[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:01] Welcome to the City of Half Moon Bay Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, May 14th, 2024. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance.
[0:31] We take a roll call, please. Yes, please. Commissioner Reddick. I am here. Commissioner, Commissioner Gorn. I'm here. Commissioner Hernandez. I am present. Vice Chair Johannes. Present. And Chair Gosse. Here. All commissioners are present.
[0:51] President this evening?
[0:57] We'll go through the approval of the minutes from April 30th, 2024 meeting.
[1:04] And Bridget's going to talk about that briefly.
[1:06] Yes, we have one addendum to the minutes and it's to add that we did reopen the public comment
[1:16] to here and allow those that didn't get a chance to speak on the 23rd because of the
[1:21] the waitness of the meeting and to allow their voices to be heard, and I mean that meeting,
[1:28] the earlier meeting went till midnight, so we just allowed that, so I'm going to put a clause in there in that set of minutes if it works for the commissioners.
[1:40] Other than that, there was no other changes.
[1:42] I move that we approve the minutes with the edit that Brits had just talked about.
[1:47] I second the motion.
[1:49] All those in favor?
[1:50] Yes, aye.
[1:51] Approved.
[1:52] Okay. And at this point, I'll turn the meeting over to winter to talk about the report from a recent closed session meeting with the Planning Commission.
[2:05] Yes, we had the closed session as posted on the agenda and there's nothing to report out.
[2:12] Thank you. And we are going to- I'm rearranging the agenda a bit.
[2:17] We are going to move public comment for anything that's not on the agenda to after item 1A.
[2:23] So, I would like to introduce item 1A, which is a continuation of a project from a date
[2:32] certain of April 30th, 2024 to today.
[2:36] And the description is a coastal development permit and architectural review for a 40-unit
[2:42] affordable multi-family residential project with 2,653 square feet of farm worker resource
[2:51] center and the CDP, a city file is PDP 23-034 and at this point I'll turn it over to
[3:00] Christie to give a short presentation.
[3:05] Yes, very short, thank you, Chair.
[3:07] As you mentioned, this item was continued from the April 30th hearing.
[3:12] It is resuming this evening for the Planning Commission to ask additional clarifying questions
[3:17] of staff.
[3:18] To begin, deliberations, the commission was provided a short supplemental staff agenda.
[3:25] We attempted to answer many of the questions that came out from the last hearing and the
[3:30] questions from the commission provided some supplemental information on the planning
[3:34] commission authority, restated some key local coastal land use plan policies, and included
[3:40] a recommendation on the process for this evening.
[3:43] Attached to that staff report was a approval resolution that staff was recommending along
[3:51] with updated conditions of approval.
[3:54] And I will just share real briefly just to touch again on kind of the planning commission
[4:01] process.
[4:03] The meeting of course has been opened and this all began with the staff presentation back
[4:08] on the 23rd applicant presentation, public comment that was received both on the 23rd and
[4:13] 30th, and then planning commission provided some clarifying questions to staff both on the
[4:20] 23rd, 30th, and then again this evening planning commission deliberations will happen this evening
[4:26] and to follow that will be a planning commission decision. We do have a slide with the different
[4:34] options for the commission in terms of what options you can take this evening that I'm happy to put up there when it comes time for the commission to get there.
[4:44] Wincher and I are here to happy to answer any questions that the commission has in relation to items that were in the staff report.
[4:53] Additional responses that we provided the commission on questions that were asked just here.
[5:00] Thank you for the resource for you. I know Mercy housing the applicant has an update to their proposal that they'd like to share with the commission this evening, so it's okay with the chair. We can invite them now or you can decide how you'd like to handle that.
[5:17] Sure, they can come up and present their updates.
[5:24] Good evening. My name is Rami Dare and I'm the regional director of real estate for Mercy housing, California. And I'm here representing the applicant. Thank you so much for granting me.
[5:34] this time to speak. We value this opportunity to develop affordable housing for farm
[5:39] workers in a resource center at this location at 555 Kelly. We have worked really hard to design
[5:47] the development and partnership with the city and the community and in the spirit of partnership.
[5:52] We'd like to offer two items for the commission's consideration this evening. First, the building
[5:58] height. We are able to reduce the height of the building by 4 to 5 feet by reducing at
[6:07] each level the floor of the ceiling height. So with this reduction, the building height
[6:17] overall is reduced to 45 feet 6 inches on the four-story portion on Kelly Avenue and to
[6:27] the 54 feet, six inches at the five story portion.
[6:32] This is a reduction of half a story.
[6:35] We're pleased to be able to offer this,
[6:38] as the tallest point would be less than five feet
[6:42] above the 50 foot height limit
[6:44] if the state density bonus law was not used.
[6:48] Second, we are offering to evaluate
[6:51] the feasibility of changing the unit mix.
[6:53] It is currently eight studios, 26 one bedrooms, and eight two bedrooms for a total of 40 apartments.
[7:03] We are offering to evaluate if we can convert six of the two bedroom units to one bedroom units
[7:12] so that the unit mix would be something like this.
[7:16] Six studios, 32 one bedrooms, and two two bedroom apartments.
[7:22] We would like to retain a two-bedroom managers unit and have another two-bedroom for circumstances such as a senior resident with a live-in caregiver.
[7:35] The reduced height that I described in the first offer would still be part of this as well.
[7:43] Our evaluation of changing the unit mix will include whether the funding that we have received will be
[7:52] We still intact with this unit change, unit mix change, and if there's any other impacts to the feasibility of the development because of that unit change on our competitiveness for other funding sources that we still need to secure.
[8:09] It will take us some time to do this due diligence, so we request that the commission approve us to move forward with this evaluation of the unit change and
[8:19] And bring back that analysis to the city through the director.
[8:24] We request that the commission consider these two offers as genuine good faith efforts
[8:30] to respond to concerns, as well as to be able to move forward to develop the affordable
[8:36] senior farm worker housing that this community so needs and wants.
[8:40] We would be pleased to be available for the questions from the commission and
[8:46] to get your feedback. And we hope to reach a resolution this evening. Thank you.
[8:53] Through the chair, can I ask the applicant one? I'm sorry, would you mind repeating the new heights?
[8:58] Of course.
[9:00] Okay, so there's two heights. So if you remember, there's a four-story portion on Kelli Av.
[9:06] So the new height would be 45 feet, six inches.
[9:12] And towards the back, on the five-story portion,
[9:16] Then the new height would be 54 feet, six inches.
[9:21] So that would be less than five feet over the 50 foot height limit.
[9:27] And I do have another clarifying question.
[9:29] And you said six two bedrooms would, can you talk about the two bedroom mix again, I'm sorry.
[9:35] Of course, yeah, I know there's a lot.
[9:37] So what we are offering to evaluate is that we understand that there's some concern
[9:43] We're in about the two bedrooms that are proposed.
[9:46] There are eight two bedroom units proposed in our current proposal that we submitted.
[9:51] We're offering to look at if we can change six of those eight two bedroom units to one bedroom units.
[9:59] So we would-
[10:00] And we'd like to keep two bedrooms. Again, for the manager's unit, and then to be able to offer someone who has like a live-in caregiver, that other two bedroom unit, that kind of situation. And so, if that unit mix change sounded like a good path, the unit mix could look like six studios, 32 one bedrooms.
[10:28] terms, and two bedrooms for a total of 40 parmits.
[10:37] That's, or 41, thank you.
[10:40] 42, no, 40, yeah, 40.
[10:44] It's 40, sometimes doing math on the fly is a little challenging.
[10:53] The plan is to have 40 units, is that correct?
[10:55] It would be 40 units.
[10:57] Yeah, but the original plan had the manager's unit as one of the 40, that's why it's actually 42.
[11:05] I know, no, not doing that.
[11:10] So yeah, so just to clarify the application that we had originally submitted was for 40 units and it did include a manager's unit.
[11:19] And so our offer is to evaluate keeping that total at 40 units, but
[11:24] But changing the mix so that we have less to two bedrooms and change those two bedrooms to ones.
[11:35] Thank you, any other clarifying questions.
[11:39] So the total number of units for this project is going to stay at 40 units.
[11:46] We would like to have it stay at 40 units.
[11:49] So,
[11:56] the original, you know, the one that had number
[12:02] now, but it was 39 living units and one manager's unit can make 40.
[12:09] So, this is 40 living units and two manager units.
[12:14] No, sorry, it would still be 39 living units and one staff unit.
[12:20] So, one of the two managing units would be a living unit.
[12:24] Is that kind of what you're saying?
[12:25] One of the two bedrooms is a manager's unit and one of the two bedrooms is for someone who needs a live-in caregiver.
[12:32] I'll for a live-in caregiver, okay, so not a second.
[12:36] You said something about a second manager's unit.
[12:38] Oh, no, I think I'm sorry.
[12:41] I'll be sounded confusing.
[12:43] Okay. So yeah, basically what we're trying to do is change the two bedrooms except for two of those to one bedrooms.
[12:52] That's the offer for us to evaluate.
[12:54] So 39 litre units and the managers unit.
[12:57] Correct.
[12:58] Yes, thanks.
[13:01] Thank you.
[13:04] I do have a clarifying question.
[13:06] But wait, before we go into clarifying question, well, do you want to continue with the applicant on this proposal?
[13:12] Yes?
[13:13] Go ahead, I'm sorry.
[13:16] Thank you.
[13:17] And I really appreciate you listening to the feedback from some members of the community.
[13:23] Okay. The height would be measured from the existing grade, the 45 feet.
[13:31] Okay, I see a nod from the architect behind you just want to confirm.
[13:35] So the 45 feet and the 54 feet is from the existing grade.
[13:38] Okay, great, thank you.
[13:44] So as far as you would like the opportunity to evaluate this option.
[13:51] So what is your request exactly of the planning commission?
[13:57] The request is to have the commission vote this evening to allow us to move forward with
[14:05] the proposal, but with those two, I guess, offers or changes that I just described.
[14:12] So the height would be lower by four to five feet, so same design, but shorter building.
[14:19] And then the second would be that we would look at the unit mix to see if we can change it.
[14:25] and that we would come back to the city, to the director to say we've done this analysis to look at what the impact might be for us to change the units on the overall financing, and here's what we can do.
[14:48] Is that help?
[15:00] Okay. I think we might have other clarifying questions. So we will get back to you if we need you to come back up and ask or ask answer questions for us. And I asked my fellow commissioners if anyone would like to start with clarifying questions, or if anyone would like to state anything before we get into clarifying questions. Through the chair. Yes. So before we start, I just wanted to say that the day
[15:30] After our last meeting, we met two weeks ago, so the day after that, when my wife was driving our two children to school, or nine and ten years old,
[15:44] there was a man with a sign that was stationed outside the school, so that all the school kids could see it, and my kids could see it,
[15:54] with a sign that said, David Gorn hates farm workers.
[16:02] So I understand,
[16:06] let's just say, this guy,
[16:10] Matt Channeka, who doesn't know me,
[16:15] doesn't know what I stand for,
[16:17] doesn't know really anything about me
[16:19] and who I am.
[16:22] He just knows my kids go to that school.
[16:25] And
[16:28] I'm given to understand that this supporter of yours is not necessarily affiliated with alas,
[16:41] but I would say that Mr. Janica did not operate in a vacuum, and the tone that has been set and
[16:54] And the vitriol that the Planning Commission has gone through and the Planning Commissioners
[16:59] have gone through is very problematic and I
[17:13] would say you
[17:17] might want to have a little
[17:18] faith rather than launch a full scale attack which is what has happened in the last couple
[17:26] of weeks.
[17:28] You might want to have some faith that the City Council has set housing, affordable housing, as its number one priority, and has worked really hard to make that happen, which is why we have the corp yard over by the Stomping Center with affordable housing.
[17:44] That's why we have this project before us.
[17:46] you know, the $6 million that the county pointed up for Bay City, you think that's the county's idea?
[17:54] That's locals who did that, who made that happen, that's your mayor, and locals who made that happen.
[18:02] So you have a little faith that, you know, we're kind of working toward the same thing, and
[18:11] don't just assume that we're not.
[18:14] not.
[18:21] We haven't even done anything yet. We haven't made a decision. We barely talked
[18:24] about anything. And if this planning commission approves the project, it goes to City Council
[18:31] for them to work on. If we deny it, it goes to City Council for them to work on. So,
[18:39] after
[18:40] we make a decision and you don't like it, then go ahead and fight. Like, go ahead, we're
[18:47] public servants, you know, I'll take the fight, whatever the fight is.
[18:52] But you can leave my family and my kids out of it.
[18:56] Please respectfully ask for your thank you.
[19:08] I just wanted to echo that sentiment.
[19:13] I think sometimes we're used to being in here with a room of two people in attendance.
[19:19] And we talk about very arcane things.
[19:21] I do want to thank Mayor Jimenez for recognizing that and standing by the Planning Commission and our deliberations process.
[19:32] Normally on a project like this that's taken two years, we would have had an opportunity to have some of these questions answered about halfway through.
[19:41] And many people are now fired up to get something done and I've been cajoled by many people in this room to simply turn a blind eye and approve the project exactly as is.
[19:56] We have an obligation to put the city on the best legal foot.
[20:00] And make sure that we follow the law as the governor has asked us, both state, density, bonus law, and the coastal act, because it benefits all of us. And I think it's important for us to get this right, because there are a lot of people who are foreign against this project. And I think almost, I think all of us here at this podium have put in place policies to support exactly this type of housing. Our obligation is to protect the city.
[20:29] and to protect the health and welfare of our community, both the public health as well as the financial stability of the city from lawsuits.
[20:37] So it's an important part of what we're doing here.
[20:39] Thanks.
[20:40] And I would just like to say that we appreciate all the input that was giving at the last hearing and the hearing prior to that on April 23rd in which we were here until midnight because we really wanted to hear your voice.
[20:56] And we will consider all the input received in our deliberation.
[21:02] So we do have a lot of work to do tonight and before we conclude our deliberations.
[21:07] And in terms of the planning commission process, we are still asking clarifying questions.
[21:13] And as a point of order, I'm asking that you refrain from clapping or cheering, or any other outburst because it will just slow down the process.
[21:21] I appreciate the passion in this room, but if the public continues to disrupt the process, we're going to have a long night ahead of us.
[21:32] So at this time, I'm going to ask the applicant and city staff to jot down our clarifying questions and to save your answers until the end.
[21:42] Unless a commissioner really feels like they need to have the applicant come forward.
[21:47] Thank you.
[21:58] I want to go first.
[22:00] I had some clarifying questions around transit policy, so I'm under the impression that state
[22:11] density bonus law and some of its provisions are impacted by the proximity of having
[22:18] a major transit stop within a half mile of the project.
[22:22] and I tried reading the Coastal Act on my own and not the Coastal Act State Density Bonus Law on my own and assisted and I would appreciate city staff and the attorney's office providing clarification on what the impact of having a major transit stop or not having one is on the project and I'm asking the question because it appears to me as a layperson that there may not be a major transit
[22:52] would stop within a half mile of the project or within half moon bed all, so appreciate that.
[22:59] Sure, I'll take that one.
[23:01] So staff did determine that there's a major transit stop within half mile of the project,
[23:07] and you can kind of combine all the transit that is happening.
[23:10] It doesn't have to be like one bus stops super frequently.
[23:15] So the routes that, well, Christie, did you want to talk, I can say the routes that staff
[23:21] I've looked at, we're about 117 and 294, as well as
[23:25] Sam trans microtransit options, which are available on demand to sort of fill in the gaps there.
[23:33] So staff did determine that the project is within a half mile of a major transit stop.
[23:39] I'll say as a general matter, state density bonus law generally prohibits the city from imposing
[23:47] development standards that would physically preclude a project that qualifies for state
[23:53] density bonus. That's called a waiver. It's separate from the concessions and incentives.
[24:00] Here this is the super density bonus project. And so there is more of a connection to the
[24:07] major transit stop because there's unlimited density that's allowed. So there are provisions
[24:13] that site to a major transit stop, and that's the determination that staff made, was that it is within a half mile of one of those.
[24:23] So I'm under the impression that the frequency of bus service needs to be 15 minutes or less during peak hours.
[24:32] How do we, and there's two part question here, it's one, does it exist, and two, if anything, what is the impact?
[24:39] So those are the two questions.
[24:41] Let's start with, is there in fact a transit stop and can you walk us through the schedule that gets us there?
[24:50] Yeah, the stop itself is at Maiden Mayor Montez in downtown, and there's also a transit stop at Kelly and Church.
[25:00] So there's one very close proximity to the project site. Both 117 and 294 operate in hourly basis, a adjusted hourly basis, so between the two of them, there is regular service, and then the SAM trams. Ride plus service is on demand service that can be requested at any point, and you can use that like regular transit. So that would meet the every 15-minute frequency in staff's determine.
[25:31] So there's four bus lines plus the micro bus, there's a major bus, one is considered a major bus because it connects half Moon Bay to other communities, and the others are considered local lines.
[25:44] 2.94 runs between half Moon Bay, and then,
[25:49] Hill Salmall.
[25:49] Peltrain Station, San Mateo, and Hill Gamall.
[25:52] And then 117, so that's a Pacifica, yeah.
[25:56] But those are an hour apart.
[25:59] How do you get to 15 minutes with those two?
[26:01] Between those two, they offset each other.
[26:03] So I think as Winter was saying, you don't need to have one bus line that runs after you 15 minutes.
[26:08] What you need to have is regular 15 minutes service at a particular location.
[26:13] So, between those two lines and between the same trans-ride plus, which is non-demand service that can be scheduled in the downtown, that's where you get the determination that this meets the major transit service within a half mile of the project site.
[26:31] Okay. Set that aside for a second. Okay, so what's the impact? If this is, in fact, is there any impact on this project?
[26:40] effective, this is in fact an issue, or if this is, if this doesn't exist, is there an issue?
[26:48] Yes, this is how you get to the unlimited density in the super-density bonus statutes.
[26:56] So, if this is a component of that determination.
[27:10] What does that mean, is that effect A waiver, two waivers, four waivers?
[27:16] Help me understand how that works.
[27:18] That's the unlimited density is how we get from the 10 workforce housing overlay units to the 40.
[27:26] And Sam trans can add new bus services to this project, right?
[27:32] I mean, we could increase the service, but staff's contention that an unscheduled bus service
[27:37] considers considered a major bus line.
[27:40] Staff's contention is that between 17 and 294 and
[27:46] the Ride Plus service, which is an on-demand transit that is offered through SAMe Trans,
[27:52] gets to that every 15-minute headway service to downtown within a half mile of this project site.
[27:59] Okay, thank you.
[28:10] Go ahead.
[28:11] So, there's a few things that I don't really understand.
[28:16] One of them was, you know, we started out with a project that was for retired farm workers.
[28:24] and then it switched to senior farm workers.
[28:28] Now the limit is the lower number, you know, you have to be 55 years old.
[28:40] So it seems like that when you first came up with that number of 30% of the people don't own cars,
[28:47] cars that that maybe was referring to the seniors who were mostly in the studios, I assume
[28:55] is mostly senior couples, so it would be mostly 40 units, 39 units with two people in each
[29:04] unit, mostly.
[29:08] So we're looking at between 80 and 100 people, 30% of which don't own cars.
[29:12] So that sort of like says don't worry so much about the parking and traffic, but now we're looking at with
[29:23] the new one, we're looking at just six studios, the 32 one bedrooms, and then a couple of two bedrooms.
[29:32] And
[29:34] so that kind of says to me it's more families, it's more people living in those places.
[29:45] And that it's not just a couple.
[29:47] So I would like to just make sure that I know who it is that we're talking about.
[29:52] Like if we're talking about families, which is I guess what we're talking about with most of the other two bedroom houses that are two bedroom apartments that are now.
[30:00] Families with the one bedroom, so I don't really understand that part. And then I also loved the rundown last meeting on the affordable housing tax credit and how that works.
[30:17] It's like you explained something that I thought was unexplainable. But so now I'm a little bit concerned that that's a big part of your funding. And I know,
[30:29] Gavin Newsom, like he's a friend, the project apparently, but he's also talking about cutting that.
[30:36] So, if he cuts that affordable housing tax credit, does that, does that, like, put the financing in jeopardy?
[30:45] Like I'm actually really concerned, maybe I don't know if that's outside of our purview or not, but I think it's in our purview.
[30:53] And then I also wanted to know so that we started with an original project that was the City Council approved, the RFQ, with a certain number of studios in a certain height.
[31:06] I think I was the first four stories and I don't remember the number of studios, mostly studios.
[31:13] And then there was an ENA signed to that effect.
[31:18] So then now there's a new project and kind of a third version now by the second version that we've been hearing with a different ENA.
[31:30] So what I wanted to know is was that ENA approved by the City Council and was the new version of this that we're hearing approved by the City Council?
[31:42] I don't really understand that.
[31:44] It seems like it's like that's not quite right.
[31:49] So also, you guys talked about 2700 square feet.
[31:54] I wrote down in my notes as being the event center, but I don't think that's right.
[31:59] So I wanted to know the square footage of the resource center and the square footage of
[32:04] the event center and the square footage of the offices.
[32:08] If it all together, 2700 square feet, I'm not really sure.
[32:11] So, those are the things I just don't understand and I would like to know.
[32:23] Is this a good place to stop and maybe you could start answering some of those questions?
[32:27] I think that's probably make sense.
[32:28] Okay, yeah, let's do that and then we'll get back to you.
[32:31] Now, some of those questions the applicant will have some good information on other ones I can answer.
[32:37] The project has always been for senior farm workers.
[32:41] There is no distinction and I'll let the applicant correct me if I'm wrong and whether they are currently working.
[32:47] farm workers or whether they're retired farm workers.
[32:50] So, but they are senior farm workers, people who have derived their income.
[32:53] That was the RFQ, the seniors, but it started out as retired before that anyway.
[32:59] Yeah, well I can, we're speaking of the project that's in front of the commission, so that's really all I can offer.
[33:07] The question, if what happens if the loan come tax credit is in jeopardy, that will be a question that
[33:13] mercy we'll have to answer because it's related to applications that they are filing.
[33:18] I think the third question was does the ENA impact the new project and I'm assuming
[33:25] by-
[33:25] No, did this council say yes?
[33:28] The council approved-
[33:29] Through the new ENA.
[33:31] There is a singular ENA that the council approved last year.
