attorney team.

Um, the item before you for tonight, it doesn't have any requested action, it's just an informational item in about California Senate Bill SB 35.

Uh, streamlined ministerial review and approval process under government code section 65913 point four.

So SB 35 was signed into law by Governor Newsom um in 2017, went into effect in 2018, and as indicated, enacted government code section 65913.4, which creates a streamlined ministerial review and approval process for qualifying multifamily housing developments that comply with the city's objective planning standards, provide specified levels of affordable housing, and meet other specific requirements that we're going to talk about as we move through this presentation.

SB 35 was recently most recently amended by SB 423, which was signed into law by the governor in 2023, went into effect in 2024 and had a number of impacts to SB 35.

Throughout this presentation, I'm going to refer to SB 35 just as shorthand, meaning government code section 65913.4 as it's been amended and as it currently exists.

So SB 423 expanded SB 35 pretty significantly to cover more jurisdictions and more types of projects.

It extended the sunset date of SB 35 to January 1st of 2036.

It was previously going to sunset January 1st of this year.

So it extended the provisions for another 10 years.

And importantly, for Half Moon Bay, it makes SB 35 apply in the coastal zone, with some exceptions.

The slides get thrown off a little bit in your uh in your system here, so let me keep up.

Not for to get into the details of that project, but just by way of some context.

The city has received a notice of intent or preliminary application.

They're one and the same for this project.

We do not have a development application yet.

It's proposed to be a hundred percent affordable project to very low and low-income households.

There was a community meeting held by Midpen on June 4th, and there was also a presentation to the city council on June 16th, which is required under SB 35 given the location of the Midpen project.

We'll get into that a little bit more also.

So the State Department of Housing and Community Development, HCD, assigns each jurisdiction its housing production goals, as you all know, for different income categories referred to as the regional housing needs allocation or RENA.

And cities submit an annual report, which came to you for likely for review and approval a few months ago.

It reports on housing production by income category that goes to HCD, and it's based on the number of building permits essentially that have been issued.

If HCD determines that a jurisdiction's RENA goals are not being satisfied, SB 35 requires cities to streamline the review and approval process of certain affordable housing projects.

SB 423 extended this ministerial approval process to jurisdictions that have not obtained certification of their housing element by HCD within the statutory time frame.

So SB 35, this what we refer to as the SB 35 list, which is now kind of a misnomer.

HC doesn't produce that anymore.

They have a dashboard where they list each jurisdiction's compliance or status with respect to SB 35.

Half Moon Bay is included on the SB 35 list.

One because housing element certification is pending the rezonings necessary to meet the city's arena.

There also was insufficient progress toward lower and above moderate income RENA.

So the process does apply.

That's determined at the end of the previous housing element cycle.

So at the end of the fifth cycle in 2022, that determination was made.

There'll be another determination made mid cycle of the sixth cycle to see if you will remain subject to SB 35 or not.

That'll happen in June of 2027.

SB 35 streamline ministerial approval applies in Half Moon Bay for projects or developments with at least 10% affordability.

There's a specific provision that's applicable to jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area that allows for 20% income or 20% of the units can also be subject to an SB 35 project at a different at a more of a moderate income level, but we'll get to that too as we move through this.

I included a link to the dashboard for anybody who's interested.

It's not the most user-friendly thing in the world, but if you take a minute, you can kind of figure out where you stand for SB 35.

Okay, well, what does this mean?

So you're subject to SB 35.

So again, qualifying projects are reviewed using a ministerial process, something that you're not usually familiar with.

No discretionary approvals can be required.

Process applications have to be done within a certain time frame.

Um they're not subject to CEQA.

And the first step is the submittal of a notice of intent, which is the same thing as a preliminary application under the housing accountability act.

It includes those same statutory requirements to determine if it's been met.

They just use it, they call it something different for SB 35 just to keep us on our toes, I think.

Again, no discretionary review is allowed for SB 35 for projects that qualify for processing under SB 35.

There can be a and is required to be a public meeting for projects and moderate resource census tracks, which is the reason the council had the meeting on June 16th regarding this project.

That meeting has to occur within 45 days of submittal of the notice of intent or preliminary application.

It does allow SB 35 does allow for design review to be conducted by the planning commission and/or the architectural review committee.

It has to be objective, it has to be strictly focused on assessing compliance with objective standards, and it cannot in any way inhibit chill or preclude the ministerial approval provided by SB 35 or its effect.

Staff takes the final action on the project.

So now we get into well, what projects are eligible for SB 35 processing.

The project has to have a minimum number of units, at least two, so it's a considered multifamily housing project.

It can be a mixed-use project, but two-thirds of the proposed development square footage has to be designated for residential use.

It has to be in an urban infill area, which means the project site has to be on a legal parcel with 75% of its perimeter adjoining parcels that are developed with urban uses.

Or it has to meet the requirements of SB 6.

There's a requirement that affordability covenants be recorded.

They have to last for 55 years for rented units and 45 years for ownership units.

You typically receive see that in the form of a deed restriction, and that agreement or deed restriction sets out the time frame and the obligations with respect to the affordable units.

There's a minimum number of affordable units that are required for projects that contain 10 units, 10% or one of the units if it's a 10-unit project, have to be affordable to households making below 80% of the area median income for for sale units, 50% of the area median income for rental units, so 80% are considered lower income, and 50% is included considered to be very low.

As I mentioned previously, because you're in the San Francisco Bay Area, excuse me, projects that have 20% of the units as affordable to households making below 100% of AMI, which is essentially an above mod unit, would also qualify if the average income of the units is at or below 80% of AMI.

So some of the units have to have a deeper level of affordability, and we'd have to do the math with the qualifying to see if a project would qualify with those kind of income restrictions.

I have the numbers if you're interested of what AMI is for San Mateo County, which is where Half Moon Bay is, obviously.

They're published by HCD, and the 2026 numbers came out recently.

So AMI for Half Moon Bay for 2026 is just over 200,000.

It's 200,000, 200,008.

And then household for a household of four, very low income at 50% or less is 105,000 and change.

Low income, which is 80% or less is 168,000.

Mod, which is 80 to 120, is basically 241,000.

Continuing on with these eligibility criteria.

SB 423 did make some changes with respect to prevailing wages.

Prevailing wages apply to a project that has 10 or more than 10 units, if it's not entirely a public work.

And you're required to make health care expenditures for projects with 50 or more units.

So then we get to what about the coastal zone.

So I included the actual language or pretty much close to the actual language here because I know that this is important in the city of Half Moon Bay since you were completely within a coastal zone, and the change that SB 423 made to remove the exception to SB 35 that previously said that you weren't allowed to have SB 35 projects in the coastal zone, which may explain some of why you don't haven't had one yet until SB 423 came along.

There are a number of exceptions, however, and you know, essentially it doesn't allow SB 35 projects that are close to the beach, and we can walk through exactly what that says.

I have it up on the screen for you if you would like to.

Areas that are vulnerable to five feet of sea level rise, areas that are tide lands, submerged lands, public trust lands with a hundred feet of any wetland, estuary, or stream, or within 300 feet of the top of a seabird face of any coastal bluff.

Any area of the coastal zone that's not subject to a certified LCP, anything that is not zoned for multifamily.