[33:35] It is-
[33:35] When last year?
[33:37] October I believe.
[33:38] Okay.
[33:39] I can look at the date for that.
[33:41] Okay.
[33:41] Okay, that's the only UNA.
[33:44] A singular UNA for this project.
[33:46] It's an exclusive negotiating agreement
[33:48] between the city and the applicant.
[33:50] Okay.
[33:51] It allows them to proceed with an application
[33:53] and processing a CDP for the site.
[34:02] Yeah, the last question I have is related
[34:06] to the square footage in the project.
[34:10] So there's a singular farm worker resource center
[34:13] that is 2,658 square feet, there is no event center, there's just a farm worker resource center, and then Mercy has management offices in the ground floor of the building, and I'm thinking those are in the neighborhood of 800 square feet.
[34:28] You're saying the resource center is the one with the kitchen?
[34:31] That's correct. The farm worker is like an event center resource center.
[34:35] It is a farm worker resource center, and that size is 2,658 square feet.
[34:41] And so, I'm kind of like we never really talked about what the resources are, I don't really understand.
[34:48] So 2700 square feet, I think this room is like 20.
[35:00] 200 square feet. I know because I was going to, I'm trying to rent half of it. And so I actually know how big it is. I think this is 2200 square feet. So it's 500 square feet more than this one. I don't know how large this room is, but I do know how large the farm worker resource center is. 2700, 2658. Okay. Okay. Wow. Thank you. I want to hop in on that. I thought there was a community room on the second floor exclusively for the farm workers.
[35:31] how big is that room?
[35:36] That's on the second floor. Okay.
[35:38] I can look up the surface for that.
[35:40] And I want to also know if it has a kitchen.
[35:43] It does not.
[35:44] Okay.
[35:47] The RFQ that the proposal that was presented by Mercy on May 23, 2022, actually
[35:58] said 40 affordable units, senior farm worker housing,
[36:00] in 2050, square feet for space, for former Kerr resource center, and I'll ask a Latino
[36:08] Cultural Arts and Social Services program in Haplan Bay is dedicated to supporting youth
[36:13] and families.
[36:15] So I don't understand how the switch from supporting youth and families that's on the
[36:20] website to the switch to former Kerr resource center.
[36:24] So I just wanted to clear that up and figure out how the square footage is now increased
[36:30] from 2050 square foot to now 2650.
[36:39] So it's just a question, maybe somebody can answer that.
[36:49] And I'll have some others too, so maybe they'll stop there.
[36:52] would you like those answered now? Okay. The transition from the original proposal concept
[37:05] idea that was provided by Mercy and Alas when they responded to the RFQ was, is that?
[37:11] It was a proposal for, this is what we think the project is looking like. In since the initial
[37:16] proposal was made to today, there have been a numerous, a lot of community outreach, a lot
[37:22] of community meetings, they've heard from the farm workers what type of facility they
[37:29] would like to see, what type of resources would be helpful at this building, so much like
[37:33] the unit mix of the project has evolved as the community has provided input and as they've
[37:39] really gotten into the details of working out what this building looks like, the size of
[37:43] the farm worker resource center has also changed, evolving with the community needs.
[37:48] The applicant can provide more detail on that if they'd like to clarify anything I'm saying.
[37:57] So the resource center is not for the people who live there.
[38:02] It's for all farm workers.
[38:03] For all farm workers.
[38:06] It's a farm worker resource center, not just for the residents of the facilities.
[38:11] So I have a follow up question.
[38:12] So why is a kitchen needed?
[38:14] Why is a commercial kitchen needed for a center that's supporting farm workers?
[38:20] for, you know, resources and for the residents that already have kitchens.
[38:30] I'm not really sure why that would require commercial kitchen, is that why they're calling it an event center?
[38:41] They're not calling it an event center, they're calling it a farm worker resources center.
[38:44] And the commercial kitchen is something that the applicant can address.
[38:51] This is a again a facility that is for farmers in general throughout the community, as well as residents there.
[38:58] So to rely on someone's individual kitchen in their apartment would not be suitable for someone who doesn't live there.
[39:06] Okay, so okay, I think I was a little confused because the event center was used a lot in the last meeting.
[39:14] like people talked about the importance of the event center, and I thought at the time we would actually need a lot of time to talk, but at the time I thought,
[39:23] aren't we in an event center?
[39:25] Like, there's an event center right here.
[39:28] Like, do we need one over there?
[39:30] Like, I don't know.
[39:31] So, I'm asking.
[39:33] Like, why?
[39:34] So, I guess, maybe that's part of deliberations.
[39:36] Maybe that's not clarifying.
[39:38] No, no, no.
[39:38] I think the question is what I've heard is there's 2650, 2650 square feet of space for
[39:51] Alice's services that they provide, which is roughly half the size of this room.
[39:56] Is that, or what did you, you know, it's 500 square feet.
[40:13] And I was under the impression from our last hearing that most of the farm worker services are done in the field, not in the, in this office space.
[40:28] And so, and I guess, and I've heard mixed things of, well, there's 2,000 farm workers that we service.
[40:38] But are they, in fact, happening in the field or are they happening in this location?
[40:44] And the reason why it's important is it's part of the analysis that was done.
[40:47] Have we taken into account the fact that there are going to be 2,000 people coming, what's the frequency?
[40:51] And that really, the analysis hasn't really incorporated that into that level of traffic.
[41:01] And so just trying to understand what are we doing with this space, and how does it impact the broad
[41:05] thing?
[41:05] I mean, I get you've got 40 units of housing, you've got community space, you want to be able to host
[41:10] events there, that's part of the whole thing, and you want to be able to cook food for people.
[41:14] That's a normal function, I think, of any commercial project.
[41:18] Like that makes sense, and it's logical to me.
[41:21] It's just the amount of office space for programming that I've heard is most again to happen in the field.
[41:27] There's only going to be two people there, why do you need so much space?
[41:30] That's the question, if only two people are going to be in this office space.
[41:36] The applicant provided detail at the last public hearing on how the Farm Worker Resource Center is used, how it was planned, how it was programmed, and how it will function, but I'm sure they'd be happy to address that again.
[41:51] Could you tell me, again, the reason why a kitchen is needed?
[41:56] I didn't.
[41:57] I'm sorry, tell you why I was needed.
[41:58] I'm sorry.
[41:59] Maybe we said that the applicant, but I apologize.
[42:02] And before we jump to that, I just want to make sure we've had some evolution or some clarification
[42:07] in the conditions of approval for who gets this farm worker housing.
[42:14] So could you help us understand like what the current thinking is around, who would qualify
[42:19] and what mechanisms we're going to use to help ensure that local farm workers get the housing if that's even still possible.
[42:29] The condition is spelled out. It's exhibit A to the resolution. Is there a particular language you had a question about?
[42:36] I just would like you to walk us through the use case. I mean, one of us could read it, I suppose, but maybe you could just read the lottery system as an example that you were talking about in the conditions of approval.
[42:47] That was identified if there is a question with funding or some sort of restriction on
[42:56] more C's future funding that would prohibit any sort of selection of one type of tenant
[43:05] over another.
[43:06] It was just in offer to identify other ways that local farm workers could be insured
[43:14] forward to be a future tenants of the project, a lottery system, or they meet the thresholds that are identified in the condition?
[43:23] Let me restate that because it's a little confusing and tell me if I got it right.
[43:28] There's no guarantee that the farm worker housing will go to local farming and it's partially affected by the types of funding that Mercy gets.
[43:35] Mercy is working to put in place a preference system so
[43:40] So that they can try to get farm worker, local farm workers approved.
[43:44] But that is difficult to do legally, and it may be constrained by types of funding.
[43:51] And one of the avenues you're using to address it is to come up with a lottery system that waits certain things like being a local, as part of the criteria.
[44:01] Am I getting that right?
[44:04] I couldn't speak to him or see how they implement that.
[44:07] Great.
[44:07] Thanks.
[44:08] Either Ray McCann, or we can put a pin in this for.
[44:12] I think this is one of the most important issues.
[44:15] I think most of the people in the room are interested in is how are we?
[44:19] I know it's not easy, but I want to make sure that we're being clear and how we're,
[44:25] the expectations we're setting on this project.
[44:30] Okay, so I'm going to speak to the local farm market preference.
[44:34] So the local farm market preference is stated in conditions of approval.
[44:37] that one resident must be a current or retired agricultural worker that lives or works within Half Moon Bay or San Mateo County.
[44:45] Unless it's otherwise prohibited as by future or potential funding requirements.
[44:51] A staff has stated and we have supported that we will implement the local preference in specific areas.
[45:00] We'll be done by the requirements from our funding sources and factual findings on fair housing that we still have to do, that still have to be done. Mercy does have experience implementing local preferences and other locations and have done so successfully in San Francisco, in Santa Cruz. And we are prepared to work with city staff on how to correctly implement those preferences given all of the requirements that we are under. Excellent. Thank you. And I really appreciate the new language.
[45:29] in which it's been put in the conditions of approval, it's much more clear.
[45:32] Can I ask you, is there a limit on the number of people who stay in the, in these units?
[45:39] So you're asking about the occupancy restrictions?
[45:43] Yes.
[45:44] So the occupancy restrictions for two bedroom, sorry, occupancy, the occupancy restrictions.
[45:49] For the studios, it's two individuals, for a one bedroom, it's three individuals.
[45:55] And for a two bedroom, it's five individuals.
[45:58] But the two bedroom would just be for the manager and for the assisted living.
[46:06] We are proposing, yes, in the updated proposal that there would be one unit for one of the two bedroom units would be designated for a manager.
[46:14] And then one of the two bedroom units would be designated for a senior who would potentially need a caregiver in that second room bedroom.
[46:22] But 32, one bedrooms, those are the-
[46:26] Who would have a potential occupancy of up to three individuals in each of the one bedrooms?
[46:30] Typically-
[46:30] So like 100 people in the-
[46:32] Typically they are rented up to two individuals within a one bedroom.
[46:35] And so this idea about 30% don't own cars, we're not- we're not- we're not thinking that anymore, is that right?
[46:45] The population of that we have been targeting has not changed, it is still senior farm workers.
[46:51] So the designation and the statements that were provided about the use of farm worker of cars for that population remains the same.
[47:01] So even if you have one third more and they're younger because three people means two people and a kid, like that you are one person and two kids, it doesn't mean three seniors, does it?
[47:17] The head of household would still have to qualify as 55 years or older.
[47:22] I understand, so you have a head of household who's 55 years old, who has two kids, and they move in and they 30% of them don't own cars.
[47:32] Is that right?
[47:33] I can't say definitively what percentage of them would do?
[47:36] So I think we could safely get rid of the 30% don't own cars thing, that's all, that doesn't seem like I'm not fighting it.
[47:46] But it's just like that seems kind of odd to say.
[47:50] I think the point you're trying to make is there's no clear evidence tying the number of people
[47:55] who are living there to the estimate on the number of parking.
[47:57] There's a standard that's applied for senior housing and a slightly larger standard
[48:03] was a slightly larger number was used to estimate the parking impact, but you're trying
[48:08] to find some evidence of how we got to 0.74 or 0.85, I think that's where you're going.
[48:13] Oh, so no, I mean partly, it's the increase number of people, but it's also the increase number of people who have cars.
[48:21] So, in the original, it was all studios and it was two people per studio and I kind of just assumed that would be senior couples.
[48:32] And that seems okay, 30% don't own cars, I could buy it, I don't really believe it, but it's close.
[48:39] So, I mean, I could say, okay, but this seems really different.
[48:44] So, I'm asking if you guys feel like this is different, or if you're just, like, doubling down on that little thing.
[48:53] So, specifically, the proposal of the updated unit mix that we are proposing, it doesn't increase or decrease the number of studios.
[49:06] So, I'm not sure what you were referencing about the original.
[49:09] So the original with studios is two people per studio.
[49:12] It's not that many people, it's 78 people, and those 78 people you would think are like couples because it's two people in a studio.
[49:23] The studios are small, so those couples you could buy the fact that those elderly couples 30% don't own cars.
[49:31] That makes sense to me, but it doesn't make sense to have them all one bedrooms and
[49:36] to say well all those one bedroom people who live in those one bedrooms are also not
[49:42] going to have cars because those are not that's not senior couples.
[49:46] I think I would look to city staff to answer the question on what was done for the parking
[49:49] study.
[49:51] If I could just help just a little bit I did some math here because I'm always worried about
[49:57] doing more from the phone.
[50:00] Why, when I'm talking to people, but 32 units that are one bedroom, that's three, that's 96 units, or 96 people who could potentially live in a maximum occupancy situation. You have two bedroom apartments that could have five people each. That's another 10 people. And then you have six studios that each have
[50:31] of a maximum occupancy of two people.
[50:33] So we're talking about 118 people, at maximum and based on your experience as an operator
[50:41] of affordable housing for seniors in this situation, with farm workers actually, your estimate,
[50:50] which I will take as a good faith estimate, is it's going to be about 85 to 95 people, something
[50:55] in that ballpark would be living there.
[50:56] That's correct.
[50:57] Okay.
[50:59] Thank you.
[51:01] Through the chair.
[51:03] Yes.
[51:04] Go ahead.
[51:04] To real quick, to return for a moment to the question of prioritizing local residents.
[51:11] Thank you for the clarification, and I'm glad to hear that you have a positive experience making this happen.
[51:18] I just request going forward that you and staff think about a priority system that doesn't treat every San Mateo County resident equally.
[51:30] Obviously, it's a big county and people close to Half Moon Bay on the coastside
[51:35] would make more sense for this project to be inclusive of them.
[51:43] So I'd like to understand what the meaning of local means.
[51:46] Is it city of Half Moon Bay boundaries for the farms related to the city of Half Moon Bay
[51:51] boundaries, or does local mean all the farms along the coastside in the San Mateo County?
[51:57] I'm going to turn to City Stop to answer that.
[52:00] The way that the condition of approval is currently drafted, and this was one of the changes.
[52:06] The original condition of approval referred to the preference for workers in Half Moon Bay or the coast side.
[52:12] And that was modified to Half Moon Bay or San Mateo County.
[52:16] So that's the way the condition is currently worded.
[52:20] So the definition of local is both San Mateo County coast side and city of Half Moon Bay.
[52:30] Okay. Coast side is no longer in the proposed condition of a criminal, it's just the city and the county.
[52:37] So it can be farms or anybody lives over the hill as well.
[52:43] That's how it's currently defined.
[52:45] Could we, is it possible to use specific zip codes and
[52:51] have a weighted system like 9401994021 as the system of preference and
[52:59] and have increasing preference for the three zip codes that immediately surround half moon bay.
[53:06] Is that something we can do?
[53:09] Looks like the applicant has a thought on that.
[53:11] If I may answer, I think that's definitely possible for us to evaluate.
[53:15] And if you, I think we have now two commissioners or three commissioners asking us to look at that,
[53:21] we would be happy to look at that.
[53:23] Again, we want to make sure that we're complying with fair housing.
[53:26] So, that's why I can't make a definitive statement to yes, but we can certainly look at that because we do have experience in other localities where we have some sort of radius defined.
[53:37] Great.
[53:38] Thank you.
[53:38] I have another question.
[53:40] So, can you put a local preference based on percentages of the total population of the total units?
[53:47] But I know this is something in Napa County has been done for farm workers, not senior
[53:54] farm workers.
[53:55] And there was some evaluation that was done there that they could use a percentage of
[54:00] a local preference for farm workers in a certain location.
[54:05] So I'm wondering if you can just look into that and figure out whether you could have a percentage
[54:10] is based on local preference beaming.
[54:13] Half Moon Bay first, and the jurisdiction forms that are surrounding half Moon Bay adjacent.
[54:20] Okay. Yeah, we can look into that.
[54:23] Yes, and I also want to note that the local preference would be included in the city's regulatory agreement that would then be recorded on the property, and the city would be able to include outlines of the agreement that we determine for how the tenant and marketing selection and process would work in further detail.
[54:40] And when you mean the regulatory agreement, you mean the disposition, development lease agreement, or is there some other regulatory agreement that we would have with the city?
[54:54] Could you, that's the need to be, can you explain please?
[54:58] Please.
[55:00] I think you are referring to the DDLA, which is the development disposition and loan agreement. There
[55:14] were other questions that were asked. Do you want us to try to address some of those? Do you have more questions? Do you want me to restate them, or can you, did you take that?
[55:37] I think we answered your question about occupancy.
[55:43] Would it be helpful to provide
[55:46] We provide a visual of the square footage of the different spaces in the building so that you can visually see what the difference between the Farm Worker Resource Center, the offices are.
[55:59] And-
[56:00] Sure, post that.
[56:00] That would be fine.
[56:01] Can I help?
[56:03] So, do you have our slide?
[56:04] About
[56:10] 20, then we can go over the spatial.
[56:48] Yeah, great.
[56:48] We can start there.
[56:50] See, this one looks like it's 2,800 square feet,
[56:56] 650 and not 2050.
[56:59] Yeah, I think there's a distinction when you measure from outside wall to outside wall versus inside.
[57:09] You're saying that's 150 square feet difference?
[57:13] I'm saying the plans that were provided have an interior dimension for the Farm Worker Resource Center of 2,658 square feet.
[57:23] So
[57:26] why does this one have 2,800?
[57:29] Because it's this is Rick Williams with fan meter Williams public architects, there's net
[57:34] in gross and so when you take into effect all the walls perimeter of the building and
[57:39] and the perimeter walls you get a little bit larger number when you deduct all of it and
[57:46] you're doing net for what you refer to as occupancy, then you get a smaller number.
[57:51] But when you ask how many square feet are in a building, I got a we account for all of the building and thank you very much.
[58:00] So what you're seeing up there is a series of offices for the Farm Worker Resource Center and
[58:09] those offices are for people that work some in the office at all times and some of them go out into the field.
[58:16] And most of the practices happening out in the field.
[58:19] We do have a multi-purpose room with storage and they occasionally will have, and it's not
[58:26] an event like a party or something, but it's more of, they'll have a group of farmers
[58:31] come in and they'll have an education class or something such as that.
[58:35] And so that's a actually fairly small room, you know, it's like 15 by 20, 25.
[58:42] And then also they do, they have a kitchen there not just to support the
[58:49] multi-purpose but they can actually provide food that has to be done in a
[58:57] commercial kitchen and they can bring that out to various farm workers or
[59:02] locations. So this is the center, the resource center and but much of the activity
[59:09] an interface with the farm workers is not here but is out at the various farms in the surrounding
[59:17] community.
[59:18] So the, oh sorry, but it looks like, so the offices are about 1300 square feet and the kitchen
[59:25] and multipurpose room, which is the event center from the last previous meeting.
[59:30] That's about 1300, right, it's roughly half.
[59:34] It's an on event center, it is a resource center, and then there's the residential management
[59:40] offices, and that is for the housing, and that is Mercy's Management Facility.
[59:46] And that is for when they do leasing, individual leases and stuff, and they also have to maintain
[59:53] because of all of the annual re-
[1:00:00] The certifications, et cetera, they have a lot of paperwork on site that they have to keep on site for every resident. And so they have a lot of both office space and storage space. And it's so it's a small office and they occasionally have service providers that come in there as well.
[1:00:19] Yeah, if you can go to the next floor. Next slide. So, so back one second, because that's for the residents. That blue is for the residential portion of the building.
[1:00:31] So back on this, the offices for al-As, you're seeing that so these are like nine or ten offices for al-As, and then the other half of this is this kitchen and multi-purpose room so they can have meetings.
[1:00:49] Okay. Multiple offices, storage space,
[1:00:54] kitchen area, they have, you know, copies and things like that and storage for paperwork because they also have case management.
[1:01:01] that they have to maintain.
[1:01:04] So in the first version, the one that was 600 square feet small
[1:01:10] or was the kitchen multi-purpose room the same size
[1:01:14] or did the offices just get bigger?
[1:01:20] I think proportionally it was the same.
[1:01:22] So it just, it was slightly larger.
[1:01:25] Okay, remember this also includes walls and things like that
[1:01:29] versus a net number.
[1:01:31] So, when we do a net number and you take out all the walls, the space becomes smaller.
[1:01:37] I know it's not 2800, right?
[1:01:39] No, it's 2650, I got the new one.
[1:01:42] And then the residential management offices is for mercy and mercy staff and it's separate and
[1:01:49] it supports the entire building but it also supports the residents above and now we can go to the next line.
[1:01:58] Yeah, thank you.
[1:02:00] So on this slide on the second floor, in the courtyard level, there's a courtyard for the residents.
[1:02:08] And there can be agreements where occasionally alas might be able to use it on occasion.
[1:02:13] But generally speaking, it's a residential courtyard open space on the second floor.
[1:02:18] There's a laundry room which is for the residents.
[1:02:22] So, they have a laundry facility that has washers and dryers, et cetera, there that connects
[1:02:29] to the courtyard and then a community room, again, this community room is so they can
[1:02:37] have meetings for all the residents.
[1:02:38] They can also have the residents can have the birthday party there or something like that.
[1:02:45] And they have a small, typically residential kitchen, not a commercial kitchen, that they
[1:02:50] You can warm things up and keep drinks cool, but it's not a big production kitchen.
[1:02:56] It's just like a residential kitchen and actually usually a little bit smaller.
[1:03:01] And then they have a storage space so they can put the tables and chairs and storage
[1:03:06] at times and bring them out, et cetera, but that is really of the residential space.
[1:03:12] It's not an all-out space.
[1:03:14] That is specifically, that's also a mandated space for tax credit criteria.
[1:03:18] So that is a required space.
[1:03:21] But if the loss is going to use the courtyard, how can you keep them out of the?
[1:03:28] I think it was just that if, for some reason, there was a case management situation
[1:03:33] where they were helping assist with services in the building, they would have access
[1:03:38] to some of these as well.
[1:03:39] But it would really be on a case-by-case basis if they were helping with specific services.
[1:03:43] So this might be a joint event by request, if there was something happening on the commute in the, on the bottom of the table.
[1:03:50] Yeah, if there was a, it wouldn't be really for out of that, it would be more so if there was a meeting or something that maybe it was suitable to have in an outdoor space with a small group of people that all of us was helping to provide some of those services for as we, as we had talked about last meeting there, we, we are working with all of us.
[1:04:11] So Mercy is the lead service provider for the services and the property management of the building,
[1:04:16] but all of us is providing a portion of those services.