Then we continue on with these eligibility criteria, and there are a number of exclusions.

I can run through these really quickly.

These haven't changed significantly from when SB 35 was put in place.

There have been some modifications, but you can't have an SB 35 project on property that's considered to be prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, any wetlands, very high fire hazard severity zones, say that five times fast, or state responsibility areas unless the site has adopted fire hazard mitigation measures.

That is one standard that changed slightly with SB 423.

It can't be a site that's on the Cortezi list, can't be in a delineated earthquake fault zone, can't be within a special flood zone, a regulatory floodway, can't be on lands identified for conservation in an adopted community conservation plan, can't serve as habitat for protected species, or be on lands under a conservation easement.

Some other criteria regarding SB 35, deals with demolition of existing residential units.

The development can't result in the demolition of existing housing units that meet certain criteria.

If they've been occupied by tenants in the last 10 years, subject to any form of rent or price control, or if there's a recorded deed restriction requiring that the units be affordable to moderate low or very low-income households.

There were some changes under SB 423 regarding not allowing SB 35 projects on sites governed by laws regulating mobile homes and recreational vehicles.

Also, SB 35 cannot be utilized to demolish a historic structure that was placed on a national, state, or local historic register.

This is more limited than some other housing laws, which indicate that they don't apply in historic districts or have other regulations regarding our historic districts.

SB 35 is more limited, and that this the structure actually has to be a designated historical structure.

Once you get an SB 35 notice of intent, you are we the Jurassic City are required to begin tribal consultation.

We have to reach out to any California Native American tribe that is traditionally traditionally and culturally affiliated with the area within 30 days of receipt of that notice of intent.

Within 30 days of a tribe indicating that they'd like to engage in consultation, we have to begin that process, and the process goes on until either the tribe says there are no impacts, the tribe identifies impacts, and there's an agreed upon mitigation plan, which is in the form of an agreement, and then actually has to be included as part of the conditions of the any approval, or the parties don't agree to the presence of impacts, or we can't agree on mitigation measures.

SB 35 doesn't have a deadline for that to occur, unlike the AB 130 CEQA exemption that was added and that requires tribal consultation, it has a deadline for that process to be done.

SB 35 does not have that.

But you the applicant can't actually submit a development application until the tribal consultation process has concluded.

So SB 35 projects have to comply with the jurisdiction's objective planning standards.

The city is required to determine make a consistency determination.

Although I should say that prior to making that consistency determination, we have 30 days to determine if the application is complete.

That's not under SB 35, it's part of the Permit Streamlining Act.

But obviously, SB 35 projects are subject to the Permit Streamlining Act.

They're also subject to the Housing Accountability Act.

So first we get in an application, we have 30 days to figure out if it's complete or not.

If it's not complete, we have to give a detailed list of why it's not complete.

If we don't act within 30 days, the project is deemed complete.

Then there's a period of time to determine if the project is consistent with the city's objective planning standards.

If it is, a project approved and it qualifies for SB 35, and then the project approval is required.

Density bonus law modifications are allowed under an SB 35 project.

I included the definition of an objective standard up here on this slide, but I think it's important to keep in mind.

You're supposed to be able to read the standard and know whether you comply or not.

So the definition is that the standards involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniform uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion.

They have to be known to both the applicant and the public official prior to submittal of the application.

So things like setbacks, height limits, those things, you know, building other building requirements that are pretty standard.

We all know what those are.

The examples of well, what's not an objective standard, neighborhood compatibility is one that comes to mind.

I think jurisdictions have been trying to determine how to make view corridors and view impacts objective, but it's really difficult.

I've seen some very kind of tortured processes to try and figure out well, how can you quantify a view impact?

But those are just kind of an aside.

We talked about this briefly.

SB 35 projects can utilize density bonus laws.

When you're making a determination about consistency, you don't consider these waivers or the incentives or the concessions that are being asked for under density bonus law, but you are required to provide those.

If there's any inconsistency between state law and a local ordinance on density bonuses, the state law controls.

And frankly, a lot of jurisdictions now are just using state law as their density bonus statute.

So with respect to parking, under an S for an SB 35 project, you can't require more than one parking space per unit, and but there are exceptions to that.

You can't require any parking if the project's located in one half mile of a public transit.

We've been dealing with that in a lot of housing projects, or if it's within an architecturally and historically significant historic district, if it's within one block of a car share station, or and then I have to think about this one a minute.

If you were if the area requires on-street parking permits, but they're not offered to the development, then you can't require any on-site parking.

There are also limitations on what we can ask an SB 35 project applicant to provide.

We cannot ask for any studies, information, or other materials that don't pertain to the development determining whether the development is consistent with the objective planning standards that apply, and we can't require compliance with any standards necessary to receive a post-entitlement permit.

But then we also have timelines that apply to determining the consistency, which we talked about, and then actual approval.

So it depends on how large the project is, but the city has to determine whether the project is eligible for streamlining within 60 days of submittal of the application for projects with 150 or fewer units, and excuse me, 90 days for projects with more than 150 units, and it's not from submittal, it's not from a determination of completeness, it's from the timing of the submittal of the application.

And then any kind of project design review, which as you recall is optional, it's not required, but you're allowed to do it, and final approval for qualifying projects has to happen within 90 days from application submittal for the projects with 150 or fewer units, and then 180 days for projects with more than 150 units.

So I know I ran through a lot of information really quickly, but I'm happy to answer any questions and or go back to information in the slide presentation if that would be helpful.

Thank you, Mary Burke.

Um I'm gonna open up to planning commissioners for clarifying questions.

Does anyone have a question?

Commissioner Reddock.

Thank you for that, Mary.

That very informative and useful.

I think on your very first slide, you you may have mentioned a nuance about the receiving notice of an application versus actually receiving the application, or am I mixed up about that?

So there are two phases basically of an application process for an SB 35 project.

First, the applicant submits a notice of intent or a preliminary application.

It has to include all the statutory information that's required for a preliminary application under the housing accountability act.

So that's the first step, and they have to indicate that they're seeking SB 35 streamlined review and processing.

And again, we have to get through that tribal consultation process before an actual development application is submitted.

So yep, the first step is the notice of intent, tribal consultation, then they can submit the actual development application, which is what you're more familiar with.

You know, the SME, you know, the plan set meets all the requirements of the city's checklist for a housing development project.

And does the municipality have um uh uh a deadline uh after the submittal of the first notice to respond in any way?

So you don't technically need to respond to a notice of um intent or preliminary application.

We do recommend that jurisdictions review a preliminary application to deter to make sure that it has the all the statutory elements that it's required to have to be a preliminary application, but it's not statutorily required.

Thank you.

Sure.

Commissioner Del Negro.

Okay, I have quite a few questions, but I'll start with a couple focused ones.

Um what percent of cities are actually meeting their rental requirements or the number of cities in California?

Well, I could look to and tell you how many are not on the SB 35 list, I guess is one way to determine how many cities are meeting their arena requirements.

I don't know that off the top of my head.

You think it's 10?

10.

That's a very small fraction.

Obviously, almost all of California is subject to SP 35 as a consequence.

Um when I was really working with SP 35 projects previously in a different life.

Um it was before SB 423.

SB423 has really neutered a lot of the regulations around restricting in certain zones for safety reasons like the fire zone.

Those rules have gone out, see the coastal um rules also went away.

What does apply for safety in SB 35 now for applicants building large density units in high risk zones like fire zones?

Is there other requirements on them other than just meeting local fire codes?

Well, we went we went through what SB 35 says about where you can have projects or where projects aren't allowed, I should say, SB 35 projects.

Your your building codes will still apply, any objective standards related to safety will still apply.

So, you know, SB 35 itself has opened up a little bit of where projects are allowed, or I should say through SB 423, but you still have your ability to apply your building codes, your fire code, and any other objective standards that the city has in place regarding health and safety.

But now we can put these these higher density units in high risk fire zones, whereas before 423 you could not.

It did make changes to the language about fire zones.

I'm gonna see if I can find it.

SP 35 was section 6D, or sorry, section 36D.

Correct.

And if you want me to find exactly what 423 did to SB 35, I can do that.

It'll take me a second.

I'm pretty sure I've read the text and I think it neutered it, but I can't understand.

Um in lieu of recent fire events of California, um, what we're doing to the state to try and figure out how to deal with that risk of having that many people in such a small high risk zone.

Yeah, and just to be clear, I did pull the exclusion back up.

So SB 35 through SB 423 now provides that areas of very high fire hazard survey zones or state responsibility areas are not subject to SB 35 or SB 35 projects, cannot go on those sites unless the site has adopted fire hazard mitigation measures, such as building code measures or state fire code measures.

Okay.

Does AB 130 apply to SP 35 builds?

Does AB 130 apply to S B 35?

Yes.

Well, it's not if you're talking about AB 130 with respect to CEQA exemptions, it's not subject to CEQA.

There are other provisions of AB 130 that I have to go through to see if they apply.

Just wonder if the the new VMT taxes apply to these builds now too.

Um I don't know that off the top of my head.

Uh density bonus laws.

What density bonus laws are applicable in Hack Moon Bay?

Obviously, the close to it public transit now applies, that's correct.

So state density bonus law applies in half moon bay as it does in every jurisdiction in California, with respect to some of the provisions of um state density bonus law, such as unlimited waivers and height increases if you're near certain transit zones, we'd have to walk through the specifics for Half moon bay in order to be able to answer that question for you.

And for me, my my process of learning about these rules for for the transit was I came from a period where they were still using originally um a major transit hub, like which has been kind of neutered back to just being more simple things like bus stations or um the rideshare locations.

Is that a correct assessment?

Um it has changed.

We'd have to look at the actual language of state density bonus law to determine the type of transit area stop that would qualify for additional waivers or um height limits and things of that sort.

I asked a lot of questions because I've learned them over the time.

I also want to make sure that when I ask the questions, it's kind of reiteration when I think the public has also been asking to understand and learn about these as well.

So that's why I bring them up.

Thanks.

I hope that way.

Um Commissioner Rims.

Well, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I just have a uh one question.

Basically, uh, to what extent can we condition uh these projects as they come in the door?

You can condition an SB 35 project to ensure that it's meeting with your standards.

You can't apply conditions of approval.

Is there a criteria that we have to follow in order to condition them with that, or is it just the basic objective standard?

So you can come you can condition an SB 35 project to comply with your objective standards.

Thank you.

And Vice Chair Hernandez.

Um in a material way.

The City Council has made a determination in I believe November or December of 2024 that Half Moon Bay does not in fact have a major transit stop, which would be a 15-minute interval connecting you to uh urban centers.

I believe the standard has been relaxed to 20 minutes under AB 2553, and in my plain reading of the law, we do not have a major, we do not have a transit stop in Half Moon Bay.

But I would like to get a clear delineation from council.

I know you may not be able to do that today, but I think it's very important for us from a planning perspective.

I'd be happy to look into that for you.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate that question, Rick.

Actually, it's kind of what I'm trying to learn to understand.

Yeah, I I'm I'm fairly certain that it's not applicable at this point in time because there's an assumption that in order to qualify for density bonus projects, you actually have to have infrastructure to support it, and they use transit stops as a proxy for that.

I think uh Sam Licardo was recently speaking to members of our community about exactly this.

We don't have the infrastructure for buses, for roads, for water, for phones, for power.

How can you um pin these types of high density projects in a community like ours?

Not to say we don't have an obligation to provide for housing, but it's the relaxation of all standards that like builders' remedy brings into play, right?

So that's that's it's an urgent issue for us to understand the city's position on that if it's changed at all since November 2024.

Um the idea of objective design standards makes sense to me.

What recourse do we have as a community if staff make a mistake?

There's a plain reading of the objective design standards we have that says plane of a wall can't be longer than 25 feet without interruption, and the plane of the wall is 50 feet.

What recourse do we have to look at some of these things where mistakes are made?

Is there any?

Well, it's an interesting question because there's some debate about um whether ministerial projects like an SB 35 project can be appealed.

Um we'd have to work through your code to determine if that's um applicable.

Uh some jurisdictions are eliminating appeal provisions for ministerially approved projects, often because of the strict timelines that apply to them, that you can often find yourself in a situation where you're gonna get caught having to have approved the project if the timelines are gonna run.

So it is an interesting and somewhat open question about the appealability of a ministerially approved project.

Um it's not I d I don't say this lightly, but sometimes the avenue would have to be to litigate, which is not anybody's desire.

Um I have faith in your staff that the 2550 foot would be caught, but I understand the the nature of the question.

So there's ambiguity as to whether or not it could be litigated.

I don't think there's ambiguity about someone's ability to bring a lawsuit to challenge a project.

I think there's ambiguity about the appealability of a ministerially approved project.

So there are many things we wish to spend funds on as a community.

I think the last one is litigation.

Um I go back to the uh I think it's a patent quote, a gallon of sweat saves a pint of blood.

I think it's incumbent upon us with our first SP 35 projects that come to us to get clarification if there is any ambiguity.

Um so that's just an observation.

I think we need to make sure we get clarification on things because this was originally interim objective design standards, what we have now, and if you apply for a project, my understanding is it's whatever the standards are when you put in your application.

So now is a great opportunity for us to create clarification around what the existing rules are, and an opportunity for us to improve the existing rules.

How do things like master plans fit into objective design standards?

So I'll give you an example.

Um the city has articulated a clear vision for a bike and pedestrian master plan that cuts across the city.

It includes current trails and future trails that are proposed, some of which sit on proposed sites for um low-income housing.

So if we're talking about SB 35 projects, have we considered how that conforms with requirements for a future bike trail that exists on one of these application sites?

So if there's a master plan for bikes for parks for whatever it is, it would apply to a project any project, SB 35 project or another project, I believe in the same way.

However, you have to figure out if there are objective standards in that plan that are applicable, and if there's a nexus between the project, the development project, and that standard.

So say, for example, you know, you want to put a bike lane throughout the entirety of the city and you want it to be a class one bike lane, you'd have to look at whether the proposed project, there's a nexus between the proposed project and the development of a portion of that bike lane.

So, to give a very specific example, we've painted a pink or purple line saying bike trail goes here.