[1:04:19] So there would be an opportunity, and all of us, I might say, all of us.
[1:04:22] Their staff would be coming into the building to help perform certain case management or services to our residents,
[1:04:29] in which case they would have their staff would have access to some of these spaces.
[1:04:34] That's the majority of the uses of the formal resource center, and
[1:04:38] what all of us does in their programming would be done on the ground floor.
[1:04:41] And I would like to bring them up to clarify what that use of the resource center is.
[1:04:46] And there were some questions about what they do as an organization,
[1:04:50] or I believe you had mentioned family and services for us what we are doing in the form of a person.
[1:04:54] And I think that would provide some.
[1:04:56] But before we switch gears, can we just go.
[1:05:00] I'm wrapping my head around the idea that there are, there's a tenant in the building, who has limited access to this deck.
[1:05:11] This deck would be primarily for, if all of us is using it, it would be for service, primarily for services, for folks who live in the building.
[1:05:25] Right, so they would have, we would enter into a separate services agreement.
[1:05:29] So they will be operating within the building in two capacities, as a tenant of the ground floor.
[1:05:35] And then also as a service provider for the residential care of the units of the residents in the building.
[1:05:42] Those would be explicitly two different contracts.
[1:05:46] But the use of that space is consistent on us having a co-location of those services and
[1:05:54] our staffing plan that they are in the building.
[1:05:56] But you're going to have a delineated or a distinction, clear distinction, like this is the housing space, this isn't got it understood.
[1:06:09] Okay, that's super helpful.
[1:06:12] The commercial kitchen downstairs, is that something where you could use it to host an event if you wanted to, but you'd have to request all of this permission to use their kitchen?
[1:06:22] By us, do you mean mercy, yes, we would request to use their services as they are a tenant of the building and would have to coordinate that use with them.
[1:06:32] Okay, great.
[1:06:34] I have a clarifying question about the kitchen use and the commercial kitchen.
[1:06:42] So where is, and maybe this is a question for all us, where's food preparation taking place today for the farm workers?
[1:06:50] that you prepare food for.
[1:06:51] I'd like to bring them up and they can answer your questions.
[1:06:57] Thank you for your question.
[1:06:59] My name is Kike Basan.
[1:07:00] I work for Alas.
[1:07:03] Just very quickly, what we are planning on doing with the resource center is the services,
[1:07:09] as mental health, formation, cultural arts, crisis support, and health care referrals.
[1:07:16] And just to put as an example, when the flooding happened over a year ago, when the shooting happened,
[1:07:22] And a lot of families were displaced from their homes
[1:07:25] and ended up in hotels.
[1:07:27] They don't have kitchens, so we have to improvise a kitchen
[1:07:30] in our garage to cook meals and send them breakfast,
[1:07:35] lunch, and dinner.
[1:07:36] And we have volunteers organizing, organizing the kitchen.
[1:07:41] We've helped us for that in moments of crisis
[1:07:44] to respond to the needs of the community
[1:07:46] that cannot afford going to a restaurant to have a meal.
[1:07:50] The other thing is the formation, we have a lot of families that cook very well.
[1:07:56] And we want to teach the classic, custom, classic meals that people bring from their own
[1:08:04] countries or from their own cultures to teach other members of the community.
[1:08:09] So it's a formation, the kitchen is mainly for formation and crisis support.
[1:08:23] And also, there was a question about the, I think, the office space.
[1:08:29] So why this big space for just two people, we do have, we try to create community, bring
[1:08:36] people together.
[1:08:37] And we do have different groups of men, farm workers, woman farm workers, and we bring
[1:08:43] in the 10, 15 at a time, and we do different trainings,
[1:08:47] including ESL classes, also how to deal with problems,
[1:08:53] how to deal with issues that they have among each other,
[1:08:57] the private offices because of the mental health
[1:08:59] and issues that happen with each of them.
[1:09:01] We do not, that privacy, and we do have partners
[1:09:05] also from the county that come and need our spaces
[1:09:08] to provide health insurance for the people that we serve.
[1:09:13] And they need privacy, right now what they do, they use different spaces that are not private and when people have to talk about their medical issues or things is not ideal.
[1:09:26] I think really important to share that Alice is really rooted in mental health.
[1:09:30] So we need private spaces for mental health, but we also very concerned about our seniors with medical.
[1:09:37] So when we've gone out into the fields, that's one of the biggest issues that we've seen.
[1:09:40] I mean, they have not had medical services and
[1:09:46] insurance is a big thing but we're really lucky and excited because in this space we're going to be bringing community partners that can come and bring these services.
[1:09:56] So this is...
[1:10:00] This resource center is not just about alas, it's about community partnerships, it's about county services, it's about medical services, and it's about really creating and embedding a strong wellness component for those that live there for sure. The kitchen, when you think about what brings community, what brings them to the table to eat, like we envision that the residents can come and have meals. When you think about healthy, nutritious meals,
[1:10:29] for our seniors, we know at other senior centers,
[1:10:32] they do meals every day.
[1:10:34] We imagine that for them too.
[1:10:36] Being able to do meals, have them come down,
[1:10:38] have them engage in lunch and dinners.
[1:10:40] So it's about building community.
[1:10:42] We don't want this center to be
[1:10:44] that they're isolated in their rooms.
[1:10:47] This Farmarker Research Center is about
[1:10:49] having them come down and have participation and be active.
[1:10:54] Using computers, we started a recent computer technology class
[1:10:57] And folks that are seniors are participating, and they're saying we want to learn more.
[1:11:02] We want them to have nutritious meals, we want them to have mental health.
[1:11:05] And a really beautiful example of one of the recent projects that Alas that we want to duplicate here at the center is a project called Corazones de Oro.
[1:11:15] It's run by one of our leaders, Cessi.
[1:11:17] We started with five seniors, let the new seniors coming.
[1:11:20] We have 30 and each time we're adding more.
[1:11:24] And what we do with them is arts, we do singing, we do food, we do community, we do storytelling, we do exercise.
[1:11:35] So this is a dream of the Farmarker Center.
[1:11:37] It's not to just be an office site where people give a resource.
[1:11:42] It's to create a healthy model for those that live there.
[1:11:46] I think that's a fantastic mission and I really applaud the work that Alistair does.
[1:11:52] And I want to make sure that you understand that the questions we're asking are not about the importance of these services.
[1:12:01] We're trying to understand the land use, that's where we're going.
[1:12:06] If you accomplish this mission, how busy do you expect these offices to be?
[1:12:11] Is it like, are you going to have these be 50% occupancy during the course of the day?
[1:12:18] or you're going to be like helping me understand because I've heard different things and we're trying to understand the utilization of the space and it sounds like look, it's an important mission, but if the mission is 13 rooms, we're going to be operating a soup kitchen seven days a week, you haven't said that I'm making a statement I'm just drawing the conclusion from what I've heard you're providing meals for people who aren't just the 40 people here, but people who
[1:12:47] would love some of the delicious cooking that Alice provides.
[1:12:52] Like, help me understand the utilization of this space.
[1:12:54] What's going to be happening here?
[1:12:56] So, again, our primary work is going out into the field.
[1:13:00] Rick, we have the bus that we brought today.
[1:13:02] People can see it.
[1:13:03] We go out into the community.
[1:13:05] We're going out into the farms.
[1:13:07] Our vision of this center will be primarily to work with those that are there.
[1:13:11] If you think about our seniors and our senior farm workers
[1:13:15] and the hundred and something people that live there.
[1:13:18] When I talk about meals and lunches,
[1:13:20] I'm talking about primarily them.
[1:13:22] There could be some off special meals in other scenarios,
[1:13:27] but we're talking about right now,
[1:13:28] what I was saying was primarily for the people there.
[1:13:32] We're here to use all our creativity
[1:13:34] to take the work out into the farms
[1:13:37] because this is what we're saying.
[1:13:39] Farm workers do not get to go out after work
[1:13:42] to other centers in many ways
[1:13:44] because they're exhausted, when the services come to them, where they live, so again, out in
[1:13:52] the fields for those that are there, it makes a difference.
[1:13:55] We take medical out right now, we do education services with them right now, out in the fields.
[1:14:02] We take food out to the fields, we take veggies, we sweatshirts, supplies, resources, mental
[1:14:09] health is going out into the fields by all of us.
[1:14:12] So that's going to continue.
[1:14:14] This center is to also honor the farm workers
[1:14:19] that will be living on this site.
[1:14:22] The senior farm workers that need a lot of services.
[1:14:25] And let me just say, have not received services in many years
[1:14:30] for wellness and mental health, and they've been isolated.
[1:14:34] That's why we're creating this center.
[1:14:37] We are also learning what works, and we
[1:14:40] We want to be good tenants, so we're not trying to think about how we're going to have tons of events there with tons of parking issues.
[1:14:49] We want to be mindful of what you all are saying and suggesting and think about how we're going to creatively continue to use a space without impeding on the community.
[1:15:00] Impeding on space, but rather, you know, make opportunities to thrive with our farmer and community. Can I ask you a question? So you don't need to convince me. So I guess I'm trying to understand. So when I look at this, what I see is that the residents have a kitchen and have a community center that's theirs. For the 80 to 90 people who are there, maybe more.
[1:15:29] But for the 80, 200 and something people who are there, they have their their
[1:15:35] kitchens in their own rooms, but they also have a community center for themselves
[1:15:40] with a kitchen.
[1:15:42] And then the down the other part is an alas part.
[1:15:46] So this all the stuff downstairs is for alas.
[1:15:50] And that's for all the services the stuff downstairs.
[1:15:53] What's that?
[1:15:53] A portion of the stuff downstairs.
[1:15:56] It has also mercies.
[1:15:58] Right.
[1:15:58] So not counting the operational part.
[1:16:02] We're talking about the resource center that you're talking about with the offices, with nine cubicles, and the conference room, and the industrial kitchen, the commercial kitchen, all of those things are for alas.
[1:16:18] They're not for the seniors who live there, they're for alas.
[1:16:21] And there may be some outreach to the, like I get that most of your work is done, boots on the ground out there in the community.
[1:16:33] And so, and there's some preparation here to do that, but it's really a loss offices within a loss kitchen.
[1:16:43] The other sort of thing that I'm wondering about is to keep talking about mental health and medical.
[1:16:51] And that's great for out in the fields, that's one that's so wonderful.
[1:16:59] But here, you're across this parking lot from a county health clinic,
[1:17:06] like you can get medical, mental health, you can get everything there.
[1:17:11] So, isn't that a duplication of services?
[1:17:13] Okay, so great question.
[1:17:16] So county medical here in San Mateo County, they only take high acuity clients.
[1:17:22] So what does that mean?
[1:17:24] It means that you have a higher diagnosis, higher risk, and pretty much a higher need.
[1:17:32] So low to moderate to medium mental health, that's done by alas.
[1:17:37] We're the only free mental health clinic in the community, aside from the county who is our
[1:17:42] partner and who actually gives us funding to do this work and the reason why they give us funding is because they know that we're able to access these clients and they don't have the high psychiatric needs that they have the criteria for the San Mateo County mental clinic.
[1:17:59] So they do not pretty much these tenants would not qualify for their mental health services.
[1:18:08] They qualify for OLA's.
[1:18:11] For their medical services, that's where we were talking about.
[1:18:14] For their medical services.
[1:18:15] For the medical services.
[1:18:15] Yeah, we said mental health, so I'm addressing mental health first.
[1:18:18] For medical, we do see that there's a long weight.
[1:18:22] So sometimes it's more than 4 months.
[1:18:25] So the great news is that we have community partners that come out and do like blood pressure
[1:18:30] checks, they do lower level kind of assessment for health while they're waiting to get their
[1:18:36] medical.
[1:18:36] So, you know, there's a big weight list at our county clinics and that's a known fact and it's not that they're not trying, it's just that the demand, right?
[1:18:46] So, we have blood pressure checks, we do diabetic education, we do, you know, just kind of an overall, how are they doing?
[1:18:54] So, for example, we have what we call the street and field medicine team coming out from the county, and they come out to Alas and try to meet with the farm workers to do triage and assess and make sure that they're getting care.
[1:19:09] So, there's a lot of resources that go into caring for the farm workers and I would like to clarify that this resource center is for the tenants that are there.
[1:19:20] The center is to provide much needed resources and take them out of isolation and really try to care for their health and their wellness.
[1:19:32] So, the second floor, what we understand very clearly, is home for the tenants, the second third and above.
[1:19:41] That's their safe space, that's their community.
[1:19:44] We, as case managers and maybe crisis responders, may be at times called to go in and support
[1:19:53] a tenant in crisis with the partnership with Mercy, but the
[1:20:00] That is separate. We're not having access to going up and down in and out all the residential area. Our area is the first floor, which is dedicated for the senior fine workers as a priority. I wish I could go through the list of each senior that I work with and kind of explain all the services that they need. It's not just about checking on them. It's about creating a community space.
[1:20:29] No, we appreciate that.
[1:20:32] Where does the mental health and medical health services you provide, start and stop?
[1:20:37] And where does the work that Mercy provides stop?
[1:20:39] Because you also, Mercy also provides these services to the residents of the building.
[1:20:44] In fact, it's a core, it's my understanding that you provide those types of wraparound services.
[1:20:51] Because there's a lot of office space in this building dedicated to the services that Mercy provides to the residents who live there.
[1:20:58] So, excuse me, I wasn't prepared to speak.
[1:21:04] We have in many of our properties co-location
[1:21:08] with a service provider, and you are correct.
[1:21:11] But our services program is focused
[1:21:14] on connecting our residents with the services
[1:21:19] in the community, so we are not duplicating,
[1:21:22] because that is just a waste of money, right?
[1:21:24] So we have a resident services coordinator,
[1:21:28] or whatever our title is today, for that person who's responsible to check in with residents to see what the needs are, to do the needs assessment, and then plug them in especially, for example, in Half Moon Bay, where there are many resources, not just all us, where there are many resources so that they can connect them.
[1:21:51] Many, many low income seniors particularly aren't that aware of what's available in the community.
[1:22:00] Many of us are more adept at that.
[1:22:03] And what we find is in our populations, just the help to, here's the resources you could look to.
[1:22:10] Here are the connections you can find, and then to have them downstairs would be a bit of a dream, and so we're excited about that.
[1:22:17] But does that answer your question?
[1:22:19] So our resident services person's job is to connect people to the resources in the community, not to provide those resources.
[1:22:29] We don't do case management in this property, and some we do.
[1:22:33] We don't do, I'm sorry.
[1:22:34] I know this is super helpful, so, and I apologize if I'm coming across as a cross-examination here.
[1:22:40] We're not clarifying.
[1:22:41] We're trying to, we're trying to, we're trying to,
[1:22:43] lots of people are asking questions, why is there so much office space here?
[1:22:47] And so it's just, we're trying to understand what is, how is this being used?
[1:22:50] Because if I look at the set aside what you've deemed necessary to manage the building,
[1:22:57] no question about that.
[1:22:59] That's the standard, you guys do it everywhere, that makes sense, it's logical.
[1:23:02] I look at the diagram of the building, and there's parking.
[1:23:07] And there are three sets of office spaces on the first floor for the pharmacy side.
[1:23:12] Yeah, so there's a mercy, and I'm trying to understand how much of that is maintenance
[1:23:18] and how much of that is actually just office space for other stuff because it looks
[1:23:22] like that brown segment was a big chunk of office space.
[1:23:25] Help me understand what that is and what's going on there.
[1:23:29] We could, I'll let somebody get more specific.
[1:23:32] Maybe we could have them pull up the plan, it would be helpful.
[1:23:38] And it's just, what is this, please, help us, and how's it going to be?
[1:23:42] Okay, so we have the Resonant Management Office that's what we hear from you, can you see it?
[1:23:48] Okay, so the Resonant Management Office is, and I'm going to try to read these from here.
[1:23:54] We have two office spaces and then a conference room and then a copy room, and then it looks like a user room.
[1:24:00] So those are our MERSC staff offices, our on-site management offices, and where Amy was just
[1:24:09] explaining that the services on-site coordinator, that is a MERSC employee, they would be home
[1:24:18] in those houses and those residential management offices.
[1:24:22] The brown space, sorry,
[1:24:36] where it says residential management offices, you have, where the cursor
[1:24:39] is right now next to the elevator, so these are the spaces that you need to manage the building.
[1:24:44] Yes.
[1:24:45] Okay, and this stuff, the white space over here is where Alice is going to do their program work.
[1:24:52] What is this big blue chunk of space over here on the light blue chunk of space?
[1:24:59] and that.
[1:25:00] That's utilities, but that's all the trash. And so there's, is there an office space? Somebody's doing the wraparound services. This person who works for mercies in this late gray space. It's in the gray residential management offices. Yes. Got it. Okay. Thank you.
[1:25:19] The mercy person is not doing wraparound services. Okay.
[1:25:28] I'm sure some people would, but it's a function of my particular ADHD where I use the wrong word sometimes.
[1:25:34] Okay, I think Commissioner Joannis has some questions.
[1:25:37] Yes, this is going back to the meals and the preparation of the meals in the kitchen.
[1:25:47] So, is the plan to have prepared meals available, three meals a day available to the residents in that area?
[1:25:57] area because you did mention daily, so when I think of daily and I think of meal preparations daily, it's for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and it's just to clarify what you've meant, and you also mentioned that that kitchen is to service the residents that are living there to come down for their daily meals for, and so I was just wondering, I've been to many senior centers.
[1:26:26] And they do have this daily meal service, and they have several ways of offering it.
[1:26:33] And they have a commercial kitchen, and then they also have professional food,
[1:26:40] preparing service, a preparers that come in, they contract out for that service.
[1:26:45] And they have health permits, so I was just trying to grasp like, what does this mean?
[1:26:49] Is this not to that level, or is it lesser than that level, what does that mean?
[1:26:55] I'm going to clarify one thing, and then let's go into speak to the kitchen use.
[1:26:59] The 40 units are still classified as independent living.
[1:27:03] So it is not assisted living, it is not integrated assistance into those units as an assisted
[1:27:10] living senior center, which maybe you're thinking of an assisted living center.
[1:27:14] This is still independent living, and the services and programs that are provided on the
[1:27:19] on floor in the All Us Resource Center,
[1:27:21] support those residents and farm workers.
[1:27:25] And then she can speak to that kitchen.
[1:27:28] Thank you.
[1:27:29] For the kitchen, I mean, I think it's something
[1:27:31] that we're gonna find out as we develop it.
[1:27:34] We don't have this program now, so it's definitely
[1:27:36] something that'll be in the works.
[1:27:38] Our vision is to be able to care for them
[1:27:40] in different ways.
[1:27:41] I don't know that we have funding for three meals a day.
[1:27:44] Right now, I could say no to that, right?
[1:27:47] Our hope is that we can offer breakfast
[1:27:49] us maybe or coffee or drinks for them to come down during the day.
[1:27:54] The idea is to get them out into community, to be able to have them thrive together, to
[1:28:00] get out of isolation, to be able to move, to be able to have, we have so many different
[1:28:06] opportunities in the way that you use food as a centering of communities.
[1:28:11] So I think it's a vision left to be said and to figure out that we don't have full clarity
[1:28:16] not to be vague, but as a funding, we don't have that right now for that, but it's a vision
[1:28:24] that we have.
[1:28:25] And I think I would just say that the focus we have is on nutrition.
[1:28:29] Also having them to be able to come and bank meals together, not just about us.
[1:28:35] We have amazing chefs in this community, you know, women that cut together.
[1:28:41] What we see is when they come down and prepare food together to have community meals that
[1:28:46] They can share in storytelling, and cooking together, and being together, and remembering home.
[1:28:52] This is the way that we envision this place to be.
[1:28:56] Thank you.
[1:28:58] And I understand trying to get the seniors out in the community doing things is
[1:29:04] my gosh, a very important issue.
[1:29:06] Mentally, I want to get out of my house every day and do things.
[1:29:09] Community wise, I'm wondering if the kitchen is absolutely necessary or
[1:29:13] Or can you take them somewhere so that they're out of their complex?
[1:29:17] Because to me, it's a little bit, you're still in that complex, I don't know how that would work.
[1:29:23] And if that space can be utilized someplace else, by taking the seniors away from their surroundings
[1:29:33] that are constant to someplace else, wouldn't that be a better mental health program?
[1:29:40] because that's one of the challenges we have right now.
[1:29:42] We don't have a community kitchen in this community
[1:29:45] except for Ted Atkock.
[1:29:47] And while the city is very gracious to sometimes,
[1:29:49] like, we able to let us use it,
[1:29:51] there's a lot happening here.
[1:29:52] And so the use of having a kitchen means people can come.
[1:30:01] We can have healthy food made. As you know, prices are going to a restaurant is extremely high. And so being able to take them out to do, you know, restaurant food or, I mean, this is what we're trying to do is have healthy meals for them. And to have a consistency. And so having this community kitchen, it builds not only consistency, it builds health, but it also builds entrepreneurship that they're able to come down, they're able to cook for themselves.
[1:30:29] They're able to create and we're able to have community programming in the evenings that could consist of having healthy snacks, healthy meals that we can prepare their onsite.
[1:30:40] My question was only because in addition to the TED Edcock Center, there's also, I guess, a kitchen next door at the facility that the church operates.
[1:30:50] And then there's also the IDES halls, there's two different places where the Portuguese Cultural Center, the IDES, I was also at the kitchen.
[1:30:58] I'm wondering if that was ever in your thought process to perhaps utilize those areas.
[1:31:03] For exactly what you're saying is get that community together, get them out of their homes, having it be.
[1:31:10] It's a nice walk, getting the exercise to these areas.
[1:31:13] It's just a thought that I had, and I was wondering if that was something that you considered.
[1:31:19] Absolutely, as a member of our lady of the pillar, we would love to use the bill building.
[1:31:22] we used the bill building before when we had our ballot political and unfortunately,
[1:31:27] unfortunately, the church is so busy.
[1:31:29] They have other events that are happening all the time.
[1:31:32] I don't think it's pretty much ever empty.
[1:31:35] And even when we try to use it before to make more meals for kids, it wasn't accessible.
[1:31:39] So we already have a lot of familiarity with trying to use a church.
[1:31:44] And definitely, we also have a relationship with the IDS.
[1:31:47] And that is a lot of deposits and funding and time.