There is a plan to put it into east side connectivity.

We'd have to look at the application when it's submitted and determine if that would apply to that project.

Okay.

My reading of the um objective design standards, uh I would say that that's probably the case, but I would love clear delineation by staff on that point because I think we're a small community.

The number one thing everybody complains about is traffic.

And so we have a master plan for circulation, uh, pedestrian and bike circulation.

My expectation is that if it's not currently in clear in our objective design standards, then it needs to be absolutely rock solid, that we've incorporated uh bike and pedestrian into the master planning for master plans for that are included in objective design standards.

That needs to be absolutely clear.

I don't have any other clarifying questions.

I just have one thing that I wondered about, which is I get the ministerial review.

I get that um planning commission and city council are only allowed to talk about objective design standards.

We're not allowed to talk about view corridors and traffic and density and safety and infrastructure for the most part, with that one exception possibly about safety.

Um I guess the question is what is the minister allowed to review in their ministerial review?

Are they allowed to look at some of these other things or are they only are they limited as well?

The minister limited to these objective design standards.

That's correct.

I mean, both the design review, if one is conducted, is limited to compliance with objective standards as well as the approval of the project, meeting the criteria of SB 35, which we went through tonight, and then the the city of Half Moon Bay's objective standards.

Thank you.

Um I would like to open up to public comment.

Um I do have uh two green cards here.

So anybody online who wants to comment, now is the time to raise your hand.

Uh I am going to start with the green cards.

So opening up for public comment, I get to bang my gavel.

Um our first one is uh Julie McGowan.

Um if you could come up and tell us what you think.

My name is Julie McGowan.

I live at 740 Johnson Street, Happen Bay.

The reason why I'm here is I was at the June meeting for the midpen project.

Um I asked a lot of questions, but I had a lot of reservations about this, and one of them is safety.

The street that the project is to be put on is a very narrow street, but they said, Well, we're gonna widen the street.

Well, that's fine, but there's no access to highway one.

Now, my question about safety is if there's a natural disaster, a major fire in town.

Where do these people go?

And what plans would they have to be evacuated?

I don't have a problem with the project, but I don't think it fits that particular area.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um James Havey.

Chair Gorn, may I may I ask a uh procedural question?

Hold on one second.

It may be directed to staff and the attorney, but are we on shaky ground listening to comments about the pro the project per se?

Um there's there's not an issue with you listening to comments, but uh you are correct.

The item before you tonight is an overview of SB 35.

We're not gonna get into the specifics of any proposed project or the the Medzcrum Mid Pen project for a number of reasons, including the fact that we don't have a development application yet.

We don't know what they're really proposing yet, and those details will be forthcoming.

We also want to ensure the integrity of the process, your ability to sit as a design review board if that's what's brought forward and their due process considerations, you know, related to that, so that we don't want to get into the details and create any issues with with that process.

Yeah.

Thank you for that.

So the public can say what they want.

Yes, perfect.

And that that brings us to you, James Havey.

Hi, good evening.

Um I'm representing Michael Swanovic.

Uh he lives at 950 Main Street, which is at the corner of uh Metzger in Maine.

And uh his property will have the uh the most impact uh by this project.

Um Michael has uh advanced macular degeneration and he is legally blind.

Uh he does meander around town and and get through town with his cane, uh does a pretty good job of it.

Um, but with a project like this, with upwards to 80 to 100 additional cars coming up and down uh Metzger, uh there is a huge safety concern.

Uh also concern for the senior center across the street and uh the amount of students coming in out of Seacrest, uh which is huge.

Um they all do park on Mexico.

There is planned parking on Metzger still, uh slanted parking uh per mid pen, but everybody's gonna use those space for the senior center, the Thursday night dinners, uh the yoga classes, all those folks have to use Medcare because there isn't anywhere else to park.

Um realizing that it is a problem, uh, there is a fairly simple solution, um, and that is for the staff at some point in time because I know it's coming out coming back to city council, um, that they uh require midpen to purchase uh not ask the city to abandon uh the city's owned land, uh which is uh a straight shot from 4th Street that goes right into Poplar.

Uh by doing that, you'd have better access for emergency vehicles, uh easier for ambulance to get over the hill into the San Mateo hospitals.

Um they could pick up at least an additional 20 parking spaces on either side of that, that if they own the property uh would expand how many parking spots that they already have.

It is limited, and I saw your one-to-one ratio, uh, but there are 64 on 52 units currently by taking away a lot of the land and expanding that road, uh, it will take a lot of parking away from the existing residents, and they will be looking for additional spots to put their work vehicles and and residential vehicles on there.

Um, those would be just some of the concerns.

Um couple other things.

There are two heritage trees that we spoke with the um ACRT assessor who is working on some PG<unk>E lines and and that project.

Um, these are protected trees.

Uh they're four foot tall at well at 48 inches.

Um there's an eight-foot radius on each of these, which fits the protected status for heritage.

Um, also per city uh bylaws, they're not supposed to be pruned more than 25 percent.

Uh there's about a 16-foot canopy on these, um, so they would be impacted by the widening of that path of the Metzger project.

So, um that's all, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um yeah, hi.

Um I spoke at the last meeting regarding the Metzger project, but this really would be I think more of an SB 35 general concern.

I guess I had a question, which was how many units are we required to build by 2036?

Uh I think that the issue with the density bonuses is that we are it's the cars and parking, and we can't minimize that issue.

Um, just because a project is good in many ways doesn't mean that the parking should be a non-issue.

I think we have a lot of examples of that here already where if we could provide more parking and more thought of how people are going to access the spaces, like with 555 Kelly, there's not adequate parking for boys and girls club as it is, and for the surrounding uses of uh here, the farmers market, the clinic, and we're taking it away, and then some for a project that is much larger than anything else we have, and the Metzger project is also well beyond anything we have, and I think we have enough examples of existing projects where we can see what would fit, and I saw in the presentation they talked about.

Sorry, to see how it fits in the neighborhood, and just with the existing midpen projects we have and the parking issues they have, I don't see how we can ignore that and then build something much denser, like much denser.

It's denser than the senior housing, which has a lot of people who don't drive and have cars, and uh Main Street Park, those provide two spaces per unit, and there's still overflow and we're not providing enough, and just the density alone, it's it's much denser than any of those.

So I think and the safety of that as well.

Like we all were, I don't know if everyone lived here during the tsunami evacuation a couple years ago, but my child was at both were at Cunha from Hatch, and nobody was going anywhere.

Um, so you can't really ignore all parts.

I think we just have to scale projects back to fit our town because we are not daily city, we're not mountain view, we're not uh areas with transit hubs that have caltrain and uh many bus lines to get you to, you know, all over the peninsula.

That's not us, so that's all I want to say.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um can we hear from Carolina Carvajal?

Carnelia.

Good evening to everyone, and thank you for giving us the giving us the opportunity of speaking tonight here before you.

Because we already pay, you know, high rent, uh high uh uh food is expensive, and also everything that our family needs is uh requires uh earning uh uh a lot of money.

That's why we would have a choice than to just share a small apartment with seven people where there's basically only one bathroom for everybody, so we live in family with the friends in order for us to survive.

So, making my point here is I really want you to support affordable housing.