[1:31:51] and parties that they have there so you can't I mean if we want to have a group
[1:31:56] every week in a meal every week and doing groups it's not feasible so is your
[1:32:01] use case a meal a week no I'm just saying I'm just even even if you just had
[1:32:05] at the very minimum one meal a week I'm just giving you an example is your plan
[1:32:09] to have it seven days a week our plan is to be able to look at what is best for
[1:32:14] the community once we're in there what they need I think right now I can tell you
[1:32:18] that with every event that we have for Alas, we try to provide food for the community
[1:32:26] because they come to our events, many of them are coming from work, they're hungry,
[1:32:32] they need to be fed, but at the same time, just like all of us know, food is joy, and
[1:32:38] food builds community, and it brings people out.
[1:32:42] And like a comment was made that we were a tamale party on next door, but I'm going to tell
[1:32:47] everyone that I know you're going to miss the tamales today because they're not here right it's
[1:32:51] that thing that brings a lot of fun it brings celebration so that's what we're about so I'm trying
[1:33:00] to create clarity around how much you're going to use this space and you're not actually the answer I'm
[1:33:05] hearing is every day we don't every day every day every single day every single day we will be making
[1:33:10] some type of food whether it's breakfast whether it's a lunch and you're going to do that three times a
[1:33:15] today you can do it one time a day.
[1:33:16] I can't really say that right because we haven't been
[1:33:19] in this space to see but our goal would be at least a couple
[1:33:22] times the day whether it's for groups
[1:33:24] and then in the morning of breakfast
[1:33:26] or maybe we decide hey let's do tamale lunches like
[1:33:30] we're there to be creative and use a kitchen.
[1:33:32] This is one of our dreams that we've had.
[1:33:34] Every time we're at Alas and we do our programming
[1:33:37] we see that food is needed.
[1:33:39] So I would say we're gonna use a kitchen just as much
[1:33:41] as we can to make meals happen every day.
[1:33:44] I can't say if they're three days a week, three meals a day, but definitely every day.
[1:33:49] Once or twice a day, seven days a week would be your goal.
[1:33:53] I would say that.
[1:33:54] Okay, and when you do an event, is it for five people, 50 people, 100 people?
[1:34:00] I mean, the plan is not just to 100 people in the building, you're going to do other stuff, right?
[1:34:05] I mean, I'm just trying to create clarity around the use case, because this is an important thing.
[1:34:13] and there are other considerations, and aren't necessarily Alessa's responsibility
[1:34:18] or Mercy's responsibility, okay?
[1:34:21] The things that the city may need to do, or we may need to have conversation around
[1:34:25] because the community doesn't expect us to turn a blind eye to the use pattern.
[1:34:30] We're trying to understand it so that we can plan.
[1:34:33] It's not about the quality of the mission.
[1:34:35] It's the number of events that are happening in the frequency.
[1:34:38] So, what I've heard is something that sounds like 20 to 60 people seven days a week.
[1:34:46] Is that about?
[1:34:47] And when I say that predominantly I'm talking about those that live there.
[1:34:53] So, they're coming from the residents that are there, which means they're already there.
[1:35:00] For people who already have their own kitchens, and it's not assisted living. Okay. Yeah, because people have their own kitchens right now, and they still come to Allah's need. And it becomes a really part of cultural celebration, and that's no disrespect. It happens every day at Allah. But he's saying, but he's saying they have a they have a community room and a kitchen already, like that's where they would go. They would go to their kitchen and the community room.
[1:35:28] And I'll just as well as their own kitchen just to close I will say I think the goal of ala's and the group that we're doing is to create an
[1:35:38] Opportunity to celebrate them every day. That celebration looks like a team that is wrapping services around
[1:35:47] That is welcoming them with a warm meal
[1:35:50] Welcome on with food and they're not alone. So maybe they will choose to come out of their apartment because they're sitting there alone
[1:35:58] to come and be part of the Allah's services.
[1:36:02] And I can't say enough about how our senior program right now is benefiting from that.
[1:36:07] I can just go by what I'm seeing.
[1:36:12] Thank you, Buwenda.
[1:36:13] Thank you.
[1:36:14] I would just add one piece that's a little like to the some of the questions about more of the senior housing and senior services and senior foods.
[1:36:25] We haven't, Mercy has a number of properties where there is a co-located senior center or a senior adult day health care.
[1:36:36] We were the 1995, we were the first ones that had agreed to make adult day health care in the ground floor make sense of a 92 unit senior so they could go downstairs and get the services.
[1:36:50] And what Belinda is describing is quite universal actually in terms of people having their own independent apartment and then wanting to go down stairs and have lunch or dinner with people depending on what's offered, you know, as you know, senior co-side has a senior center and adult day so the model is kind of quite well established along those lines but I get your point in terms of usage.
[1:37:20] I'm not questioning that, but I just want to say kind of the bigger picture on the model of senior services.
[1:37:27] That's actually super helpful, so let me clarify.
[1:37:30] In your experience, running other facilities that have a similar type of configuration where there's a first floor set of services.
[1:37:39] You find it to be credible and consistent that the majority of those services are offered for
[1:37:48] for the people who live in the building.
[1:37:50] Actually, yes.
[1:37:52] Great, thank you.
[1:37:53] Thank you.
[1:37:54] Actually, yes.
[1:37:57] So, I'd like to, so just, I mean, sorry, I don't want to keep going with this because we have other stuff to talk about.
[1:38:03] But so, you know, you're, you're talking about, it's a successful model here, but here is, is, is, is, where it is, this is, this is here.
[1:38:16] like the Ted Adcock Center has adult day care and has a senior center and has
[1:38:23] I meant our but that's like next door I know and I was not clear and I should have been I meant our
[1:38:30] mercy housing senior facility down main street that's on the second and third floor of
[1:38:39] senior co-siders senior center and then the adult day health so it's just that close
[1:38:46] But it's not here.
[1:38:47] Okay, thank you.
[1:38:49] And something I'd like to say just so you know the current patterns of Alice, we see around 175 farm workers average per month that come to our services.
[1:39:03] When people need help, we refer them, but if it's a complex issue, it's around three visits that they have.
[1:39:11] We also have, right now, provide food to the farms on Fridays.
[1:39:17] We go and visit the farm workers on Fridays to bring lunch.
[1:39:22] And it's an opportunity for us to check in about what services they need also in those
[1:39:26] moments.
[1:39:27] There are also different groups, like the men's group and the women's group.
[1:39:33] And now we also have La Mesa, La Mesa is the table, but it's basically where we bring
[1:39:38] farm workers with different members of the community so they can get to know each other
[1:39:42] and our staff serve the food. So I'm just saying that so you have an idea of what patterns
[1:39:49] we have right now and there are groups and our groups is usually around 15 people but the
[1:39:56] Corazonio de Oro, which is very popular, is growing and growing.
[1:40:08] So, what happens, we use whatever buildings have available in order to do that. Even La Mesa, sometimes we have done it outside in the patio. So, it would be very useful to have this place. So, the expectation would be moving those services. Some of those services.
[1:40:29] to this location.
[1:40:31] Yeah.
[1:40:31] Great.
[1:40:32] And thank you.
[1:40:43] We are going to take a five minute break.
[1:40:45] We'll be back a quarter to nine.
[1:40:50] Thank you.
[1:40:51] And if everyone could turn off their mic.
[1:53:02] We'd like to call the meeting back to order. And at this time, I would like to ask any of my fellow commissioners if you have more clarifying questions. Okay, go ahead, Commissioner Gorn. So I know we need to start deliberations because we're running out of time. I don't want to run out of time. Okay. So if I could get the, there's just a question that didn't get answered, which is affordable housing tax credit. I don't know your name. The affordable tax, Amy, thank you.
[1:53:33] So, you know, the governor is going to cut it, so I want to, you know, it's going to be,
[1:53:41] I can explain them.
[1:53:44] I don't want to know.
[1:53:45] Exactly.
[1:53:46] What I want to, because you explained before.
[1:53:48] Let him ask the question.
[1:53:49] But I just want to know, like, I know you're just going to reassure me, but I need reassurance.
[1:53:54] I'm buying time until Rainey comes back, because I don't have your answer.
[1:53:59] Oh, okay.
[1:53:59] Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. I didn't want to waste your time. Thank you.
[1:54:08] Can you please
[1:54:09] restate the question? Yes, please. So the question I had before is about the affordable housing
[1:54:16] tax credit, which is a big part of the financing for this project. And so I said I'm imagining
[1:54:24] You're going to reassure me, but I want reassurance, yes, you.
[1:54:31] Like, Ramey, is that right?
[1:54:33] Yes.
[1:54:34] Okay, hi, I'm David.
[1:54:36] So just reassure me that your financing is not going to fall apart.
[1:54:42] Yeah, so the good news is that the low income housing tax credit program is not funded by the state.
[1:54:48] It's administered by the state, but the actual money doesn't come from state coffers.
[1:54:53] It's a federal okay. Oh good. Thank you. It was so funny because when I was out there
[1:55:00] And I'm like, oh, we forgot to address the question of a vote. Okay, thank you.
[1:55:06] So the other question that didn't get answered, that I think maybe is deliberation. I don't know. But I raised this question about the ENA and sort of how this project was different with the first ENA and how the council approved this first negotiating agreement.
[1:55:29] And I wondered about the second ENA, and so maybe I didn't state it right because you told me
[1:55:36] that there is no second ENA, but there is an amendment,
[1:55:46] a second amendment to the ENA,
[1:55:50] which is what I was asking about, which is there's a second ENA, and the second ENA is different
[1:55:57] from the first DNA, and it was, the first DNA was done with City Council approval.
[1:56:03] The second DNA is not, so explain please, because that's done by City staff.
[1:56:12] Tell me about that.
[1:56:12] Can I add to that?
[1:56:14] To that thought, is the original DNA had a development financial
[1:56:23] billed pro forma that was attached to a city staff report and that I believe was in June
[1:56:30] of 2023 and actually it was June 30th I think, well it's June 2023 and in that development
[1:56:40] financial pro forma city council had been informed that there would be 31 studio apartments
[1:56:48] and eight, one bedroom, and then one manager's unit.
[1:56:55] And so that was the action where City Council enabled the staff to engage in this exclusive
[1:57:05] negotiation agreement.
[1:57:08] So I just want to know, you know, had a new development financial perform up and submitted
[1:57:14] to City Council, and did they have a chance to weigh in on that?
[1:57:22] I'm wondering if Matthew might, if we give him a little minute here, be able to respond.
[1:57:28] We don't, I don't advise the City Council and I'm not involved in those negotiations,
[1:57:32] which are sort of separate from this process, but I see him looking things up so maybe we could
[1:57:37] put a pin in that question as well and invite Matthew up when he's ready to respond.
[1:57:42] I
[1:57:54] have a question that's a very different unless you want to continue with the E&A.
[1:57:59] Well, Matthew's looking at that. Maybe it's an engineering question about staging for the project. Where will staging occur?
[1:58:18] I can just take a stab, actually, Rick. The architect might want to talk about that.
[1:58:23] So currently we don't have a contractor on board and they help working on the construction
[1:58:32] staging, but on those plans we generally locate where there's going to be a office facility
[1:58:42] just a few offices, sometimes they place it on site, then they place it possibly on the
[1:58:51] street in front. They work out when they might need a crane location and for how long,
[1:58:58] whether it's on the side or directly adjacent to the site. They'll do all of that and work
[1:59:03] with us on it and work with the team and work with the city and work with the city public
[1:59:09] or department to make sure because they have to get permits for all of those aspects of it.
[1:59:15] They also have conditions generally where we have to have traffic management and they'll have to have flag people at the site at particular times and truck loading and where
[1:59:33] the main street that they come.
[1:59:49] These are worked out with the city and with city staff and with public works and engineering department and all of those things and they require permits.
[2:00:11] Would you mind repeating the question just like to try to answer? Well, maybe Commissioner Gorin will ask and then. Well, so there was a first DNA in October, apparently, right, October. So, so there was an exclusive negotiating agreement signed in October that the city council approved. Correct. So, there's a second DNA signed in April that doesn't look like the city council approved.
[2:00:41] Council approved, so that's what I'm asking. She has a more complicated question, but that's my question.
[2:00:47] I'll answer that question first, and we can jump to her.
[2:00:50] So, in October of 2022, Council directed statute to enter into the ENA, the original
[2:01:00] exclusive negotiations agreement. In June of 2023, the Council authorized us to enter into
[2:01:09] the amended extended exclusive negotiations agreement in April of this year, as part
[2:01:17] of that extended, as part of the original ENA, there was an administrative to
[2:01:25] extend
[2:01:26] the term further. That's what happened in April. So the Council authorized the original
[2:01:31] document, the extension in June of 2023, and then in those documents it gave me authority
[2:01:38] to extend it further which took place in April of this year.
[2:01:41] Okay, because so the changes are significant.
[2:01:46] I mean the changes are, you know, I can't remember with 37 studios to basically all one and two bedroom apartments.
[2:01:57] And so that that seems like a large ask, a large change to not run by the council.
[2:02:10] And for clarity sake, because I have the copy of the pro forma in front of me,
[2:02:16] there were 31 studios, 8 one bedroom units, and one manager's unit for a total of 40 units.
[2:02:24] and that pro forma was attached to the June 23 staff report, I think it was attachment number two.
[2:02:33] That's correct.
[2:02:34] And that is what City Council enabled when they gave direction for you to enter or enable the ENA.
[2:02:42] That's what they were in terms of the scope of the project, they understood it to be that configuration within the four-story building.
[2:02:51] And so my question is, has a new development financial
[2:02:56] performance consistent with Council direction been submitted to you and did City Council weigh in on that?
[2:03:04] The Council hasn't officially weighed in on any of the revised performance at that time.
[2:03:10] It's been an evolution, correct.
[2:03:12] So the next time the Council would weigh in on that would be in the negotiation of the DDLA agreement.
[2:03:19] Okay.
[2:03:20] Oh, okay.
[2:03:20] Thank you.
[2:03:21] Thank you.
[2:03:34] So, go ahead.
[2:03:37] Yes.
[2:03:38] So, June 20th, 2023, the Staff Agenda Report stated that there was going to be 40 units,
[2:03:49] and then City Council provided,
[2:03:57] there was a resolution associated with that, that included
[2:04:03] 40 units as part of it.
[2:04:06] And then in June 28, 2023, the ENA was executed and it extended the term of the ENA to May 3rd.
[2:04:18] And in October 2023, the Planning Commission, sorry, the city received an application for
[2:04:28] for the PDP for the building permit and the Coastal Development Permit, and with the
[2:04:36] five-story 40-unit affordable housing. So the City Council does not know that the
[2:04:43] application has a PDP for a five-story 40-unit affordable housing.
[2:04:51] It's a question.
[2:04:54] The City Council is aware of the current proposal. They've seen the plan.
[2:05:00] They've been briefed on the plans. Oh, so, but, but, okay, so did they know about it? Okay, at this point, they know about it. At this point in time, they know. Correct. Well, everybody knows about it. They were briefed before. Okay. We've got to these. Yes. Okay. Okay. Thanks.
[2:05:21] So, I guess my point is that they didn't prove it. That's all. So, can we start deliberations? Can we do that? So, of course.
[2:05:33] So, 100% affordable housing is amazing, it's what the City Council has asked for, it's
[2:05:42] what they approved. I think that's great.
[2:05:53] Concerns, I do think that we should put conditions
[2:05:57] of approval on this. I think that if the City Council hasn't approved five stories
[2:06:05] and a bunch of other one-bed rooms and a bunch of other office space, and that, you know,
[2:06:17] I have a hard time with that.
[2:06:18] So I would say approve, but using the original RFQ, using the original ENA, and if the council wants to change it, they can change it.
[2:06:29] Because they'll get the whole thing. They'll get the whole thing presented to them.
[2:06:32] But, you know, I feel uncomfortable saying yes to five stories when it is obviously the
[2:06:41] largest building in Afroon Bay, and it doesn't need to be.
[2:06:49] So the original was four stories, it was almost all studios, it was less of a conference
[2:06:57] center, event center, whatever, not resource center.
[2:07:04] So I also,
[2:07:07] there's one other thing that I would attach.
[2:07:11] And that is, I know a loss needs office space.
[2:07:15] I get it.
[2:07:16] They're expanding, they're like the nonprofit of the year.
[2:07:20] They need more office space.
[2:07:22] But I have a hard time saying yes to office space in a 100% affordable housing
[2:07:28] complex. A hundred percent affordable housing means a hundred percent affordable housing.
[2:07:34] I see that mercy needs space to operate, great, like space to operate. That didn't look
[2:07:41] like very much space, but I think the huge space which in my opinion is duplicated in places like
[2:07:51] the Tedotcock Center, the clinic, Alas's own space, whatever, it kind of doesn't matter
[2:08:00] because I know they need the space, but I don't see why we have to build another story
[2:08:07] to get that space because the housing is the important part.
[2:08:14] That's what the City Council approved, that's what they wanted, that's what they asked for,
[2:08:18] That's what the RFQ is for, I would have a condition of approval that it'd be 100% affordable housing because that's what the request was for.
[2:08:34] That would get us down to four stories.
[2:08:38] I hear your concerns, Commissioner Gourne, I strongly suspect that we don't have,
[2:08:49] the flexibility to change the project in the profound ways you're talking about.
[2:08:57] I mean, despite the very far ranging and fascinating discussions of the last three weeks,
[2:09:04] the Planning Commission has a really narrow lane on this.
[2:09:09] We have a really specific job that we're charged with doing.
[2:09:13] And I think explicitly we have to look at the project as it's been presented to us and determine if it's exempt from
[2:09:23] CEQA based on the findings that staff has shared with us.
[2:09:27] And if the project is consistent with the coastal act and the city's general plan and LCP.
[2:09:34] So I understand the motivation, but I think we've got to face up to our responsibility to deal with the proposed project at hand.
[2:09:47] Well, I mean, the Coastal Act, one of the provisions that we talked about is this gateway to the community.
[2:09:53] And if you have a four-story gateway to the community, it's a little less impressive than a five-story.
[2:10:00] And since four stories is what the original project was, and it was originally approved by the council, I think there's really to me no question that that's the proposal that needs to be submitted to the council for approval. And to say that, you know, as a planning commission, we would approve the four-story, but not a five-story. I mean, it seems kind of almost again,
[2:10:29] given to me. So the alas space, I could see we haven't talked about.
[2:10:39] And I don't want
[2:10:40] to obviously love the group, they need the office space, but if the building itself
[2:10:48] is going to be five stories because of it, then I don't want to do that. So if I can
[2:10:59] and rebut you gently again, you know that the State Law would prohibit us from placing limits
[2:11:06] on the building height.
[2:11:08] But we can send it back to counsel as the original ENA and the original RFQ, and not as this.
[2:11:16] And we wouldn't be saying no to the project.
[2:11:20] He's not suggesting that we deny the project.
[2:11:26] Well, I would go ahead, Commissioner Jones.
[2:11:29] I was just going to say I'd welcome staff and the City Attorney's Invitation.
[2:11:34] But before that, I'd like to hear from the commission before we get to staff.
[2:11:40] I'd like to hear evidence that there's some standard for what a major transit stop is because it's applicable to the project.
[2:11:50] And it's not applicable to the height, but it's applicable to the project itself.
[2:11:56] If there is any evidence, if there is a standardized definition, major bus route, sorry,
[2:12:04] not major transit stop.
[2:12:05] I know I've seen the definition of major transit stop, but if there's some standard
[2:12:10] that says micro transit is included and that would be helpful to understand.
[2:12:17] But that said, good.
[2:12:22] I'm more concerned about combining a lot line adjustment with this project.
[2:12:30] And calling and using the CEQA-32 for an infill project, this seems to me that this is an unusual
[2:12:42] lot line adjustment, it's not the norm for this town, it's, you know, or what the city has
[2:12:50] approved for before. We've always approved infill projects for, you know, lower density or
[2:12:55] single family, so this is very unusual, and I haven't heard anything from the city staff talking
[2:13:02] about the exceptions to the Secret 32 condition.
[2:13:10] And so to me, combining a lot line adjustment with this project is not appropriate.
[2:13:18] That should be a separate item, and it should be considered for its possibility
[2:13:25] of a significant effect due to an unusual circumstance.
[2:13:29] I mean, it is not the norm.
[2:13:31] And to me, I think we're switching zones, we're combining everything in one thing
[2:13:36] without any effect on measuring the effect on the land use plan.
[2:13:42] And so that's concerning to me.
[2:13:44] So as far as the CECLA-932 compliance, I see I understand why it's been asked,
[2:13:51] but there are also exceptions to the exemption.
[2:13:53] And we need to understand that better.
[2:13:56] Can I, so I've heard a number of things there, one of them is the change of land use designation.
[2:14:04] I think it's one of the things that came up.
[2:14:05] Okay, so the original explanations in the staff report, I found deficient.
[2:14:11] And I spent a lot of time trying to understand this.
[2:14:15] And so you may have missed my third question on this, but
[2:14:19] But here's how I will translate what happened.
[2:14:26] In this document, in Appendix A, for those of you who are at home, here's what you do in Half Moon Bay when you're really a nerd.
[2:14:37] In Appendix A, there is a explanation that we are changing the land designation of 555 Kelly to
[2:14:51] I'm going to get it wrong, but public facilities, there's a plan to change it to public facilities.
[2:15:00] But these is a planning area, and there is, in the certified LCP, a plan to move that particular land designation, the anticipated zoning is public services, or its PS, so whatever that is, so that's, I actually don't think that it is unusual, and the explanation we got was deficient, but I'm actually confident that that is, can that part is consistent,
[2:15:29] The change of the land use designation is consistent with the LCP.
[2:15:33] I think we'd be, I feel confident that it's covered and I don't think it's that unusual.
[2:15:42] And maybe City staff hasn't.
[2:15:44] So, and that might be fine, but there is an unusual circumstance that prompted
[2:15:52] sequel not to be enforced, but there's an exception to that, because this infill lot
[2:15:57] has now created a lot of other issues regarding circulation, parking.
[2:16:02] All of that stuff would have been looked at.
[2:16:05] Well, parking wouldn't have been looked at under sequa, but traffic would.
[2:16:10] So if traffic is the concern, let's talk about traffic for sequa, let's dig into it.