So and we don't care about the color, the shape, the uh design of the buildings, this can be you know something funny, but yeah, we don't care about anything, it's just a place to live.

Uh we f the family is needed really badly, and you know, you know that we uh uh are the workers of people who also uh put things uh you know help this town uh uh be the you know uh progress.

Thank you very much, thank you.

My name is Rocio Avila, and I am one of the community leaders in this community.

And I am also part of the committee for accessible housing.

The lack of affordable housing in Half Moon Bay has forced so many people to share spaces with other people because of the high costs and the lack of options available.

Muchas familias viven asignadas, compartiendo solo quarto para poder mantenerse en esta communidad.

A lot of families live very tight, sharing only one bedroom in order to be able to survive in this community.

I myself lived in these conditions during many decades, and that's why I know firsthand all of the difficulties that these families, working families are facing.

The Metzgar um housing project will represent an opportunity, a real opportunity for the families who have been waiting for many years in order to be able to access a dignified housing safe and stable.

Is the project una necessidad urgente que existra community?

This project will help satisfy a very urgent necessity that currently exists in our community.

Also, the city of Half Moon Bay has not been qualified with all throughout many years with all of the goals and requisites for planification and zonification of houses established by the state.

And because we're not in compliance, the law SB 35 allows us to make this faster for the approval of projects of living in accessible housing that actually are in compliance with all of the established standards.

This law was created exactly to help the cities to respond to a crisis, uh housing crisis, and to guarantee the construction of housing that's necessary for the working families.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

These housing laws are really confusing.

And I'd like to know if it falls under the same rules that some affordable housing projects do, where they can try to get it reduced to 15 years only.

The thoughtful process that those professionals on that committee put in and set standards that improve the look of all types of housing, whether it's upscale housing or low-income housing.

I was surprised that they didn't even incorporate anything into their initial plans.

I realized they could have time to do some of that.

The other thing I was surprised at, and I think we should be careful with these projects.

It wouldn't apply to the 5-5 Kelly project because it's for seniors.

And I understand that I believe Stone Pine, they have a playground there that the city made arrangements that it could be used by the residents in that area.

Here's a project that's going in right across the street from residential homes.

Because it's broken up by Highway One and then Main Street and the other housing projects there, which mostly most of which are seniors.

And the playground is open to residents only.

I'm worried the city will end up with housing developments that have private playgrounds, and the people that are actually paying taxes in the city won't have any.

I think that's something that needs to be considered.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Can we open this up to um online?

Yes.

And then we'll come back to uh the audience again.

Okay.

So first up we have said, followed by Mike Ferrero.

So go ahead, Sid, I'll ask you to go ahead and unmute.

There you go.

Oh, thank you.

Um I just have one question about the objective planning standards slide that was talking about.

I believe it was the parking.

Oh wait, did I I maybe I lost it here?

Darn it.

I just got a phone call, and I think I moved the slide that I had ready.

Do you want to say that?

Well, somebody else and I'll pull it up again.

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and mute you and maybe move Mike and then we'll call you back.

Okay.

Uh Mike Ferrera, go ahead.

You could unmute.

Good evening, uh, Chair Gorn and Commissioners.

Um there is only one project that's initiating this concern about what is SB 35.

So it's a little hard to avoid it.

But it looks like the bones of a very good project, and when I first saw it, I thought, well, this could finally be a pleasant process going through all the steps and supporting and maybe making suggestions, and maybe it could even be done in the same expedited process as 880 Stone Pine.

But then SB 35423 got thrown into the mix, and I personally I take that as being unnecessarily aggressive.

I think the city is of a mood to be accepting and cooperative for this project, but to have close to zero accountability, which is kind of what SP 35423 is.

That's downright alarming.

And a lot of a lot is not known about how the council can even know what staff is doing or what the updates are on the project.

I was listening to talk about a digital bonuses being a possibility.

I thought, whoa, what's this?

And who would say yes or no?

So it is of interest to me, though, that the street for that one project is pretty poor at one time.

It was it won a poll as the worst street in Half Moon Bay.

It's kind of primitive.

It's asphalt thrown on the ground.

When I look at the drawings, it looks like there's a proposal to dig it out, trench it out, create, and perhaps use the spoils as uh for the pad for the project.

Well, I would like to point out that city property.

The street is.

So I went on the web and I looked, and according to the AI, the SB 35423 does not give an applicant the right to do whatever the applicant wants with the street.

Therefore, there is a property interest of the city of Half Moon Bay.

And according to AI and all that sort of thing, a separate permitting process would be required, what has to happen on the street.

And in that mode, it would seem that the city would be in a more of a partnership position with the applicant instead of a surrendered position.

And so that's all that I have to bring here.

I would like to know from the city attorney.

What are the limitations on the city's powers to control its own property when there is an SB 35 423 application?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is I found the slide that I had taken a picture of on the screen.

It said something about one block of a car share station.

Is that like in San Francisco they have zip cars and they sometimes they'll park them in a gas station or something?

Is that what they're they're referring to?

A car share station.

Is anybody?

The person that gave this presentation.

Yeah, we can we can answer those questions when you're done.

Oh, and the other one was um about uh on-street parking permits are required.

Um I know in San Francisco they have certain zones where you like I used to live on Russian Hill, and you had to get a parking sticker to be able to park there overnight so that people who the residents of Russian Hill, you know, there were bars on Polk Street, and you know it was hard to park at night if you didn't live there.

So, you know, you get parking tickets all the time if you didn't have parking sticker A for that part of town.

So is that what that means?

Anyway, that's what I was asking.

I think sure.

Okay.

Um next we have David Rakowski.

Allow you to speak.

Go ahead and unmute.

Hi, I'm actually Julianne Brokoski, and I have just a brief comment.

Um, housing is desperately needed in Half Moon Bay.

I don't think there are questions about it.

That um number 1,000 units needed has come up.

Um, and there are arena requirements, and this city has Moon B is not in compliance with RENA compliance.

The housing element is not yet accepted, and so it falls under SB 35.

Frankly, I don't see any excuse.

Um the city has responded to multiple reasons for not here, not there, and guess what?

Now it's time.

So I applaud the fact that SB 35 will now be applied to the city of Half Moon Bay, and I look forward to the building at Metzger and any other buildings that can be approved and built uh while this city remains under non-compliance.

Thank you.

Um is there anyone else online?

Now is the time to raise your hand.

We're gonna come back to the audience.

So we have one more speaker, Reen Raina Diaz.

You can come on up.

Good evening.

Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to speak.

As I recall on the meeting on December, they talk about two entrances.

One Metzgar, obviously, and the other one through Popular.

And I think that we really need two entrances and exits for safety.

The other issue that I have is with the 52 units.

So not everybody, or not all the requirements are all the 1000.

I'm just exaggerating right now.

But I think we do, or the city does need to look into what other areas, people can have housing.

And of course, everybody talk about parking safety.

And in the last meeting, someone mentioned the main park area.

How do that area looks uh more or less normal or okay.

They have parking, designated parking, and the other extra flowing uh floating parkers or flowing cars park on Main Street.

And so I don't see I don't see them walking all the way to mainstream to Metzgar to park.

So just the designed, it's very important.

And on that section, I only saw one building that is um three storage building, and that's sort of not up front, but sort of in the middle.

So you hardly notice it.

So I think that with creativity, you can accomplish a lot, and still make it safe for everybody, and you have to think not only about just trying to put people in there, but what it will be like if you were to live there, or if you were to live where we live, right across.

Thank you, and is there anyone else in the audience or online who wants to speak?

I'm about to close public comment.

Now would be the time.

I am seeing none.

I'm gonna close public comment, bring it back to the planning commissioners.

Um does anyone have we is now open for discussion.

Um Commissioner Ruddick, you are up first.

Well, I I apologize.

Excuse me.

I apologize for being late with this, but uh Mary, I wanted to add my support to Vice Chair Hernandez's request for uh urgent clarification of the of the issue of the transit stop and its and its impact on parking requirements.

I know that in your current um memo, you do talk about uh one half mile within one half mile of a public transit stop.

And of course, as we all remember in recent times, there was controversy about the definition of a major transit stop and such, so it does seem to me to be very important for the city to be uh uh totally clear on what the requirements are.

So thank you.

Anything else?

Vice Chair Hernandez.

Thank you for the presentation.

It's great to have an opportunity to go through all of this, and I really appreciate the public comments.

I am not going to speak about a specific project, um, but I do think it's incredibly important.

I went through the objective design standards, and while it does say that all projects need to conform to zoning with respect to design, it does not say that all projects need to conform to the fire standards.

There's nothing mentioned with fire standards in there.

I don't think that means the city's not going to enforce fire standards on projects.

Um I think the public has raised this concern of you're gonna build a massive project, is it going to meet the obligations?

So, if a massive, not massive, if a large project was met, was built, the fire district would still have to approve it per our zoning and per their standards for public safety.

Is that correct?

Yes, it does not waiver, does not change, they wouldn't, you know, they're not gonna be able to skate by if it's unsafe, it's unsafe.

If there are objective standards that can be applied to the project, they will be applied to the project, including your building code and your fire code.

Great.

Excellent.

So I just want to make sure we address that.

Um there were a couple of questions that were asked.

So I think that the safety one is one I wanted to make sure that we really addressed.

Um I do agree that this could be more of a pleasant process than the last project we had.

So I think there is real opportunity here, and I'm gonna uh continue to be an optimist um as much as I can on all of this.

I do think the um I do think that some general things to consider is if you look at a street the size of Metzger or a nearby, it can accommodate 110 parking spots if they're diagonally aligned.

Um so there's plenty of space for parking on that street.

Um, and I would be shocked if a project like Metzger came forward without the city taking advantage of the paper street that it owns.

So I'm sure that that's going to be addressed from a public safety perspective if it moves forward.

But um, again, I'd be shocked if something like that came through.

There's a question asked about by 2036, how many units of housing do we need to build?

First of all, the city does not need to build any housing.

It is not the city's requirement to pay for housing, it is a city's requirement to plan for housing and to make sure that we are processing applications and permits in conformance with the law and in conformance with our standards.

That said, we have 480 units of housing we have an obligation to plan for in this cycle, which I think ends in four years or five years.

And by 2039, if I apply the same fuzzy logic for arena, the total number of new housing units we'd need to build in this cycle and the next cycle, probably looks like a thousand to eleven hundred units of housing, which is a 20% increase in the total number of units of housing in half boom bay.

So that's a question that somebody from the public answered.

Now, I think that number is a bit of a racket, um, because it doesn't address a fundamental issue that uh fellow commissioner Del Negro has raised, which is we don't just need more housing.

We need to increase the number of people who are housed.

So one of the things we need to look at in the community are what can we do to increase the number of people who are living in the housing stock that we have so we can get our housing needs numbers down.

I think that's part of the problem that we have.

There is a lot of empty housing in Half boom bay.

There are four empty houses on my street that we should find a way to get people just on my street.

We should find ways to get people living on.

Um so I think there are things we should be doing to increase from, I think we used to be at three units of three people per house about 20 years ago.

And now we're closer to two units per per house, two people per house today.

So I think there's a lot of things we can do.

And I think there's a long-standing tradition, as I understand it, in the Portuguese community in Half Moon Bay, where you move different members of families into and out of housing and different generations into and out of housing.

So I think we can look at some of the traditions that are already here.

So I think there's a lot of things we can do.

But a thousand is the rough number that we're working for.

So we need to think about things in that manner.

That's all I have for now.

There were a couple of questions that uh Sid Young raised that I just thought um Leslie Lackle.

Maybe you want to let go.

Maybe you want to um answer.

It was the ride chair stations and the parking permits.

Um yeah, so that she was referring to Mary's slide that um mentioned the parking requirements and the exceptions.

Um, when you when parking would not be required, one of those was if there's a ride chair facility nearby, and the other was um regarding permit parking.

So the permit parking is not something that we have here in Half Moon Bay, and um we also don't have a ride share facility nearby.

So they wouldn't apply here.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else um in the planning commission?

Yes, I should just think Commissioner Negro.

I'm gonna beat the um drum of of safety, always safety for me is always a huge priority for any planning commission to consider as far as um impacts on builds that may happen under SP 35.

We have to be reactive.

We have to actually help design the city to meet safety standards as well.

You know, no street that has a high density housing project should be one way in, one way out.

It's an unrealistic safety issue.

It has happened in many cities.

Um a former city I was in had a problem with this with one way in, one way out, and a train track over the top of it.

It's a huge liability and a huge problem.

We as a city are responsible for making sure does not happen.

Um plus obviously the fire issues, these is particularly because many of the properties that we are in the future expecting to be developed by SP 35 are in a very high-risk fire zone now with our last year's update on the fire zones that we have.

Um, we have to figure out how to protect small homeowners with less people, but also high density people during fires.

Evacuation is a huge issue.

Those facilities get fire around them, or at least on their street at the bottleneck point, they're stuck, they're walking out.

Um it's a it's a huge risk, and I think we need to be very um prepared for dealing with all housing situations that come up, knowing and trying to find funding to do projects that enable these things.

I mean, these are where we have to pull on the political strings of people interested in developing housing and keeping housing growing to at least make sure that some of these risks are mitigated and there's funding to help us deal with the lack of infrastructure.

And Ricky earlier mentioned very um eloquently um what um our representative to the state um did bring up in the meeting about our lack of um resources and our lack of ability to support um high-density housing developments here in Half Moon Bay.

I think it's it is very APA pro that we um keep beating the drum towards our local politicians as well as our regional politicians on those issues.

Um, you know, I've I've gone back and done numbers um to try and understand how we get these arena targets that are so exorbitantly high that no city's possibly ever gonna be able to meet them.

I do recognize that there's quite a bit of debate on how accurate they are, they're not using the department of finance numbers, they're using numbers that are outdated and not accurate.

Um, these are the arguments people come to me and talk to me the most about in criticism.

Um but HCD does have the ability under its policy to design numbers based upon their projected growth outside of Department of Finance numbers, it turns out.

If you read their chart or at least their uh their um uh doc their uh code that they're built upon, um we don't have control over that.

Um, and so we do have to be prepared to enable what we can.