[2:16:14] Because, and safety is the other issue.
[2:16:16] And let's talk.
[2:16:17] So, so all I'd like to tackle safety and maybe have a broader discussion here, because
[2:16:25] is when we approved the gym, they were already known issues with the crosswalk.
[2:16:34] And the staff report talks about a known concern, I'll call it, I'm not going to,
[2:16:40] I may not remember the exact word, but there are issues that have been observed and
[2:16:44] seen this evening, we saw some of those types of things with a congestion at the intersection.
[2:16:52] At the end of the day, the city is the applicant, I think, is responsible for
[2:16:58] addressing the issue. I don't think mercy as the affordable housing owner should be tagged
[2:17:07] with fixing this intersection. And so is
[2:17:17] this project going, is there evidence that this
[2:17:19] project is going to make the situation worse or not? That's finding that we all have to
[2:17:26] make individually. But I think what would be helpful is if instead of us trying to
[2:17:31] call through the evidence, which some of us have asked questions about, I don't know
[2:17:36] if your question ever got answered about what was the scope of the work that was defined
[2:17:41] for the transit study, okay? So there's questions that haven't been answered around the scope
[2:17:46] of transit and transportation analysis that was done. At the end of the day, this intersection
[2:17:55] can support a lot of things, but I think what I would lean towards is rather than try to focus
[2:18:00] on the safety issue of Sequoia here, let's get the city, let's assign the city responsibility
[2:18:08] to go fix it. And we can't create something that's not on the agenda, but we can make a strong
[2:18:17] recommendation to the City Council as planning commission that says, look, if you're going to do this
[2:18:23] Before you get an occupancy permit, it's a strong recommendation that you fix this intersection
[2:18:30] because we've received testimony that's already unsafe, and this project may or may not have an impact,
[2:18:38] but there's other stuff that's coming that needs to be addressed, and we don't want somebody
[2:18:43] in a walker getting nailed by somebody who's upset because they had to wait in line
[2:18:48] and they missed the traffic light, right?
[2:18:51] Like, yeah, and so, and there's been no, I received, I saw the testimony or the statement
[2:18:59] from the city staff that said there have been no accidents at that particular intersection
[2:19:03] in five years.
[2:19:05] Just for the reported.
[2:19:06] I'm sorry, it's just for the record, which intersection are you talking about?
[2:19:10] The event center.
[2:19:11] So if we walk out this door and you go to the event center, there's a crosswalk there.
[2:19:15] So that's a specific intersection that I'm talking about.
[2:19:18] I'm not talking about Kelly and Highway 1, where we know there have been traffic
[2:19:23] incidents, car on pedestrian accidents.
[2:19:27] I'm just talking about here.
[2:19:28] Supposedly, there have been no pedestrian-reported incidents at that intersection
[2:19:33] from the staff report.
[2:19:35] Kelsa, perhaps it wasn't a pedestrian, but there was a car and a bicycle accident
[2:19:38] there, and somebody perished.
[2:19:41] And recently, yes, in the last year.
[2:19:43] Oh, I didn't. That should have been in the staff report.
[2:19:46] It was a, it was, yes, there was an incident there, and I think the, I person died.
[2:19:57] So, is this, how, how do you guys?
[2:20:00] Well, I have, I mean, the project could be approved with a lot of conditions, and I have prepared a lot of conditions that I would like to have seat to see on this. But I don't think this it's, again, I don't think it's appropriate for us to say the affordable. Of all the projects that have come before us that have been put at this intersection, the one that might arguably be the least impactful based on traditional standards that we've been presented with here.
[2:20:30] is this, so it's just, is this project? The gym arguably created more issues, right?
[2:20:37] And we, yeah, but it's there. So my suggestion would be, we take this as a separate
[2:20:45] item and provide feedback to the City Council to fix the intersection.
[2:20:50] But that's okay, if you don't want to go there, that's fine.
[2:20:51] No, I'd rather approve this project with conditions requesting the City to conduct
[2:20:55] certain studies, and not the applicant, and until those analysis are done or certain
[2:21:02] things that are done, by the city government, this project will be very successful.
[2:21:08] But it depends on the city government to take charge of the issues that we're finding
[2:21:14] because we are limited by, let's just say, the infill issue is okay.
[2:21:19] We're limited by understanding the true issues and impacts community-wide.
[2:21:24] And this is something that had we've been able to do a sequa analysis, we would have been finding all this and
[2:21:31] created mitigation on this.
[2:21:33] And so it's, to me, it's important that this very important project is not placed on notice that they have to do anything.
[2:21:42] The city's responsibility, the city took charge of this, the city donated is leasing the land.
[2:21:48] The city requested this, so the city has to take certain responsibility.
[2:21:53] So, again, I'm not sure how we can, I guess my question, so sticking with safety,
[2:22:00] is there a legal way for us to think about that in relation to this project.
[2:22:06] Matt's here as the representative of the city, maybe he can weigh in on opinion, but
[2:22:11] I don't know if we have the authority to do that, I guess that's it.
[2:22:14] But the city is, I guess, a co-applicant of the prior, they're not.
[2:22:18] No, they're not, they're not.
[2:22:21] Is there a legal way?
[2:22:22] A lot of this, I think, could be addressed in the DDLA.
[2:22:28] Okay, so, Winter, could you help us with this?
[2:22:33] Yeah, I wasn't sure if you wanted me to weigh in.
[2:22:35] There have been a couple of questions, I think, aimed towards me.
[2:22:40] Yeah, I don't think we can add a condition of approval to Mercy's CDP requiring the city to do something.
[2:22:49] We did put in the staff report that the city is working on with the neighboring users on the traffic and intersection issues.
[2:23:02] So, again, I don't think we can require mercy to, I mean, we can't require the city to do something in mercy's CDP, that's going to be tricky.
[2:23:13] Okay, so you can make a recommendation, you can talk to Matthew about what the city is already doing.
[2:23:18] Can we require mercy to obtain from the city a traffic mitigation for the intersection?
[2:23:31] What mitigation?
[2:23:33] All
[2:23:39] right.
[2:23:40] So could a condition of approval, and I'm trying to understand what you said, could a condition of approval be?
[2:23:47] the, based on the completion of the city completing its safety element,
[2:23:55] what do you want to be based on that, the approval?
[2:23:59] Yes,
[2:24:01] or the city can, or the HCD approving the housing element because it's all tied to our findings, right?
[2:24:11] Or the city, the city's completion of analysis that affect the, you know,
[2:24:22] parking, a citywide parking plan, or the city adopting a parking plan.
[2:24:28] I mean, there's a lot of things the city can do that can help this project be successful.
[2:24:35] I think what we've typically seen and what might be a more conventional approach is if
[2:24:40] you are inclined to approve the project, sometimes we will say applicant to report back with
[2:24:47] additional information after the fact, so if there's some additional information that
[2:24:51] you would want sort of an update on later, that would be something that
[2:25:00] But you could request but I don't know how we can condition approval on something that's happening in the future. That would essentially just be delaying the approval until what's happening in the future. Okay, I understand that. However, we do have a HCD that has been specified here that is going approval is going to happen in the future, and we still cited as a compliance. So I don't understand the difference between not having an approved HCD.
[2:25:29] and requesting for the safe element to be updated and things like that.
[2:25:35] There's a different, I mean is there a difference?
[2:25:37] I don't know, I just don't see the thread of logic.
[2:25:43] Yes, so we're reviewing this application based on the laws that is now, there's no need for
[2:25:50] the housing element, the new housing element to be certified in order to approve this project.
[2:25:59] So, some of the policies that were cited did cite that this project was in the HCD and it cited it as compliance.
[2:26:07] So, that confused me a little bit.
[2:26:09] So, I guess we don't need to look at that and say that that is in compliance.
[2:26:16] I'm not sure what you mean in the HCD.
[2:26:20] I'm sorry, in one of the policies, the housing element conformance policy 2-5.
[2:26:31] And
[2:26:39] I think we did provide some analysis of each of those policies, so I can pull that up and
[2:26:44] see and respond more fully once I have it up.
[2:26:51] I think that's the policy that speaks to focusing housing element sites within town,
[2:26:57] center, and using the workforce housing overlay, encouraging the use of the WHO.
[2:27:07] That's policy 2-5, I think.
[2:27:09] It's 2-102.
[2:27:11] Yes, so that policy actually is directing the city when it does its housing element inventory.
[2:27:21] To focus that inventory on providing adequate sites within the town center and through the workforce housing overlay land use designations.
[2:27:30] So we noted that this really isn't a project specific policy.
[2:27:36] It's about guiding the city's development of the housing element.
[2:27:39] So we think that, you know, regardless we think this is consistent with the general idea of that policy since this would be focusing housing element inventory in the town center and through the workforce housing overly.
[2:28:05] Through the chair, I'd like to come back to Commissioner Hernandez, because I thought we were making a little bit of progress, talking about safety, but did you have a specific in mind when you.
[2:28:18] you as a goal or an outcome when you talked about mitigation at that intersection?
[2:28:26] I'd like to see the city come back with a definition of what needs to happen.
[2:28:32] And a plan to mitigate it and a time frame when that will be mitigated.
[2:28:38] Ideally, it'd be great if we could get it done before occupancy starts, but
[2:28:42] that puts a condition on the applicant, which basically delays their
[2:28:48] permit. So what I'm looking for is a way for us to look, it's been 10 years since we
[2:28:54] approved the gym and we got a crosswalk at the time. And no other substantial improvements
[2:29:00] have been made. And maybe they don't need to be paid, but we've heard evidence to the
[2:29:05] contrary that it's an existing problem and we've observed it ourselves and somebody has
[2:29:14] So I'm maybe looking for Matt or to step in and say is there something that the city would be willing to do or a suggestion that the city has for us to how we can address this?
[2:29:27] Yeah, I think my first question would be what evidence have we heard to the contrary that that's not a safe crossing?
[2:29:34] Well,
[2:29:38] we've received testimony that somebody died at the intersection.
[2:29:42] We've heard parents who have reported the safety concerns of their children who are in the park to create.
[2:29:47] Just for this hearing, who were parked across the street at the Boys and Girls Club.
[2:29:52] And there's the observed behavior of what happens at that intersection when there's congestion for the last three hearing.
[2:30:00] So is there evidence the city has that that's a safe intersection? Well, I think we had the traffic analysis completed and in fact no issues. I understand that you all have questions about the scope. I will remind you that that traffic analysis was not necessarily legally necessary for this project because the, if I understand correctly, please correct me if I'm wrong, because this project
[2:30:30] to qualify for super density bonus exceptions, we didn't need to do that, it was done in collaboration with the applicants to address the concerns we heard in the community that this would cause traffic issues.
[2:30:44] As far as the accident you're describing, we can get more information but my understanding of it wasn't about the intersection. It was Kelly Avenue.
[2:30:53] So, I think we have to be careful to attribute an accident on Kelly Avenue to what is the driveway.
[2:31:01] You know, I want to be careful not to call it an intersection, it's a driveway.
[2:31:05] Sotomayor, let me summarize.
[2:31:06] There's a perception in the public that this is an unsafe intersection.
[2:31:11] The evidence you have from the traffic study indicates that it is not, in fact, an unsafe
[2:31:15] intersection. And the traffic study was conducted on a moderately busy day, we've already determined.
[2:31:26] So it's not like you cherry picked a lowest 25% performance day, and there is no safety issue at that intersection.
[2:31:36] That's the city's position.
[2:31:38] I can't unequivocally say that there's no safety issue, but we have a traffic study that says there's no significant impacts when there's very clear.
[2:31:44] there. Okay, thank you. So is there a safety issue at the intersection or not?
[2:31:54] Well, I think the cumulative impact will make it unsafe, but I don't really see, I thought
[2:32:03] you were bringing Matt up to talk about, like, what could we possibly do to attach a condition of
[2:32:09] approval, because I don't really see one. I don't quite get how we would say to the council,
[2:32:15] well, we have to fix that intersection before we approve this project, because, you know,
[2:32:21] in what I'm saying, we should separate them, but I think there's a general concern
[2:32:26] this intersection doesn't pass the eye test, so I, I, again, is there something, would
[2:32:33] you be comfortable with us saying, hey, yes, tell City Council to do something about
[2:32:39] this intersection so that it feels safer, it's easier to move around, people aren't
[2:32:43] running at diagonal angles, there's a, you know, multiple places across and maybe even consider a traffic light.
[2:32:50] Could you, is there something we can do to address this now versus waiting five to ten years?
[2:32:55] Well, I think obviously, of course, there are things that we can do.
[2:32:59] We have professional staff, we work with consultants, we look at intersections all the time based on community concerns,
[2:33:05] even if the intersections meet all of the requirements for a safe crossing or intersection.
[2:33:11] I think the question though is, is there a condition of approval that could require this?
[2:33:17] I can't answer that question, that's a legal question.
[2:33:21] I can certainly take a recommendation to the council and I can direct my staff to look at this crossing in the context of this project and identify safety improvements if necessary that could be done here.
[2:33:36] I will say that in response to what we heard in the first meeting, and what I heard was
[2:33:43] less about this being an unsafe crossing, and more concerns that the Boys and Girls Club
[2:33:51] believed that they needed the parking in our parking lot to create safe pickup and drop
[2:33:58] off of their students.
[2:34:00] And so we have a meeting with them tomorrow to begin, and the coonier principal, to discuss
[2:34:05] us alternative pickup and drop off options that hopefully will be safer than crossing a major street.
[2:34:13] Hopefully, we'll allow them to do pickup and drop off on the side of the street that the event center is.
[2:34:19] So I could certainly, and I'm willing to and happy to commit, regardless of what happens tonight,
[2:34:27] that we will have my staff look at this crossing and do whatever analysis we can to determine
[2:34:35] if there are safety improvements needed here with or without this project.
[2:34:40] That's, I mean, that's within my authority and it's something I can do.
[2:34:43] I like that idea.
[2:34:46] I mean, you've done it with, you're doing it now with Redondo Beach Road when all the
[2:34:50] residents came out.
[2:34:51] So I trust that you will look at this because we want it safe for the senior farm workers
[2:34:57] that will potentially live there, you know, the kids that are
[2:35:00] We're being dropped off across the street and whatever circulation plan the school creates for them. So I would be happy with that, Matthew. Thank you.
[2:35:11] I would just thank you for that. Can you use realistic numbers, like in terms of the addition of cars?
[2:35:20] Can we use top 5% usage weekends as a standard?
[2:35:26] And for this project, we're ignoring a few things on purpose.
[2:35:31] So we're ignoring that there will be a lot of visitors.
[2:35:36] They will use a lot of parking.
[2:35:38] There will be a lot more traffic in and out of that driveway.
[2:35:42] So just use realistic numbers when you're doing that.
[2:35:45] not just the, you know, 40 couples who 30% don't have cars, like that's not real, okay, that's all, thanks.
[2:35:55] I will consult with our Public Works Director, City Engineer, to try to develop the best standard for what's realistic here.
[2:36:01] Yeah, I think, I want to be careful that we're not attacking city staff.
[2:36:07] I think people are operating in good faith, it's just, it's hard to pull all of these things together and
[2:36:13] and draw the perfect conclusion, especially when there's a lot of aspirations signed to this project but no clear use plan in many cases.
[2:36:22] And so I think it's we're hearing overwhelming feedback from everybody from everywhere all at once.
[2:36:32] And so we're trying to process that and communicate the concern of we want everybody just wants to get the intersection addressed.
[2:36:42] That's the focus, and that would, I think, go a long way towards bringing everybody
[2:36:46] else along for this particular project, and that's part of what we want to do.
[2:36:51] And to your point, I don't feel attacked.
[2:36:53] I don't feel attacked.
[2:36:55] I just want to make sure that-
[2:36:56] I want to make sure, you know, it's clear, we're going to operate from, you know, standards
[2:37:03] and reality and not from fears.
[2:37:05] But I think a lot of this is fear driven, and we want to make sure we're operating
[2:37:09] do you meet from a more realistic?
[2:37:11] You operate in this sphere all the time, so I know you used to take in the feedback,
[2:37:15] but I think we should look at the top five percent usage weekends, like busy weekends.
[2:37:20] Because tonight was a very busy weekend for this particular intersection,
[2:37:24] and it's an example of, they were observable, unsafe situations, right?
[2:37:29] And that's okay, it happens.
[2:37:31] Fortunately, nobody was injured, and there's a lot of energy, which is great.
[2:37:36] It's good to have that at a planning commission meeting.
[2:37:39] Okay, I'd like to, are we covered on the safety principles?
[2:37:43] Thank you, Matthew.
[2:37:44] Thanks, Matt.
[2:37:45] I'd like to talk about, again,
[2:37:52] same vein, there's an issue around parking, which is not the applicant's responsibility to deal with.
[2:38:01] But it's the same issue that's being raised, and there is a plan to have a plan for parking.
[2:38:11] And there's some conditions of approval that have been changed.
[2:38:14] But my view is that, and I'm always have to filter things, right?
[2:38:22] Some people say there's going to be no impact.
[2:38:24] Some people are going to be, say it's the end of the farmer's market as we know it.
[2:38:28] My God, and some people are just, man, it's going to be really hard to park.
[2:38:32] And there's lots of different opinions there.
[2:38:35] What we were supposed to do in 1995 under the downtown specific plan is we were supposed to come up with a
[2:38:43] traffic management program for this area.
[2:38:46] And it hasn't happened.
[2:38:49] And we are increasing use for lots of different ways.
[2:38:52] So same thing, I'd like to see something more substantial for the parking.
[2:38:57] It's not the applicant's responsibility.
[2:38:59] I think that the city, though, is the sponsor of the project is the person who's conveying the use
[2:39:04] the use of the property, I think we need to come up with a more coherent plan for the area.
[2:39:09] And I think that's another piece of direction that we have to do as part of this project because it's not the applicant.
[2:39:17] It's not the affordable housing projects responsibility to fix the parking issue.
[2:39:22] It's the city's responsibility to get it done, I don't think we can hang it on the project.
[2:39:28] I think that's really important.
[2:39:29] So Matt, if you're the same direction, we'd like to just make sure that we have something that's
[2:39:35] more substantial and really addresses the concerns of not soaking up all the parking.
[2:39:41] And so that we can keep things like the farmer's market running.
[2:39:43] We can keep that awesome hub of the city, something that's accessible and usable by people.
[2:39:50] And I know I read the traffic, the parking study, and I appreciate what it says.
[2:39:55] But I am a little skeptical of it, I'll just leave it at that.
[2:40:00] And again, we hear lots of feedback from lots of people. Some people throw up fud just to make a project go away. I get that, but it's, I think a legitimate concern from a lot of people. And it's not just the naysayers, if you will.
[2:40:16] So my opinion is the parking will change substantially, and I thought that the explanation
[2:40:29] of parking was poor, we're being sold on, it's just not going to have any impact,
[2:40:47] it's
[2:40:47] 39 studio or not 39 it was 31 and eight or whatever that if there was mostly studios
[2:40:56] Then really you would have a lot less because you would not have families living there and you wouldn't have
[2:41:02] More cars not just from the families, but from people visiting those families
[2:41:06] You know
[2:41:09] If it skews old
[2:41:12] 55 isn't exactly old, but if it skews old
[2:41:17] Then there is a slightly less impact because people do use their cars less, own cars less.
[2:41:25] I get that a little bit.
[2:41:26] But if you have all one bedrooms, it's going to skew younger, and it's going to be more
[2:41:31] people, and it's going to be more use, and we haven't even talked about alas using this
[2:41:39] the space for events and how all those events are going to impact it on a daily basis.
[2:41:47] All the people who come in cars to pick up food to bring to the farm workers,
[2:41:51] all the people who come in cars to drop off food to the people who live there.
[2:41:58] I mean, there's just going to, when you have older people, there's going to be more visitors on a daily basis.
[2:42:05] So, I just feel like you need to limit the number of people that are there and limit
[2:42:11] the size of the units.
[2:42:14] Otherwise, you're going to have a bigger and bigger parking problem.
[2:42:19] If super-density plays a part here, I don't think there's anything we can do.
[2:42:24] I think the fact that all of this is, or Mercy is coming to us and saying, hey, we're
[2:42:30] willing to reduce this down.
[2:42:32] A significant amount is helpful, I do think this is, I mean we can make a recommendation on this would be like from a planning perspective going from 85 to 118 people, which is kind of the rate 118 people is I think the upper bound for this complex with the number of people we have here.
[2:42:56] So, changing 20 or 30 residents by itself, I don't think it's going to have a material, my opinion, I don't think it's going to impact parking 100%.
[2:43:10] I think the bigger issue is we need to come up with a parking plan for that area.
[2:43:15] And I think if City Council wants to provide direction on reducing the number of units, then okay, that's fine.
[2:43:26] But I don't know so I don't I don't think we have the ability to do it under super density law
[2:43:31] But well, I think we do because we could send it back for what the city council already approved
[2:43:37] Okay, like we're not saying you know, we're not limiting the height or saying that the city council
[2:43:44] approved a project
[2:43:46] Our NRFQ the ENA and so we're going to send it back to them
[2:43:51] In that shape they can always change it if they want to but I think that
[2:43:56] we need to be mindful of how much impact it is going to have. I mean, it really will.
[2:44:09] There's no doubt about the impact. And so, you know, I think it's fair game to send
[2:44:17] it back to the council as it was instead of as it is.
[2:44:20] But we're asked to look at an application for a PDP that has five stories, and that's
[2:44:33] what our purview is right now.
[2:44:35] And so I'm just, I understand what you're saying, and I think, you know, whatever the planning
[2:44:40] commission wishes to do, but I can't connect that dot yet.
[2:44:44] Because it's what the Council has approved, where we're sending back to the Council what it has approved.
[2:44:51] I'll try and thread the needle.
[2:44:53] Don't creep is very real here.
[2:45:00] I would like to thread the needle and state that. And, Rick, you asked this in your question number 10, and I went through the answer. And you were, you asked about the fact, hey, the city owns the land, you know, can we redirect some of the two bedrooms to go back to studios? Okay, so I don't need to repeat your question number 10. It's in the, on the town website. But city staff or council said that the city council has authority to decide
[2:45:29] what to do with City on land.
[2:45:32] The City Council has authorized mercy housing to apply for a CDP for this project, and
[2:45:38] has entered into an ENA with mercy to enable this application.