Um I think the negative public views we got in the news for not having a approved um plan in time.

Uh it is an unfortunate situation of people playing politics.

Um, you know, we did have a process, we had something ready to go.

It was clearly waiting on another organization to approve it.

Um it's really sad seeing that being manipulated for somebody's political gain when we are clearly trying to meet our obligations as best we can.

Um so those are some of the elements in this process I think the public's upset about.

At the same time, you know, I understand that we have not grown um since uh 2020 or sorry, 2000, if you look at our population size.

Um our population is the same as it was for the last 26 years.

We haven't changed at all, even with our current growth um objectives on paper.

Um, so there's a balance here um of many debates that one could have on what we should and should not do as a city.

Um I think here with SB 35, what concerns me is we've basically taken all local voice out of any project, and so people get frustrated because they don't feel like there's anybody left to hear them.

Um planning commissions are arbitration committees, not just for making decisions, but also to let the public have a voice.

And when things like SB 35 come through and there's no public voice, um, it's it's harder for a community to palp it to absorb and accept the decisions that are made.

Um, that's just gonna create more animosity towards these programs, and that's unfortunate.

Um I do think forums, I do appreciate that midpin had a presentation for the public.

That was a great move on their part.

Um, at least people were able to come and see what's going on if they were that interested.

Um, but those are really my comments at this point.

I I go back and forth on so many issues trying to understand, you know, how we are where we are with these um rules.

I know that um one of us attended a uh um planning commissioner um training program, and I remember the number of laws you you came back and told us was astronomical, and how almost none of them were aimed at helping local municipalities have any input on what happens inside those municipalities.

Um those are the times we're dealing with right now.

I hope the public uh understands that we're doing the best we can as a city to help with those.

Commissioner Ems.

I'll just comment on that that all of these laws are state laws, and I think if our constituents here are the good people of Half Moon Bay, uh have issues with these types of laws that maybe they should call their state representative, their state senator or assemblyman.

Uh we have to deal with it, whether we like it or not, and we're trying to thread the needle, if you will.

We're trying to, we live here too, so we're trying, we're trying to uh I think from my standpoint I'm um I'm commensurating with everyone's comments, even though we're not supposed to talk about a project.

But still uh there's something that we're gonna have to do.

We're gonna have to confront it and make a decision, things like that.

So I would suggest that if there's issues with our constituency, our good neighbors, that they contact their local representative, state representative assemblyman, senator, talk to them about it and express your your feelings because that'll help us out in making our decision.

I do have one other uh thing to or point of clarification, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh it's been mentioned a couple of times that the city owns the streets.

I just wanted to clarify that with city attorney whether the city actually owns the streets or or they own them and trust for the all of the people.

Well, the city has control of the street, whether you own it in fee title or you have an easement, is one question.

Um, with respect to the city's ability, you know, to control the streets, it's the same ability that you have with respect to any other project, and to require, you know, conditions of approval to improve streets and things of that nature but there's this distinction between fee ownership and just controlling the street, is there not?

The city may hold fee title to the street.

You generally have either fee title or you have an easement.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Um I just wanted to say one thing, it might be a little redundant because several people have talked about this, but just uh to clarify um Commissioner Ruddick brought up um something that was actually two things that we wanted to make sure we were clear on.

One is he was referring to the um the transit stop that's near the that's um that's near this project, a project, um, that can affect the parking, right?

So that's that's one issue.

But then the second issue is the bigger issue, which we're further, which is about the density bonus and the major transit stop.

So I just want to make sure we get clarity on both.

That's all.

Thank you.

Absolutely to the chair.

And Commissioner Del Negro.

And I would actually also like to understand if AB 130 will apply to those as far as the VMT tax um liability as well.

That's a new law in the book.

So I'm kind of curious, if anything, how that's gonna affect um developments.

Um I also have another question, if you don't mind me opening the line of questioning.

Under SB 35, what are the regulations that a city has on the actual build process?

Cars coming in and vehicle access, parking for construction equipment, hours of operation.

Are those just under those are still retained in our control under normal standards or if you have conditions of approval that you apply on a development project, such as submittal of a construction management plan, your hours uh for construction, what they're allowed, those all still apply.

So SB 35 doesn't take away your other controls, it just creates a streamlined minister of sterile review and approval process and allows you to apply your objective standards and your your codes and conditions that as you normally would again so that you cannot condition a project, however, to reduce its density or render it infeasible.

Great.

Thanks.

Sure.

Can you repeat your question about AB 130?

I didn't get that written down.

There's a a B 130 allows for a VMT tax, a vehicle mileage tax on new developments in state of California.

Um I'm wondering if SP 35 projects are excluded from those tax liability potentials and if communities are able to avoid or are planning to use the new VMT tax on developments such as SB 35 projects.

I'm curious.

Thank you.

We'll follow up for sure.

Okay, so um this is it's it's complicated.

We've never had to deal with this before.

I want to make sure everybody got their questions answered as Vice Chair Hernandez.

I don't have questions, I just have a few more comments.

Um I I I think most of the I'm not gonna speak for anybody else, but my understanding is that most everybody at this day is believes that we have a shortage of housing and we have a shortage of affordable housing.

I'll buy that we have an obligation to plan for roughly 330 units of affordable housing in this cycle.

And we're foreseeable projects, we're about halfway through that number.

So we still have a gap we need to close.

So whatever we need to do to close that gap that conforms with our current objective design standards and protects the character of Half Moon Bay, I support.

And I want us to make it easy.

I want us to avoid litigation.

I want us to um take your session, which was wonderful and informative.

Thank you.

Uh, and the discussion that the public has had, and use this as an opportunity to get whatever the next project is before us right up front.

And I understood from the last city council meeting that there's intention to bring some aspect of this project, the first SB 35 project before the planning commission to make sure we have that clarity.

So I'm not gonna speak for you, but I would encourage us to get as much clarity as we can around these are the objective design standards, this is our understanding of it, this is how we've applied it, this is how we've thought it through, and get that into the public record because I do think one, it removes the acrimony, which we have a great opportunity for.

Go back to Mike Ferrar's um ambitions of uh uh a pleasant process.

I think we should do that.

We should take advantage of it, and I think we should move quickly.

Uh so I I really appreciate the work that's going on here.

I do think we need to create clarity around how these numbers are derived for the next cycle.

We need to work with our legislators to get understanding of that and see if there are other means to fulfill our housing obligations.

And a community like Half Moon Bay, in the state of California, we have roughly 100 million acres.

Uh urban areas represent roughly 5% of the entirety of California, and 96% of the population lives in those areas.

Half Moon Bay is falling under the same urban planning rules of SB 35 that a city of San Francisco or San Mateo has.

Yet we represent less than one-tenth of one percent of the urban geographical area in the city, and an even smaller fraction of the population.

So I think there's an opportunity for us to get it right, meet our obligations under the current housing cycle with uh enthusiasm, because if we don't, there is a hammer that's gonna drop, and we need to get ahead of that.

So, uh, whatever you guys need to do to remove the friction and get us in compliance and protects our objective designer standards, I think we need to do that.

So let us know how we can help.

Chair, do you mind if I uh make a comment?

Um I'm gonna break my own rule.

I'm gonna talk about the Metzger Street project.

Um I just I just want the planning commission and the public to know that um we will we are putting up a website, a web page for this project.

We will have all application materials up there, and if you go to the housing element site, you'll see how well documented all of the correspondences between the city and HCD, all the documentation on the various rounds of housing element.

Um we will do the same thing for this project, so it'll be a place where the whole process is transparent to the public and to everyone else.

Um, and we'll get that up.

Well, we're working on getting that up as soon as possible.

And definitely when we get the application, it will be up.

So given that um there's basically no planning commission and city council review, which is the place that the public normally makes a lot of its comments and hears a lot of um the presentations.

You might want to think about adding something else besides the website as well, some kind of public outreach that is out of the norm since this is out of the norm.

So I don't know what that would be, but I can think about it and come up with something if you need it.

Thank you.

Um I'll also add that the applicant is meeting with neighbors on their own as well.

Yeah, I don't see them here.

Um Commissioner Del Negro.

I actually have um two more topics that kind of want to dive into just a little bit here.

Um, you know, I've always got frustrated that you know the arena requirements do not allow for credit towards um like uh Coast Hope facilities we have here.

You know, those are ultra-low income that we are providing a facility here in our city, and we get no housing credit for because it's transient or temporary housing.

Um I really get frustrated at the fact that that cities are not promoted to do what we've done and provide that and meet some of the housing requirements.

That's a failure in my my perspective on our um HCD planning and style.

Um they should give credit to those to promote them elsewhere as well as here.

Um the second one um is more about um listening to the general public tonight and people talking about wanting housing um for the local residents to live here.

Uh one of the things I always worry is with the project XP 35 is you build the housing, it's affordable housing.

Instead of helping to fill it with our local residents who are seeking the housing, we just attract more people outside of Happen Bay to Happen Bay to absorb that housing.

And it's just outside competition that then the people that are so frustrated because they don't have access.

And I'm wondering what the city can do.

I know we can't change what a uh organization does as far as who they allow the housing for on SB 35, but can we help people locally apply?

Is there a program somebody in our community is gonna step up for and help our local people get into those programs, get them applied early, and make them very highly eligible so that we can try to help the people here get into this housing that may be built as opposed to just bringing in and not helping the local residents.

So Leslie, you opened this box.

I'm talking about more than just this project, but well, I mean, that has been a big concern and that uh midpen hasn't really addressed.

It's normally a 3070 mix, at least 30 percent local.

We've gotten no assurances that that's the case here.

Um, so what maybe you could talk about the city's concern about that and what you hope to do.

So uh yeah, we should probably not get into the details of this project.

Um, and I I it's true I did open the box to talk about um how we would provide transparency and information moving forward with the project.

Um, but I think generally um what some other jurisdictions are doing is passing um things like local preference ordinances to protect themselves.

Um, so that's something that the city could look into for future projects.

I'm not sure that that's something we could address immediately, but it's certainly worth looking into.

The city of Berkeley has one.

Um there are fair housing laws that we have to be careful that we don't um run afoul of, but uh I think that's probably a good path for the city of Half Moon Bay.

Thank you for answering that.

Um, anybody else on the commission have uh something else they want to say?

Seeing none, this is not something we vote on.

We're gonna move on.

Um, thanks very much for the conversation.

That was really good.

Um, Leslie Aiko, it is time for director's report.

Thank you, Chair Gorn and planning commissioners.

Um Scott, I actually have a couple slides for my director's report.

Um do you mind pulling them up?

I'm gonna start my report um by reporting out on permits issued since the last meeting.

Um we issued uh a tree removal permit for Monterey Pine Tree uh on Troon Way.

Um a permit for an ADU behind an existing house on uh 344 Spruce Street, and a permit to legalize and modify an existing junior ADU at 550 Terrace Avenue, and then we also issued a Measure D allocation for a downtown ADU.

Um so that is one that will not be available for transfers in September, but that is the purpose of having that gap between allocations and transfers.

So at least we did that.

The reason that I brought slides with me is because I wanted to talk a little bit about our department organization, and it's been a year and a half since I've been here now.

Oh, thank you, Scott.

Um, when I started, this is what our department looked like.

There was a community development director who was responsible for supervising a housing coordinator, three planners, a permit technician, um, a community resilience or a code enforcement um officer and our admin assistant.

And some it was it's kind of an impossible situation to manage all those people and try to run the department and do all the other things you're supposed to do as a director.

So we started making some changes, some were forced on us because we lost staff and um some were planned.

So this is what our department looks like now.

We were contracting out um for chief building official and building inspector services.

We had a large contract for $365,000 a year.

Um, and back in November of last year, council approved a new position for a chief building official.

So now within the building division, we have a chief building official who manages the permit technician and the code enforcement officer.

Um and we no longer have the housing coordinator position as a housing coordinator.

We instead have a planner that focuses on housing and um and three other planners.

So I preferred that our housing coordinator position be filled by a planner so that they can also be processing things like SB 35 applications.

Um we are currently uh hiring for the senior planner position that was vacated by Douglas Garrison.

And um at that point we will have a full staff.

Um I will manage our our managing staff and um they will manage the others and um Scott and I feel like after a very strenuous year, we're finally seeing a light at the end of the tunnel.

So um feeling pretty good about that, and just wanted to share it with um with you and the public because we we feel like we're getting to a point where we can really do big things like update the implementation plan.

So that concludes my report.

Thank you very much for that.

I'm glad you did that.

Yeah, I think this is great.

I have a quick couple of quick questions if I might.

Um when are we expecting to see zoning changes come back to us?

Where when are those you're expecting those to be done and like are they phase and so forth, and then second, when are we expecting to see an update on um uh city policy uh slash zoning on um ADUs and whether you know what percentage of measure D's they consume?

Um so the rezonings that are required by HCD uh to bring us into compliance.

Um, with the Coastal Commission now uh for their preliminary review, and we've already received comments back from HCD and their preliminary review.

Uh we have a meeting actually with coastal staff on Thursday this week.

Um so uh they had a couple questions about uh specific parcels and um after that we will bring them to the planning commission.

Um so that's right around the corner.

Um, the AD Yep.

Yay.

Yeah.

The ADU ordinance is um just a little bit behind that actually.

That the ADU ordinance is with HCD now, undergoing their preliminary review.

Um is that yeah, yeah, yeah.

That's where we're at there.

And um, and then we'll send that to the coastal commission for their preliminary review as well.

And um so that's a little further behind.

I wouldn't expect to see that at this point until September.

And then the Measure D code amendments.

Um we were trying to couple with the ADU ordinance, but I'm not sure we're gonna succeed there.

So I would say that they will definitely not be ready by January next year, which is unfortunate, but um the HCD stuff had to come first and it was not entirely expected.

Thank you for the update and all your hard work.

Thank you.

Um I also did want to say that uh we received a couple of public comments about SP 35.

Um, but we received them after the agenda was posted.

So um just to let people know, they have been um they're they're in our uh agenda and you can see them there.

Um I'm gonna open up to planning commissioners for planning commission communications.

Anyone?

I make a motion to end the meeting.

All right.

Second, I'll second that motion.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

We're done.

Um, that's what we're gonna do.