[2:45:44] And when City Council approved that ENA, the pro forma attached to that stated 31 studios and
[2:45:52] 9-1 bedroom apartments.
[2:45:54] And that's what they then directed City staff to do.
[2:45:59] the enactment of the ENA, so that's where we get back to the original proposal that was approved by the City Council in the June 2023 meeting.
[2:46:14] And since that time, a new, what they call it, a development financial performance has not been submitted that shows five stories,
[2:46:25] increase size to the resource center, and the number of two bedrooms that had changed.
[2:46:33] So anyway, that's it.
[2:46:35] I hope that makes sense, and I'm
[2:46:44] sorry, Matt.
[2:46:45] I'm hoping I can make a quick clarification, and I apologize for not having all this information
[2:46:49] earlier.
[2:46:50] Obviously, this has been a long process, and a lot has happened in the last few years.
[2:46:55] I want to clarify a couple things, I'm not sure it impacts a discussion, but I think it's important to get the record clear.
[2:47:04] All the council, and I think you did a great job, Chair Powell, sort of clarifying it, that the council authorize the ENA.
[2:47:10] They have not approved any project, they've authorized an ENA, based on the evolution of this project, and I was able to confirm some dates.
[2:47:19] So the five-story current, not the exact current, because it evolved with the AAC hearings, that CDP application was submitted June, or I don't know exactly the date, but it was seen by the AAC June 8 of 2023.
[2:47:40] The council was briefed before the June 20th meeting.
[2:47:45] And I'm not saying I cannot speak for the council on this.
[2:47:49] They were aware of how this project had evolved, that it was a five-story project with the mix that was presented to you here when they approved the extension of the ENA.
[2:48:02] I'm not saying that they said this is the project we're approving, but
[2:48:06] But they had full understanding of how the project had evolved at that point when they authorize the extension of the NA.
[2:48:14] Again, the NA is not approval of a project or even them saying we agree with this project.
[2:48:22] What I'm saying is if we're going to say that they didn't know what they were approving at that time, they did.
[2:48:28] that those plans were submitted well in advance of that June 20th meeting.
[2:48:33] And they had been briefed on it at that time.
[2:48:36] Sotomayor, do you mean the five-story, because this is correct?
[2:48:39] Because this is very different, and it states it's in the staff report, it states and it was on consent.
[2:48:50] And I don't know if the pro forma had not been updated, I don't know, but.
[2:48:54] But that whole plan has been submitted at five stories with the two bedroom units.
[2:49:02] That was public information, and the council had been briefed on that iteration that that's where we are at the time.
[2:49:09] Okay, because I did go through the packet there, and I didn't see the new plan.
[2:49:14] No, they weren't attached.
[2:49:15] They were not attached to the staff report.
[2:49:17] That's why I didn't see that.
[2:49:18] And that's why I don't want to create an impression that the council blessed this version
[2:49:23] They haven't approved anything because they haven't approved any of these things.
[2:49:27] You gave them an update and said there's this thing coming along, and right now it's
[2:49:30] five stories.
[2:49:31] They've seen the plans, and they were public documents, and they had already gone through
[2:49:36] the first round of AAC review.
[2:49:38] Was it like a five-minute conversation, or was it a, like, it was more than a conversation?
[2:49:43] It was on consent, so they didn't, they didn't discuss it at all at that meeting.
[2:49:48] I'm going to leave it at that.
[2:49:50] our council is well aware of where things were going. I think I probably let this get
[2:49:55] out of the scope of what we should be talking about. I just wanted to clarify that with
[2:50:00] It's a record, the timing, because it seems that that is being used for some of the decision making tonight.
[2:50:10] Thank you, yeah. I just wanted to note that the application that was submitted was signed by a representative of the city as the landowner.
[2:50:22] So I don't think that any deviation from what was in the ENA is a basis to deny the project here.
[2:50:31] However, so I would just recommend that if you're considering conditions or denial that it be based on
[2:50:38] Consistency with the Coastal Act and the local Coastal Land Use Plan. Of course, if you want to, you know, make comments as we have,
[2:50:46] you know, raise concerns that the City Council may want to consider the change in scope as part of their in their capacity as a
[2:50:56] That's fine, but I would not recommend making that the basis for changes to the project or a denial of the project.
[2:51:04] Thank you, winter.
[2:51:06] Through the chair.
[2:51:09] So I continue to believe we have to make a decision on the project at hand, and I believe it would be illegal to try to fudge around with parking limits.
[2:51:19] And I do agree with Commissioner Hernandez that parking is an issue in that bigger region.
[2:51:26] And to be honest, I mean, everything that will happen in the city in the next five or
[2:51:32] ten years, if it has anything to do with downtown viability,
[2:51:36] a more healthier businesses on Main Street, more people moving into new residences,
[2:51:42] more mixed use, retail, and residential things are going to be a burden on parking.
[2:51:49] So we don't realize how spoiled we have been with our parking in Hathman Bay and it's not going to
[2:51:57] continue this way. We're all going to have to wrap our minds around the fact if you, if you want
[2:52:03] me to, I'll take you around a choice places on the peninsula where you'd thank your stars if you
[2:52:09] were able to park within two blocks of the store you want to shop at. So anyway, I am in favor of
[2:52:16] If the idea of us encouraging the city, perhaps not putting it all on the city manager, but through our city council contacts to prioritize a look at housing.
[2:52:30] I'm sorry, look at parking not only in the region of where we are right now, but throughout downtown.
[2:52:37] But don't you can't, there's nothing we can do about it with this specific project.
[2:52:44] I have a couple of things, and I'm wondering if these can be, what I'm about to say can be
[2:52:51] conditions of approval. Perhaps if Mercy can figure out how their work force for the
[2:53:00] construction travels here. I don't know how many more cars are going to be coming here.
[2:53:06] I don't know how many more trucks or whatever. But is it possible for Mercy to have like a pool
[2:53:12] transportation from wherever they're bringing folks in to here and then have an
[2:53:19] agreement with somebody to have parking away from this area during construction.
[2:53:25] And then also figure out where you stage all your equipment at a different location and
[2:53:33] maybe even carpooling people from that location to the site so that the traffic in here is not a problem.
[2:53:42] So, it's things like that that I would also like to see mercy look at.
[2:53:49] And then, you know, because of the construction workers and they're going to be working here
[2:53:53] all the time, this is just a thing I'm asking.
[2:53:58] Would somebody like all us provide daily meals for the construction workers?
[2:54:02] I mean, I think that would be a good thing.
[2:54:06] So I'm just, I'm, look, I'm just putting it out there.
[2:54:09] Let's talk about it.
[2:54:10] I mean, maybe it's not going to matter at all.
[2:54:14] I mean, there's a question of what is the current traffic plan, sorry, I had to jump in.
[2:54:24] What is the state, what is the plan for construction?
[2:54:27] There are typically conditions of approval.
[2:54:29] We don't want to have construction workers parking in Shoreline.
[2:54:33] So we need to just make sure that one of the conditions of approval is the city,
[2:54:37] shall adopt a man at parking management plan, that addresses
[2:54:46] the limited parking capacity at Shoreline Station.
[2:54:49] And I'm sure City can put something, the staff can put something together.
[2:54:52] I don't think we need to burden all of us with-
[2:54:55] Well, they might want to do that, I mean, because it's, you know, helping with it.
[2:54:58] It's on our, it's on our...
[2:55:00] The things that maybe you can think about if you want to come back with additional things. The other thing is maybe, you know, a lot of companies, we can't do that, we can't do that, though, just like that's not something we can ask us to do. We can ask to have a coherent parking plan as part of this project that does not interfere with the normal business of shoreline station. I think that's fine. That's fine. Okay.
[2:55:29] What about hiring project managers that live on the coast side, including a 10% preference for
[2:55:34] hiring local workforce for all construction trades?
[2:55:43] Does the city have a standard on local trade?
[2:55:53] So in other words, trying to employ more of construction workers on the coast.
[2:55:56] That's what I'm trying to get at.
[2:55:58] Local workforce for the project?
[2:56:00] Yes, a, you know, a condition to say that there's a preference for that.
[2:56:05] that? Can you recognize winner?
[2:56:12] Yeah, I was just going to suggest, and of course it's up to you, but I'm wondering if you
[2:56:17] maybe want to get all the ideas on the table and get a motion together so that I can understand
[2:56:22] whether these conditions are something that are part of a motion that is going forward and
[2:56:28] And then we can talk about it, you know, we can point to there are already some conditions
[2:56:35] of approval related to construction plans and encroachment permits in right of way and
[2:56:40] things like that.
[2:56:41] So we could come through and see if any of those need kind of beefing up, but it might be
[2:56:50] helpful just to get everything on the table and get a sense of which ones the commission wants
[2:56:54] to pursue before diving into each one.
[2:57:01] So there's things for the CDP, but we also have architectural review, which we haven't done yet.
[2:57:08] So I'll just hit a couple of points on architectural review and just provide feedback to the applicant.
[2:57:15] We don't have clear objective design criteria for downtown Half Moon Bay.
[2:57:19] We have a pattern of design feedback that we normally go through, which one of those steps was missed in this project, not your fault.
[2:57:31] We also didn't provide you as a city, did not provide you we as a city, did not provide you with clear design guidelines up front as to what conforms with our expectations of downtown.
[2:57:44] And so I think it's, there's been a process with AAC where the
[2:57:55] sum of the feedback was heard and some of it was incorporated.
[2:57:58] Other pieces of feedback that members of AAC regard as critical were ignored.
[2:58:04] At this point for a project of this scope given the fact that you weren't given what I would consider to be clear design criteria upfront.
[2:58:17] It's hard for me to burden you with things.
[2:58:19] I will say you've made progress on this.
[2:58:22] What I would say for AAC that we should be looking at from architectural review perspective is, first of all,
[2:58:29] it's functional, it's safe, it meets all the building standards.
[2:58:32] Those things are fine, the patio area upstairs seems like a fantastic design.
[2:58:40] I am for a project as exceptional as this in terms of size.
[2:58:47] It doesn't have very strong character and it doesn't incorporate major architectural styles found in the rest of half of the bay and I'll focus on three things.
[2:58:59] One, the major building material is like a sandstone brick, some most prominent material, especially if you come around the back side of the building.
[2:59:08] If I understand it correctly, whatever that for the Towers, what's in the Towers?
[2:59:17] Maybe we could open it up.
[2:59:19] Can you come up to the mic?
[2:59:21] Yes, let's just hear you.
[2:59:22] Thanks.
[2:59:24] The primary material of the four-story elements is the five-story.
[2:59:30] Of the four-story elements, which are the two wings face on to Kelly and face on the site
[2:59:37] drive that have the vertical lines in the drawing.
[2:59:41] those are that's Bordenbatten which is very common to the town and then the
[2:59:49] predominant brown which is a center which is the five-story element is shingles
[2:59:55] is cement for cement board changes.
[3:00:00] So those are very common in Half Room Bay and throughout the coast, every place.
[3:00:09] The appearance that I've seen in the architectural, this is my first chance to give feedback on this.
[3:00:16] Comes across as a brick type interface.
[3:00:21] If it's shingles, it's shingles, but it seems foreign in design to Half Room Bay.
[3:00:30] I would encourage you to look at the materials and make sure the color and the texture is consistent with other buildings in downtown.
[3:00:38] The third thing is a piece of feedback from what I have is just on the roof lines.
[3:00:42] There are these pieces of, I'm not even sure how you describe an ornamentation that's been attached to the underside of the roof in an effort to the brackets to conform with perceived design.
[3:00:55] I'm not aware of any design in the downtown half moon bay that uses that particular approach.
[3:01:02] I think this is an acceptable design.
[3:01:05] I would encourage you to look at the project on Perissima and Mill, the relatively new project.
[3:01:17] I think this is one that my understanding as Chad Hooker was trying to have you guys maybe take a look at that.
[3:01:23] It's a softer brow line, it pushes the roof back, and it incorporates elements that hide the massing of the building, and it might be more effective for blending the building in.
[3:01:33] It would be my suggestion.
[3:01:34] I'm not going to say you need to change anything.
[3:01:37] At this point, you've got a design, you've got nowhere you are.
[3:01:40] But I think the other benefit you would get by doing that is it could also create a windbreak for you that has a double effect.
[3:01:47] It makes it easier to use the space and it makes heights the mass a little bit more.
[3:01:55] I can just say that we're always open,
[3:02:02] huge changes to the building, including flipping the open space,
[3:02:07] to achieve the program that was required.
[3:02:12] Those recommendations will take them into consideration and if we feel we can do it within and
[3:02:24] working with staff, then we would gladly continue to look at the refinements of it.
[3:02:29] I would give a strong, we've done this in the past, I'd give a stronger recommendation to staff to work with you, to better incorporate the design so that it's more consistent with what we see in Half Moon Bay.
[3:02:44] And I think you guys have made a lot of progress, I just think we, I want every project in downtown to be outstanding, I'm willing to accept above average and I think we can get well above average on this project.
[3:02:57] And I think that for especially for something of such an exceptional size and such an exceptional position,
[3:03:05] I think we could do a little bit more and I would give a lot of flexibility with staff to work with you to tighten up the design.
[3:03:13] And that would be a condition of approval that I would attach from an architectural review perspective.
[3:03:18] The other thing is you're welcome.
[3:03:20] And then the other thing is on the mural, I would strongly encourage we have a process for
[3:03:27] We're putting murals up and so I would encourage the applicant to consider working with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission to like work with their program for putting murals together totally at your discretion I think but they've done a good job of citing and providing feedback on materials and making things work in a way that's, you know we've got some very good successes with and some of the murals that having gone through them
[3:03:57] Maybe they're not as good, but I think it's a program and we're trying to get better in the downtown and I think as a partner,
[3:04:06] I'm going to give you 100% the benefit of the doubt that you want to get to the best looking project you can because we all want to hang our hat on it, right?
[3:04:14] So, through the Chair, so it is true I am getting a little tired.
[3:04:22] I think that to Winters Point that we should make a motion to approve this project with
[3:04:31] certain conditions of approval, and those conditions of approval have to say that we strongly
[3:04:37] recommend that the City Council, for instance,
[3:04:48] I don't know what the language would be, but
[3:04:49] that the City Council would strongly reconsider the original plan that there has been creep
[3:04:58] since the E.
[3:05:00] Since the plan was first approved, you know, given. And I don't know this actually is a legal question. But I'm but so, but it's, but so winter actually made it really clear. We're not, we're not saying that we want to limit the high. We're not saying that we want to limit the parking. But what we are saying is that. The earlier projects.
[3:05:29] had less impact, and that they should seriously consider the earlier projects that had less impact,
[3:05:38] which does translate into a four-story building with more studios and possibly
[3:05:44] limiting the office space because it's a affordable housing project, not an affordable
[3:05:51] office project. So, these are things that I think we should recommend to the City
[3:05:56] council, along with making sure that they understand that they need to stay on top
[3:06:07] of parking and traffic and design issues as well. But that's what I would float as a motion.
[3:06:19] Well, and that supports their policy of providing affordable housing in half Moon Bay.
[3:06:26] I mean, that is the City Council's number one.
[3:06:29] Well, I think it's their number one priority, affordable housing.
[3:06:33] That's what I hear at the City Council meetings, and that is consistent with their policy for that.
[3:06:40] So I like that idea.
[3:06:44] I don't like that idea to be honest, Commissioner Gordon, because it's not logical.
[3:06:50] We don't send this to City Council.
[3:06:52] We make a decision on it in the next 20 minutes maybe.
[3:06:57] I say we do make a decision in the next 20 minutes and we make a strong,
[3:07:03] we strongly urge the City Council to look at the previous version, which is lower impact.
[3:07:10] I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
[3:07:13] Well, I'll defer to the City Attorney, but I don't think it works that way.
[3:07:17] Can I make a suggestion just to make it proper?
[3:07:20] Maybe, because I, having worked in many engineering organizations, scope creep is a function
[3:07:32] that is prevalent, not just in land use planning, but everything we do in the Silicon Valley.
[3:07:36] So I think that there's some fairness in what you're asking for.
[3:07:39] But maybe, I think maybe the way to do it would be to, I mean, I have an assumption that somebody, no matter what we do, is going to appeal this to the City Council.
[3:07:51] And also, City Council can ask to have this item brought before them.
[3:07:55] I think that's, they can't, okay, somebody has to appeal it in order for it to come to City Council.
[3:07:59] Thank you, Winter.
[3:08:01] So, I would make a motion to approve a project that has come before us with conditions of approval that are
[3:08:08] legally enforceable, and I would also separately make a recommendation to City Council, we make an advisory statement on this project.
[3:08:20] And yeah, and I would also make a second, we haven't discussed another item, which is there is pending legislation coming before us that is going to eliminate this conversation altogether, potentially.
[3:08:36] And so I would also like us to make a strong recommendation that the city prioritize the efforts around responding to the changes in state density bonus law because I strongly suspect we're at least six months behind from where we need to be to prepare for January 2025.
[3:08:50] So I think those are the three things I would do is one, make a motion to approve the project and let's figure out what those conditions are.
[3:08:59] or we have a second motion that would be an advisory statement around this project with respect to actually I want to separate that there's some very specific things I think you guys want to do I want to make sure that no matter what we also have an advisory statement that the city provide clear direct city council provide clear direction to city staff to prioritize fixing the intersection and fixing remediate
[3:09:29] coming up with a coherent parking plan for this area.
[3:09:32] It's not fixed all of downtown.
[3:09:34] Let's fix this area and focus on that, because that's where this is becoming the heart of downtown right now.
[3:09:40] That would be my recommendation.
[3:09:41] So, that's a condition of approval?
[3:09:43] No, it's an advice, an advice, an advice, an advice, an advice.
[3:09:46] Yeah, separate.
[3:09:47] So separate these things out, let's put them in the public, let's get City Council to provide policy
[3:09:51] and direction because they set policy.
[3:09:54] So, it's two things, it's separate.
[3:09:58] So one thing is
[3:10:00] We need to advise the council to make sure that the city pays attention to parking, to that intersection, to architectural review, I guess.
[3:10:13] Well, I would make a condition of approval for the project that, from our architectural review perspective, I find this project consistent with the standards
[3:10:23] of architecture in Half Moon Bay, but given the exceptional nature of this project by its size,
[3:10:31] I would encourage the applicant to continue to work with City staff to refine the design
[3:10:37] guidelines so that it better fits in and potentially masks the scale with the design
[3:10:44] that you have so that even without change it works more coherently.
[3:10:50] But those are, but those three things are separate.
[3:10:52] No, that's actually my condition of approval for architectural reviews.
[3:10:56] So I'm making a addition to finding that we approve this project from a design perspective.
[3:11:02] And provide guidance that the city staff can work with the applicant to continue to refine the design.
[3:11:09] Which is what we've done in the past, on other projects.
[3:11:13] And the architect is eager to address some of these concerns.
[3:11:19] and it would be great to, let's get the architecture apart done.
[3:11:22] Is that an acceptable motion for design perspective?
[3:11:26] Architecture review?
[3:11:28] I'm okay with that.
[3:11:29] Okay, so that's the first part.
[3:11:31] Should we just approve that and move on?
[3:11:33] Okay.
[3:11:33] Can we make a motion to approve architectural review for the item before us?
[3:11:42] That this project conforms with the policies of the local coastal land use plan.
[3:11:49] But would better conform with those if we can, if the applicant has a flexibility to work with city staff to refine the design.
[3:11:59] So doesn't seem like we should make a motion to, I want to make a motion, but let's get the things on it.
[3:12:06] But you're not incorporating what I said, so you're just at it, you're seeing, you're making a motion to have this architecture review.
[3:12:17] you be part of the approval, and I'm saying I need the City Council to strongly consider going to an earlier
[3:12:30] version that they already approved.
[3:12:32] That would be a separate item, I would make that as a separate item.
[3:12:36] I don't think it's a separate item.
[3:12:38] I think it is the item, I think that's what we're, that's the crux of this motion.
[3:12:45] Because, you know,
[3:12:49] what the City Council sort of signed off on before is different than what we're getting.
[3:12:56] So, the City Council needs to know that the Planning Commission strongly recommends that they look at the earlier version.
[3:13:05] I'm absolutely fine with that.
[3:13:07] So, we've got a CDP we need to approve, and we have to go through a process with that.
[3:13:12] And if you want to start with the advisory statement, let's get that off the table and
[3:13:18] do it right now.
[3:13:19] But it's not an advisory statement.
[3:13:21] I would like to start with the things that we can do, like perhaps, you know, having
[3:13:29] the construction workforce, you know, have a 10 percent preference for local hire.
[3:13:34] Well, just a, I'm sorry, a point of order, but Commissioner Hernandez made a motion
[3:13:38] that I'm, I seconded.
[3:13:39] So, yeah, I want to make an improvement, so we can take a vote.
[3:13:48] I will say, since we have the item in front of us, we can keep discussing it.
[3:13:53] I 100% want to make a motion, and you can make the motion on an advisory statement
[3:13:59] that we send to City Council on this project, but either we say yes, it passes
[3:14:05] is architectural review or not, and we can make a vote.
[3:14:10] You can just vote on that and say, no, it doesn't, doesn't meet the standard.
[3:14:14] We can do a yes, no vote on architectural review.
[3:14:16] And that's okay.
[3:14:17] If you say, but it can't be on height.
[3:14:21] No, it's not on height.
[3:14:23] So I don't think anyone really cares like the architectural review.
[3:14:27] I don't, I, I couldn't look at it and tell you architectural review needs to be,
[3:14:32] you know, better or not.
[3:14:34] I have no idea. But what I do know is that the I would want to strongly recommend to the City Council that they look at an earlier version and that that be part of our approval, that it's a condition of approval, that the City Council, that we, that they should know that the Planning Commission strongly urges them to adopt an earlier version and not the approval.
[3:15:00] Commissioner Gorn. I think this is a little cleaner and simpler, because we're starting, you know, with, with things
[3:15:07] that are relatively less controversial. Can I make a motion? Can I make two motions?
[3:15:15] Wait, there's a point of clarification. I talked to Winter about this, because I thought
[3:15:20] that maybe you might entertain a motion. Someone else might want, and I think Winter,
[3:15:24] and you could you said to me that we could add on or amend the motion or add into it through
[3:15:32] conditions of approval. Is that correct, winter? Well, so I have two points if I may. One, I don't
[3:15:39] want us to forget that we have to make a sequel finding if you are going to approve the project.
[3:15:43] We typically do that first because it's a prerequisite and I know there were some questions about the
[3:15:48] applicability of the exemption, so I just want to keep that on the table.
[3:15:52] And then the conversation we were having was about, if there's a motion and then someone
[3:15:57] wants to do a different motion, and I think the appropriate process would be, you know,
[3:16:02] if there's a motion and a second, there can be discussion about it.
[3:16:06] And then if there's a proposal to amend the motion, we can consider that, or if the person
[3:16:13] who originally made the motion wants to abandon the motion so that somebody else can bring
[3:16:18] another one, that's the conversation to have around that.
[3:16:21] But so far, I've heard one motion and a second for sort of a partial approval of the project focused solely on the architectural review criteria.
[3:16:35] And so I hear you talking about it and-
[3:16:39] But you're also directing us to take a look at sequest, so maybe what I should do is two things.
[3:16:46] One, I'm going to pull back my motion.
[3:16:51] What's the right word to use here?
[3:16:52] Maybe with draw?
[3:16:53] I withdraw my motion.
[3:16:56] And I'd like us to talk about sequel, but we should probably do two things.
[3:17:00] One is extend, make a motion to extend the meeting till midnight.
[3:17:05] We don't want to make a second motion.
[3:17:07] We want to be able to get through this, okay?
[3:17:11] Can I make a motion to extend the meeting to midnight?
[3:17:14] What would you say?
[3:17:16] I would second that.
[3:17:18] All in favor?
[3:17:19] Yes.
[3:17:20] I should approve.
[3:17:21] Okay, so can I also make a recommendation that we maybe take a five-minute break for people to clear their minds,
[3:17:28] get a little water, do whatever you need to do, because we're going to get into the meaty part of this.
[3:17:32] And I want, I would like us all to be as focused as possible.
[3:17:35] Could you do that?
[3:17:35] Of course, five-minute break.
[3:26:34] What we are going to do is start out with our sequoid determination.
[3:26:42] And then after that, we are going to, now I just wrote my scribbled things down, and I can't even read my handwriting. Our contextual review, the CDP with conditions of approval, and then an advisory statement at the end. Is that okay with my fellow commissioners? Okay. Okay. So we'll do the sequoid exemption.
[3:27:05] And then the architectural advisory consistency statement, the CDP, a condition of approval,
[3:27:15] and then our advisory statement at the end, is that okay?
[3:27:21] I would like my fellow commissioners to agree to that.
[3:27:23] Yeah, it sounds very good to me except we need to be really explicit about what the conditions of approval are before we vote on it.
[3:27:32] I agree with that and when we get to that part, we will, I'm sure we'll have a discussion, a lengthy discussion about that and winter is raising her hand so I will let winter weigh in.
[3:27:43] I just wanted to say at the end of all the voting, we are going to need clarity on whether you're approving the resolution that was proposed and what changes you're proposing to the resolution.
[3:27:53] That's important, so if you're doing it in stages, that's okay, but I want to just make sure that those stages add up to a determination about approve, approve with changes or not approve the proposed resolution.
[3:28:11] Can we modify the resolution? Yes, thank you.
[3:28:26] Okay, so the first thing we need to do is make a determination that the project is exempt from sequa.
[3:28:34] So I will make a motion that the project is exempt from CEQA in accordance with CEQA guidelines, section 15332.
[3:28:46] A second.
[3:28:51] Does anyone wish to discuss this?
[3:28:53] No.
[3:28:56] All is in favor?
[3:29:01] All is in favor.
[3:29:02] You want to go through the roll call vote, please.
[3:29:04] Commissioner Ruddick.
[3:29:05] Yes.
[3:29:05] Commissioner Gorn.
[3:29:06] Yes.
[3:29:07] Commissioner Hernandez, Vice Chair, Johannes, Epstein, and Chair Gossett, yes, Commissioner.
[3:29:24] I'd like to make a motion to approve the architectural review portion of the project for PDP 23034.
[3:29:40] with the direction to city staff and the guidance that they have flexibility to work with the architect to better incorporate design elements more consistent with the character of downtown Half Moon Bay.
[3:30:00] And to endeavor to use design elements to mask the bulk and height of the building so that is less conspicuous and if possible to develop
[3:30:20] some kind of unique signature architectural element that makes the city look like more like half moon bay. That's the direction I would give, but it's not a requirement.
[3:30:33] Can I get, that's my motion. Can I get a second?
[3:30:38] Can we add to the motion that we ask that the mural be reviewed by the Parks and Rec commission?
[3:30:45] Are we allowed to do that here?
[3:30:49] I don't know if they have authority to review Murrell, Murrell's, I haven't looked at that, so.
[3:30:54] Can we strongly encourage the applicant to consult with the architect yet?
[3:31:00] So the city adopted a mural policy that includes a process that goes through our recreation commission as a reviewing a recommending body.
[3:31:13] Under our policy, the city council actually approves the murals.
[3:31:17] This obviously was created as a process for city-sponsored murals and murals on city property, so I'm not sure if every piece of it would be applicable to this.
[3:31:28] but maybe there's, if this is something that could show up here, maybe there's direction that we incorporate portions of our process in collaboration with the applicants.
[3:31:38] I'd make a motion.
[3:31:39] I'd make a motion that we incorporate the existing mural review process that the city has to the extent that it's legally possible.
[3:31:52] I'll second it, although it's a little odd in that the staff report finds that the current
[3:31:59] architectural design does a very good job of borrowing appropriate look and feel from
[3:32:05] around Hathman Bay while extending its, while exerting its own unique look.
[3:32:12] But I understand that architecture is subjective and I have no trouble, I have no problem
[3:32:18] with your motion.
[3:32:22] So I have a second.
[3:32:23] Yeah.
[3:32:24] Yes, he did.
[3:32:25] Commissioner Riddick?
[3:32:27] Yes.
[3:32:28] Commissioner Gorn?
[3:32:29] Yes.
[3:32:32] Commissioner Hernandez?
[3:32:33] Yes.
[3:32:34] Vice Chair Johannes?
[3:32:37] Yes.
[3:32:38] And Chair Gorset?
[3:32:40] Yes.
[3:32:41] Motion to pass.
[3:32:42] Proved?
[3:32:43] Okay.
[3:32:45] I'd like to take a few moments before I make them.
[3:32:50] Yeah, before we do the wait wait, sorry wait yeah, nothing it's okay
[3:32:59] So I think we're at the point where we're going to
[3:33:04] We haven't approved the CDP yet, right, so we're at that approval point
[3:33:11] So I wanted to maybe we haven't really spent a lot of time talking about policies
[3:33:15] So I just want to make sure and then there's also some conditions of approval that commissioner Joannis has brought up that I've never
[3:33:24] We haven't had any discussion on them, and I think we should just kind of maybe talk about some of the conditions of approval.
[3:33:31] The one in particular that I'm concerned about is the labor one because we've never done that before, and we don't have, I don't know what our policy is.
[3:33:39] I think we have certain standards that we apply, but I would feel uncomfortable applying some new standard for development that doesn't meet an existing city standard.
[3:33:51] through the chair.
[3:33:53] So it's perspective.
[3:33:54] Sure.
[3:33:54] Let me go ahead.
[3:33:55] Just a question.
[3:33:58] So we have conditions of approval and we're going to run out of time.
[3:34:02] And I don't want to run out of time without approving the CDP.
[3:34:07] So if I make a motion to approve the CDP and to approve this project, can we then add conditions
[3:34:13] of approval on that afterwards, after the fact?
[3:34:17] Yes.
[3:34:17] We've got to do it all at once.
[3:34:18] We have to do it all at once.
[3:34:19] Okay.
[3:34:20] Okay.
[3:34:20] All right.
[3:34:21] Thank you.
[3:34:21] I have to amend the resolution.
[3:34:24] Okay.
[3:34:25] And just, sorry, just to clarify the two conditions that you just approved in conjunction with
[3:34:32] the architectural review, just as a practical matter, those will just go in the resolution
[3:34:37] along with any other conditions of approval that you adopt as part of your approval of the
[3:34:45] CDP.
[3:34:46] So just as a logistical matter, that's what I'm keeping track of them.
[3:34:49] And I did want to, as you move into this reminds you that the applicant offered to additional
[3:34:55] voluntary, they volunteered to make them go into the conditions.
[3:35:11] We're going to attach applicants to it. We're going to attach conditions of approval to it. But let's maybe take what, I mean, if you want to start going down the condition, I was, you wanted to make the motion, you can make it, David. Okay.
[3:35:32] I want to make sure I'm addressing your concerns, because I feel like I'm steamrolling over you at the moment, and I want to make sure I'm hearing what you're saying.
[3:35:38] I just want to get our, I want to make sure we're following a process.
[3:35:41] And the process is beginning.
[3:35:43] So I think the chair should just run the meeting.
[3:35:51] Okay, so I will, I'm happy to ask any of my fellow commissioners if you want to introduce the resolution for approval for PDP 23-034.
[3:36:01] And I could begin reading it, and maybe I leave a few numbers blank, because I'm not sure we're completely in agreement about everything.
[3:36:13] But coastal development permit and architectural review to allow the construction of a new five-story, well, a new building with 40 residential units for senior farm worker affordable to extremely low and very low income households.
[3:36:32] A XXXX square foot farm worker resource center and an 18 space ground floor parking garage.
[3:36:42] Permit approval also includes a lot line adjustment to increase the project parcel size and
[3:36:48] reconfigure the driveway at Kelly Avenue in the commercial downtown CD and public services,
[3:36:55] is P.S. Zoning District and the public institutions,
[3:36:59] general land use designation, APN 056-150-200.
[3:37:11] And it
[3:37:14] might require to read all the whereas,
[3:37:17] or do we want to discuss this now, or do I need a second?
[3:37:21] We have to articulate the conditions of approval.
[3:37:25] Okay, all right.
[3:37:26] Well, but before we do that, do we get a second?
[3:37:29] I think you can entertain me now.
[3:37:30] I'd like to second the motion and I'd like to pause so that we can add conditions of approval.
[3:37:36] Okay, thank you.
[3:37:37] That's what I was looking for, because maybe you don't want to talk about this.
[3:37:41] And the first condition of approval I'd like to have is reducing the accepting the applicant's
[3:37:47] offer to reduce the height of the building and to reduce the configuration of the rooms.
[3:37:56] And there's some language around there that's a little iffy, so you want to
[3:38:01] Well, they provided, I don't know if you received the, oh, you could provide it to Bridget actually and Bridget can pass it out.
[3:38:10] The main important detail is that the reduction in height they were offering as just a straight condition of approval, that they will make that modification to the building design.
[3:38:19] And then for the potential change in unit mix, they were proposing just to evaluate the feasibility of it.
[3:38:26] So, it was a softer requirement.
[3:38:33] Apologies for not handing that out before.
[3:38:43] So, I see the proposed revised conditions of approval language, but I could, I'm looking at reduction in height, and then the second point potential change in unit mix.
[3:38:55] And I would like to strike the word potential and just say change in unit mix and then talk about that as a commission.
[3:39:07] I think I support that.
[3:39:12] Just to be clear, they weren't offering to absolutely do it.
[3:39:17] They were offering to have a condition that evaluates it.
[3:39:21] I understand that.
[3:39:22] That's why as if we could strike the word potential.
[3:39:26] Is that something we can do?
[3:39:28] But I think the point is that the funding may prohibit the applicant from making this change.
[3:39:35] But we were told that's not our consideration, you know,
[3:39:43] in the answers provided to staff when we ask questions about that.
[3:39:49] So I don't know why that would be a consideration for us to discuss.
[3:39:53] That's a city council policy issue.
[3:40:00] Personally, I wouldn't, if you strike potential, then this is a make or break thing. I mean, the whole thing collapses if things don't work out right. I don't want to do that.
[3:40:14] Thoughts?
[3:40:23] So, what if the feasibility doesn't work out then what?
[3:40:28] In general, yeah. Wait, did you want to say it? I don't think it's open to that. I guess the question I have is that, you know, the council is going to decide
[3:40:49] We're not talking about cutting down the number of units or anything like that.
[3:40:54] All the things that we're talking about is reverting to a previous plan, that's what I'm talking about.
[3:40:59] And so what we present to City Council, does it even need to include?
[3:41:05] How many stories it is, does it need to include the height of the building, does it need to include?
[3:41:10] I mean, it should be a 40-unit project because that's what we want to approve.
[3:41:15] We want to approve a 40-unit project.
[3:41:19] Like, that's, or, and that the City Council needs to determine the size and scope of this project.
[3:41:28] So, can I maybe make a suggestion?
[3:41:35] Mercy housing shall evaluate the feasibility of revising the current unit mix to reduce the number
[3:41:41] of two bedroom units from 8 to 2 and in lieu provide six additional one bedroom units.
[3:41:47] The total number of units shall remain at 40 units and
[3:41:55] at no more than 40 units.
[3:42:04] And the building height shall remain at a height of 56 feet as approved.
[3:42:11] Unless
[3:42:14] it is otherwise not
[3:42:21] feasible to complete funding of
[3:42:28] this project, then Mercy's housing that I would just sort of add this condition of under that last sentence where it says Mercy's housing evaluation shall
[3:42:44] prioritize funding sources that allow this to be feasible.
[3:42:50] Not requiring you to take them on, but shall require funding, so require the prioritization of funding sources that make this feasible.
[3:43:01] I just want to ask my question again.
[3:43:04] Why do we need to have height in here, since we're not allowed to talk about height.
[3:43:11] I'm willing to accept the concession on height, I think that that's, I think it's-
[3:43:16] No, but why do we have to have height in the resolution at all?
[3:43:19] Well, the applicant has offered it as a concession to us, and I would like us to accept
[3:43:24] that concession as a condition of what you're saying, but I'm saying in our resolution,
[3:43:30] why do we need to have any height listed?
[3:43:33] Because we are accepting their condition of approval, and we can, like, that's, they've
[3:43:39] offered it, and we should accept the concession as my perspective.
[3:43:45] I think that's sensible.
[3:43:48] And we can, there's a separate issue which is we're going to make an advisory statement to
[3:43:54] City Council and but we otherwise have no control over the height of the impact unless the applicant
[3:44:03] offers us a concession and we accept it now.
[3:44:06] This could go to the City Council and they could deny the project.
[3:44:09] It could go to the City Council and they could approve the project.
[3:44:14] Somebody has to appeal it, though, so there's no guarantee it will go to the City Council in any case.
[3:44:20] But if the applicant's willing to give us, it can provide a concession on this and
[3:44:25] provide language that's just a little bit stronger in terms of what they're willing to do.
[3:44:29] I think we should use that as a starting point, that would be my recommendation is to accept what they've offered to us as a starting point.
[3:44:37] I think the sort of the linchpin is whether we can have a whether we're going with an advisory
[3:44:53] statement to the City Council or whether we can have that be a condition of approval.
[3:44:59] That's true.
[3:45:00] And you keep saying over and over again that we'll make an advisory statement, I keep saying it should be a condition
[3:45:06] of approval that we strongly recommend. And, you know, that's, but I think legally we can't, I don't
[3:45:13] think you can legally make, legally my understanding is you cannot add some kind of advisory
[3:45:21] language, it's not legally binding to the applicant to the CDP because we're approving
[3:45:26] the applicants. This would be legal. This, the second part, is not legal either.
[3:45:32] This doesn't seem to be legal in line because it's will evaluate. Nobody's, you know,
[3:45:38] the feasibility. If the feasibility doesn't work out, it means nothing.
[3:45:48] Maybe we could open it up if the applicant has feedback on this.
[3:45:52] The City Attorney wants to speak.
[3:45:56] Just wondering if it might be helpful to make the distinction between not every condition of approval needs to be mandatory.
[3:46:03] We obviously frequently have things you will work with, you'll endeavor.
[3:46:09] But the conditions as Commissioner Hernandez pointed out do have to go to the applicant not to somebody else.
[3:46:17] Or just state an opinion of the planning commission.
[3:46:22] So that's why I think the recommendation was to deal with the recommendation, the commissioner's recommendation was to deal with the recommendation separately from the conditions of approval.
[3:46:36] I don't know if that helped, but it does, it does quite a bit, thank you.
[3:46:41] And in terms of, in our statement about what we're approving, do we have to include height?
[3:46:52] Yes, so you are taking action on the application as proposed to you and you do need to consider all the things you always consider in terms of consistency of the actual proposed project, the physical structure with the LCP and
[3:47:08] Coastal Act, of course, with all the state density bonus law caveats that we've discussed in the past.
[3:47:14] So, yes, the resolution does refer to the plans that were submitted and
[3:47:19] the conditions of approval, say what you're approving is the project as proposed in those plans.
[3:47:25] And then there are findings of consistency that go along with that.
[3:47:30] So yes, it does have to refer to the actual proposed project.
[3:47:34] But
[3:47:40] you can impose conditions of approval, but a condition of approval would have to be
[3:47:48] more like, and we do these, the project has proposed instead of being blue will be yellow,
[3:47:56] right?
[3:47:56] We're making a change like that.
[3:47:59] I think it would be very challenging to do a condition of approval that says, or approving
[3:48:04] this project, but redesign it all to go along with the proposal that came with the RFQ because
[3:48:10] I'm not sure we have even full plan sets that wasn't developed, that was a response.
[3:48:16] So what we have is the proposal as proposed and I think you've set a solid course for
[3:48:24] making your separate recommendation to make a proposal.
[3:48:27] So you're saying that we have to do it as an advisory and that really what we're approving is we're approving this project as written, right?
[3:48:37] with conditions of approval that we're attaching to the project.
[3:48:41] And so there are conditions of approval or advisory?
[3:48:44] No, no, no.
[3:48:44] This is not an advisory.
[3:48:47] This is a reduction in height.
[3:48:48] That is a legal constraint, and I actually want to change that language.
[3:48:53] We'll come back to that in a second, but slightly.
[3:48:56] But that's something that is binding.
[3:49:01] I think what,
[3:49:05] when or maybe you could help me here because you're the attorney,
[3:49:07] There's a concept of operating in good faith, there's a language you can use, it demonstrates diligence and you need to provide evidence that you've reasonably exhausted alternative funding means, and this just wasn't lip service.
[3:49:20] I'm not saying that that's what you're doing, I'm just saying conditions of approval that maybe just add something to that that some kind of reasonable legal standard, a minimum legal standard, so that it's a little.
[3:49:35] unless you, in your view, this already meets a minimum legal standard.
[3:49:43] Well, this, of course, was just a condition that was offered up by the applicant.
[3:49:48] So, I mean, I think this sets forth a process.
[3:49:53] If you wanted some additional, like if there's a determination that it's not feasible.
[3:50:00] The revised that Mercy present its, you know, reasoning for that to the community development director or something like that, if you provide evidence. Yeah, or just document. I don't know that there's going to be evidence here as much as there is going to be reasoning or documentation or something like that. And I don't know. We may, since this was a voluntary condition, and I'm not sure that if the applicant had not proposed this, I'm not sure.
[3:50:29] that we would be able to pay this to any of our policies, so I would probably want them to weigh in and see if I'm overstepping by promising a report back.
[3:50:47] In regards to providing our analysis, we could write a memo to explain like what did we find in terms of evaluating whether we could make this unit mix change that I had offered at the outside of the meeting.
[3:51:02] So you can have something in writing and we will make it as clear as possible and traceable as possible in terms of like this is the funding source that we looked at.
[3:51:11] You know, here's the name, here's the website. We can do that for you.
[3:51:16] I have a question. The already awarded funding may be lost. Where did that funding come from? Why would it be lost?
[3:51:24] because it's still going towards housing.
[3:51:27] So the funding that we were recently awarded is approximately $2.7 million from the state of California housing and community development department.
[3:51:37] And it's a pot of money called infrastructure infill grant.
[3:51:42] And it's, Commissioner Goren was worried earlier about whether tax credits would be funded enough.
[3:51:50] And so, as you may know, there's a lot of affordable housing funding, but
[3:51:55] it's highly competitive to get an award.
[3:51:58] Just because the need is so great in the state of California, there are a lot of applications.
[3:52:04] These awards are very difficult to get.
[3:52:06] So when we got the award, it was based on the current unit mix and
[3:52:13] the current plans that you have been discussing for the last month.
[3:52:17] And so if we do make a unit mix change, we as developer would need to make sure that we're not jeopardizing that award because that award was based on certain scoring criteria that the state used.
[3:52:35] So, that was based also on making sure that we had an ENA exclusive agreement to discuss that the city hadn't exclusive agreement because at that time I don't think you already had an application into the city.
[3:52:51] I think that was awarded before that.
[3:52:53] I mean, I'm just asking, I'm just because I looked at timelines to see, because I just, I don't know, I don't feel that this is going to be in jeopardy, but I'm just wondering.
[3:53:02] you had five stories that you presented to them.
[3:53:06] I mean, what was the condition when you sent in the application
[3:53:12] for that info project and the time because it matters, right?
[3:53:17] So yeah, I just want to clarify that what we would need to evaluate
[3:53:22] before we can commit to changing the unit mix is to make sure that
[3:53:27] we are not going to inadvertently jeopardize our award because
[3:53:31] is that award was based on a competition essentially that used scoring criteria.
[3:53:38] Scoring criteria includes what's your unit mix, what's your affordability, different factors.
[3:53:45] And it is very complicated.
[3:53:47] And we made this offer, we thought of this offer very recently to bring to the commission.
[3:53:52] We have not had a chance to analyze what does that mean for that funding that we did get awarded.
[3:53:58] And for future funding that we would want to secure, including the tax credits.
[3:54:05] So our offer, just to reiterate, our offer is that we would like to do that analysis to see if we can change
[3:54:13] six of the two bedrooms to one bedrooms, because we understand that that would help address some concerns that the commissioners have heard from the public.
[3:54:22] We want to offer to do that in good faith and to help address that concern.
[3:54:28] But we also want to make very clear that we need to do our due diligence, and this is in the service of the community, right?
[3:54:35] We don't want to jeopardize the funding that this development has already gotten, you know, been awarded.
[3:54:41] So that's what we're trying to balance here and making this offer and writing this condition of a proposed condition of approval.
[3:54:54] I think that's very logical.
[3:54:57] We wouldn't want to take any steps that would jeopardize.
[3:55:00] We have the scoring criteria and how you received your funding. And I'm looking at it right now. It just seems that I don't remember. I have to pull it up to see what the level of details that you provided in that funding. But it just seems that it would be odd that it would be. I hope it never gets. I hope so too. We just need to make sure we do our due diligence. Yeah.
[3:55:41] Where are we at?
[3:55:42] So we were talking about the change in the unit mix and how that could be written into the condition of approval.
[3:55:55] Well, I thought the city attorney had a good suggestion that we require the applicant to report back to the MMO to the year idea, actually, to the community development director.
[3:56:13] How do you guys feel about that?
[3:56:21] I'm fine with it.
[3:56:22] So
[3:56:33] that's two conditions of approval?
[3:56:41] Yeah.
[3:56:42] I personally don't intend to offer any additional ones, if you're wondering.
[3:56:49] Does anyone else, Commissioner Gorn or Commissioner Joannis have conditions?
[3:56:58] Yes, I'd like to find out if this workforce we can use local workforce for the construction.
[3:57:04] and if we can at least say it's a 10% preference
[3:57:08] of the workforce for each construction trade,
[3:57:12] that's one, I can rattle them all off winter
[3:57:17] and if you can then decide how to do this.
[3:57:22] And I'm assuming Mercy's already gonna enter
[3:57:24] into fair and open competition,
[3:57:27] or is this fair and open competition.
[3:57:31] And then, I don't know if we can ask Mercy to have provide the city with the right to evaluate and comment on construction plans and specs and to evaluate all bid proposals.
[3:57:46] that Mercy also, let's see, we talked about the tenant preference.
[3:57:56] Can we have the tenant preference?
[3:57:59] Can it be restricted to, can it include a 10% tenant preference for
[3:58:05] local retired senior farm workers?
[3:58:08] And local could mean, I guess, within the city of Half Moon Bay and
[3:58:12] And then also along the coast side within San Mateo County, I was wondering if Mercy could also provide safety rails in all the units along hallways, and in bathrooms, not just some, but all the units.
[3:58:32] Mercy construct walk-in showers instead of bath tubs because this is for seniors.
[3:58:39] I was hoping to accommodate, you know, their elderly, it's easier to walk in or to get wheelchair into that.
[3:58:47] And then I don't know if you're also talking, looking at physically challenged units,
[3:58:54] physically challenged and site and hearing impaired to include certain number of units for that.
[3:59:03] And then regarding vibration and noise,
[3:59:07] locating ingress and egress of construction equipment
[3:59:10] and heavily loaded trucks away from residential streets,
[3:59:14] restricting the operation of large earth moving equipment
[3:59:17] on the side.
[3:59:19] Okay, if you could slow down a little bit,
[3:59:20] sorry, we're frantically taking notes.
[3:59:21] Oh, I'm sorry, I can hear so I can go through these.
[3:59:24] Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
[3:59:25] I'm sorry, excuse me.
[3:59:28] Restrict the operation of large earth moving equipment on the site to as far away as possible from sensitive receivers.
[3:59:39] Restrict activities that cause high levels of vibration so that they're straggared and multiple restrict activities that cause high levels of vibration to be staggered.
[4:00:00] So that multiple sources of vibration are not occurring at the same time, restrict weekend construction activities and utilization of vibratory rollers and packers, offer temporary living accommodation, school rooms and office face to those with high sensibilities to vibrations. No, I think that's I think we need to step back. So I don't feel comfortable going there.
[4:00:29] And I also don't feel comfortable setting a standard of improvement for the bathrooms.
[4:00:34] I think that's really mercy's responsibility to provide the evidence.
[4:00:40] You could say no to it, that's fine.
[4:00:41] Yeah, I don't.
[4:00:43] I don't.
[4:00:43] And all these are things that would have been in mitigation measures in a sequer report.
[4:00:50] Got it, okay.
[4:00:51] I think the bathroom one given it's going to be yes, one senior,
[4:00:59] but it's not exclusively senior housing, I think I just would give a measure.
[4:01:05] That's fine, that Mercy can determine this, I mean, because I understand that Mercy
[4:01:08] can agree or disagree to have this as part of their conditions of approval.
[4:01:13] I heard what you said as a shall, not as a, as a, yeah.
[4:01:17] Well, that's my wish, because if this is a senior living thing, and it's 55 and over, that's fine.
[4:01:23] But we can, you can, plan commission can remove it, it's fine.
[4:01:26] I just, I think that the mercy provides, I don't know if this is necessary, a pre-construction assessment and
[4:01:35] a structural assessments of the inspection of neighboring buildings, because I've always been in construction projects.
[4:01:42] Where neighboring buildings will say, hey look because of this construction, my house,
[4:01:49] So my building got cracks, and there's some kind of issues there.
[4:01:57] So we want to make sure that Mercy's construction hasn't caused that damage.
[4:02:04] It's just an inspection of the area.
[4:02:07] That Mercy provides washing down of the school, the church, and the shoreline properties from dust.
[4:02:16] I'd like to see if there is any air monitoring devices going to be placed at the school so that we're looking at the air quality in that area.
[4:02:33] Are these things that would be required if a mitigated negative declaration has to be in place, and that's the foundation of all this?
[4:02:41] There
[4:02:44] was,
[4:02:51] so one thing, and I understand that this might not be the case, but one thing that I have put on here was that the
[4:02:58] Pharmacoreso Center use is restricted to residents only for healthy living,
[4:03:04] healthy living teachings, daily exercise, meditation, arts and crafts, movie viewing, language learning, civics education,
[4:03:13] including voting rights, you know, just things that I think, you know, seniors could be helpful, it would be helpful for seniors to look at.
[4:03:29] Sometimes some construction projects, large construction projects, and for this town, this is a large construction project.
[4:03:36] And I, like I said, I don't know where your work force is coming from, is there a hotel accommodation that you can provide workers on between Monday through Thursday?
[4:03:51] And of course, helping the workers with a meal every once in a while, that's all I'm talking about.
[4:03:59] It's just to help the workers, and it's also to get local workers at work, construction workers at work.
[4:04:06] I think some of these changes are unprecedented for a project that we've approved before the Planning Commission, and I'm not sure that some of them, I'm sure that some of them aren't the things that aren't even legal for us to approve.
[4:04:19] So I do recognize though where you're going with this, which is if this project had to be mitigated, I think that's the foundation for the conditions of approval, that's what I'm hearing.
[4:04:29] So we didn't really discuss that, so are
[4:04:42] there the workforce mix one?
[4:04:46] We already have a standard for development in Half Moon Bay, and unless we're, I don't feel comfortable applying a new standard, unless to just-
[4:04:57] I'm curious. What is that development?
[4:05:00] I don't know what the rules are. The city has contracting standards that they apply. I assume that they're following a bag standards or something like that. Are you asking what the city's standards are for when it's its own project? Or are you asking whether the municipal code has requirements for like a local hire? The only place I identified that was specifically in the commercial cannabis activities section of the code. There's not a local hire provision in the Munich
[4:05:29] Any code for other projects?
[4:05:32] Do we have authority to require local hire as a part of a project?
[4:05:37] Without either a municode provision or some other rationale, I don't see it.
[4:05:42] Because we're not actually
[4:05:46] activating a mitigation for a project, like we're not falling through
[4:05:52] a sequel, I guess would be.
[4:05:54] We don't have some other rationale.
[4:05:56] There's nothing in the code that allows us to apply some of these things.
[4:06:00] So I'd like this to be an advisory to the City Council.
[4:06:08] Okay, so do you want to help me understand?
[4:06:11] Oh, yeah, I don't understand what we're doing.
[4:06:14] So maybe Christie or Winner, does anyone else want to introduce conditions of approval?
[4:06:21] Did you have any Commissioner Gorn?
[4:06:23] No, we're really stuck.
[4:06:26] I mean, unless you can come up with a condition of approval that's not advisory in nature,
[4:06:34] I think we should just approve the project, as amended.
[4:06:45] Do you have any chair gossip, conditions of approval?
[4:06:49] Well, I'm not 100% certain we're stuck.
[4:06:55] I mean, maybe we're stuck because it's late at night, but we're tired.
[4:07:01] But I mean, are we stuck on the, I did say XXX square footage.
[4:07:06] I didn't list the square footage of the Farm Worker Resource Center.
[4:07:10] I did that purposefully because I wanted to talk about that.
[4:07:14] If you guys are, you all feel that that's the appropriate size, because this project is supposed to be a 100% affordable housing project.
[4:07:25] So I think housing is the priority here, and that's just something I'd like to maybe talk about.
[4:07:33] No, I think it's a good conversation point, I think that that's right.
[4:07:37] Right, so I think there's a standard for affordable
[4:07:47] housing for particular types of populations that follows a form factor.
[4:07:52] And I think Mercy is applying that form factor, that best practice that they've developed to this project.
[4:07:58] I do think that the amount of resources applied to it seems extravagant, especially because
[4:08:11] there's no concrete plans on what can be done.
[4:08:14] I mean, it's, yeah, there's a lot tied into this, and there's not a clear cut plan to
[4:08:25] how it's going to be used and the use could be, you know, a few thousand people a day or it could be a few dozen people a day, you know, depending on how it's applied.
[4:08:36] And so I just, just from the amount of facilities that are there and the types of things you can do with a commercial kitchen, there's, there's a lot.
[4:08:45] I mean, and I know Alas has an important mission in town, but I do agree that it's
[4:08:55] for the mission and the building, it's a lot.
[4:08:59] And I find it hard to substantiate the idea that you're going to provide food for
[4:09:05] people seven days a week.
[4:09:06] Maybe that's true, but there's no plan for it.
[4:09:10] There's no, like there's an aspiration for it.
[4:09:13] So I do find that that's strange credibility, that it's just for the folks who are here, and there's no real, I mean there's something in the condition of approval that they're going to constrain use on the weekends when it's peak, I think that was part of the original conditions of approval that's still there is, they're going to constrain use on the weekends so they don't interfere with other activities, but, yeah, I don't know.
[4:09:45] So, and we're having a discussion. We haven't really talked about anything yet, but I think I'm fine to make a motion, too, but you wanted to talk about it.
[4:09:56] No, I guess so.
[4:10:00] You know, you brought up this XXX idea. And so, you know, the lawyer is over here telling me that we can't make any basic conditions of approval on square footage or, you know, or anything, really, that we just can't. And so, that's when I floated the idea of leaving it blank, that we could leave it blank and leave it up to city council.
[4:10:28] Council, or the other idea, I guess, is to have it be at the number that was originally
[4:10:37] proposed, the square footage that was originally proposed, and the unit make up that was originally
[4:10:44] proposed, and have them fight with City Council over it, and they've shown that they can fight,
[4:10:50] so they can fight with City Council about it, but we would approve the project with the
[4:10:55] smaller numbers. That's the only thing I could see.
[4:10:59] Well, the project is the project and we have to make a decision, sorry.
[4:11:05] I think he's the one.
[4:11:09] Oh, I was I think I was going to say the same thing as commission of radic was going to say.
[4:11:15] The project at hand is the project at hand.
[4:11:19] And we have to make a decision about it.
[4:11:21] And you know, in preparation for this, I reread much of the LCP that we and City Council and Coastal Commission enacted in 2021, and there are 15 different policies, at least in the LCP that support affordable housing that support farm worker affordable housing that support affordable housing is in fill in downtown.
[4:11:47] And I just personally don't want to quibble over this level of stuff anymore.
[4:11:54] It deserves to be approved, and the City Council has sent us this for us to deliberate on
[4:12:02] and make a decision.
[4:12:04] But my point was that the City Council sent me something different.
[4:12:08] They sent us this ENA to begin with, and then since they sent that to us,
[4:12:15] there's been this creep of, well, actually, there's more, there's more, there's more.
[4:12:20] We're going to go to another store, we're going to go to, they didn't increase the units,
[4:12:25] but they increase the number of bedrooms, which means the number of people and the amount
[4:12:31] of parking and the amount of traffic issues.
[4:12:34] Like, those are all things that have changed since City Council sent it to us.
[4:12:39] Well, the resolution at hand, Commissioner Gorn, is what we have to vote on unless we change it.
[4:12:46] We can't change it through the Chair.
[4:12:49] Within the State Density Bonus Laws.
[4:12:53] Well, I think, I thought Winters said we could amend the resolution.
[4:12:58] She did say we could, so I mean, let's be clear about what we are, we can do, and thank you.
[4:13:07] To the chair, ma'am.
[4:13:11] We can modify conditions of approval.
[4:13:14] There are certain categories of things that are permissible.
[4:13:19] I think my understanding is that we,
[4:13:26] if we accept that state density bonus law applies,
[4:13:32] and the project is otherwise consistent with the major policies
[4:13:36] in the local coastal land use plan, we don't have the ability to say, well, this project has to be smaller.
[4:13:46] In fact, even if we didn't have those things applicable, we can approve the project in front of us.
[4:13:52] And I think we don't have very much discretion.
[4:13:56] Well, we certainly have less discretion with State Density Bonus Law.
[4:13:59] I mean, if you want to step back and have a discussion around State Density Bonus Law, I mean that could be something that could be done.
[4:14:05] And there's a question of, do we accept the definition of major
[4:14:14] transit stop, right?
[4:14:17] And if you want to go there, then that would give you more leeway.
[4:14:20] But it's, so, can we ask winter if we can amend this resolution?
[4:14:29] Sure.
[4:14:29] I will ask.
[4:14:31] Winter did say we should.
[4:14:33] I asked her that earlier and she said, yes.
[4:14:36] Yes, that's what I thought.
[4:14:38] It might be helpful, I don't think I actually heard what condition you wanted to impose on the side of the Farm Worker Resource Center.
[4:14:45] And I'm not understanding whether it has to do with the change to the physical structure.
[4:14:50] So maybe if you could illuminate that a little bit, then I'm happy to provide my opinion.
[4:14:55] So, what I was saying is that the original product...
[4:15:00] The, what was sent to us by the city council and was agreed on in the ENA was a somewhat smaller project of where the 40 units were mostly studios and not one bedrooms and two bedrooms. And it was a mix, but it was, it was significantly less. And the amount of space for the resource center was also a little smaller. So. Are we can, you know, one, I'm asking.
[4:15:29] asking if we can amend the resolution to include those numbers that the City Council sent to us in the first place.
[4:15:36] Or do we have to approve the numbers that are given to us?
[4:15:40] You could adopt a condition of approval that says we're approving this on condition that you redesigned the project to meet these qualifications.
[4:15:52] I don't recommend that because you haven't seen that project, the redesigned project.
[4:15:57] And I think it would be more useful to simply deny the project if you think that this current proposal is not consistent with the LCP.
[4:16:06] So, you know, you can say redesign it.
[4:16:10] It's not a useful condition, though, because it doesn't give enough direction to what we're supposed to do.
[4:16:17] And I think it would lead to significant confusion down the line.
[4:16:22] So that's my recommendation and you would have to support that condition with a finding linked to a Coastal Act policy or an LC-LUP policy saying that this is why we're asking them to redesign because it's inconsistent with X, Y, and Z policy supported by evidence.
[4:16:46] So the evidence you would need to use would need to be something tied to safety or coastal resources.
[4:16:52] I think from a coastal resources perspective, if this was parking across the street from the beach, it would be a very strong argument that I think would carry weight.
[4:17:04] If it's parking a mile from the beach, which this is, it would probably carry a lot less weight even though it is an important part of downtown,
[4:17:16] which is a coastal resource under our LCLUP,
[4:17:20] but I think it's the primary point of the coastal act
[4:17:24] is to make sure you can access the beach.
[4:17:27] So that would be the policy, like a coastal resource policy
[4:17:30] would be there, and that's kind of the analysis I've done
[4:17:33] and says probably isn't super strong on coastal resource protection.
[4:17:40] You can make the argument if there is a strong finding of
[4:17:45] that the traffic, or the congestion, or the intersection isn't properly dealt with and it interferes with coastal access from downtown to Kelly in a material way.
[4:17:57] That would be a significant policy that you could probably hang your hat on.
[4:18:02] If my men think it would be coastal resource, it would be the gateway idea, and it would be the fact that this is the entrance to our downtown.
[4:18:16] I think the problem we have is that we've got a bunch of wishy-washy language with a lack of objective criteria.
[4:18:23] And I'm hoping we can talk about it during planning commissioner communications.
[4:18:26] But we've got a substantial deficiency in our standard, which is evident in the fact that we haven't really provided
[4:18:35] great guidance to the applicant and city staff gave it to roaring thumbs up, right?
[4:18:40] It's clear that we have deficiencies that don't satisfy those conditions.
[4:18:46] Unfortunately,
[4:18:49] we don't have, we have residential design guidelines for
[4:18:52] like a one and two unit house, but for anything that's three units and above,
[4:18:56] we don't have them as a standard.
[4:18:59] So that, we have policies that are vague.
[4:19:02] That's the problem is you want to have a strong policies that you can defend.
[4:19:07] So, you know, so approving this project as is, is approving a project that the City
[4:19:15] Council did not approve, and it's approving a little bit extra than what, you know,
[4:19:21] then what was originally presented to us.
[4:19:25] If you're going to vote to deny, you have to pick a major policy.
[4:19:30] You can't pick height.
[4:19:31] Right, if you want to say that there's a policy, if there's a policy that conforms to, I
[4:19:41] think it's in the staff report, actually.
[4:19:44] I think I've-
[4:19:45] I mean, if you want to vote by the project, I mean, if you want to mean my points to the City Council, and I think if we do an advisory that says that we strongly recommend that you-
[4:20:00] Look at and adopt to the original, what was originally sent. It sounds like that's all we can do. Winter, I believe, is saying that we can only approve or disapprove the project at hand. We cannot change the language in it. We cannot change the resolution. Is that correct winter? No, you can modify the conditions of approval. If you make the modifications, you need to support any conditions of approval.
[4:20:29] approval with some reference to why you're doing it related to the Coastal Act and the LCLUP policy consistency determination.
[4:20:43] And there are some changes that if you made them would likely be inconsistent with state density bonus law,
[4:20:49] which would be conditions that expressly say reduce the height, reduce the density, reduce the setbacks.
[4:20:57] What am I missing?
[4:20:58] We have a litany.
[4:20:59] It reduced the open.
[4:21:00] I just want, so adopting what was given to, like, the first e-na, right, the first e-na,
[4:21:10] it had everything that met those criteria, right?
[4:21:14] And if we had gotten a project in front of us that was the first project, we would just
[4:21:19] be approving it.
[4:21:20] And it would be approved, it's done.
[4:21:23] And so, you know, what we have a hard time with, what I have a hard time with, is this creep
[4:21:31] that's happened since the City Council said yes. And since the City Council said yes, then
[4:21:37] it's like, add this, add this, add this, add this. And so, you know, and now we're looking
[4:21:43] at a project that you're saying we need to approve as is, not what the City Council sent to
[4:21:50] was originally, but what has been added by city staff and by the applicants and as it has morphed.
[4:22:00] So, I have a hard time with that, but if that's my choice, is that I'm either going to approve the present project,
[4:22:10] which is kind of what you're saying, you either approve the present project or you deny.
[4:22:16] That's what you want, you want an approval or denial.
[4:22:18] And, you know, if that's the choice, then I just would have to approve.
[4:22:24] But you're saying that's, you know, we amending this resolution is too fraught, is what you're saying.
[4:22:35] It causes too many problems, too much to say the reason is the City Council gave us a project
[4:22:41] that we really should have looked at, originally, like that's the project that we should be considering.
[4:22:47] that's not enough of a reason, right?
[4:22:49] That's not a reason, it's not LCB reason.
[4:22:52] That's correct.
[4:22:53] I'm not sure, David, that that is an accurate depiction
[4:22:57] of what the city manager told us a little while ago
[4:23:00] about the city council's oversight of this project.
[4:23:03] I think you're greatly exaggerating
[4:23:07] their passivity and even ignorance of the process.
[4:23:11] I think that I assume, and I believe,
[4:23:14] I've been told by at least one City Council member that this is the project that they intended to be in front of us.
[4:23:25] My meeting with a City Council person was completely different, where this Council person didn't know that the project had increased in scope.
[4:23:36] And wondered why they didn't know about it.
[4:23:39] And I did scour the City website to see if there had ever been a presentation to the City.
[4:23:44] And maybe they had one-on-one meetings with city staff that I'm not aware of, because I don't know everything that City Council does.
[4:23:52] But for 55 minutes, someone spoke about the fact that this project had increased in scope significantly without them maybe offering input, not that they, you know, so anyway.
[4:24:07] I'm sure there's different opinions.
[4:24:10] So there's a couple of things here, if I may.
[4:24:14] Sorry, we city
[4:24:23] council sets policy.
[4:24:25] They direct staff to go do things.
[4:24:28] Staff have gone and done something.
[4:24:30] In our estimation, I think, a majority of the people at this day
[4:24:37] as believe that city staff have exceeded their mandate.
[4:24:42] Nonetheless, the applicant has gone through a process, they've come to us with a project.
[4:24:49] We have not made a sequel finding that the project needs to be mitigated.
[4:24:54] We've found it otherwise in conformance with policies.
[4:25:00] This seems like a big pill to swallow because it definitely exceeds the scope of what anybody envisioned and I provided clear feedback two years ago that it was already too tall at four stories and we needed to really think about this. So, this is not a new thing and somehow we got to this point. I get it stuff happens. But we have an obligation to, we have an obligation to,
[4:25:29] to provide a attached conditions of approval that are legal and get that done.
[4:25:38] And if there are other conditions of approval that you want to attach that are legally enforceable and
[4:25:44] don't, I mean, don't involve things that are impermissible under state density bonus law.
[4:25:52] Great, but you got to defend it with the Coastal Act.
[4:25:55] And so, you know, the major policies that we've brought out, and we've been hashed out for the last six weeks, and for those of you who don't read the spreadsheets, there's a lot of detail we've gone through, like pick a policy.
[4:26:09] So, what do you mean by enforceable? Because I've seen that conditions of approval on past projects as the cities approved have not been enforced by this PDPs.
[4:26:20] So, I don't understand that.
[4:26:22] So,
[4:26:25] we can't attach a condition of approval that affects the, um, the exclusions.
[4:26:31] So, height, open space, those things.
[4:26:34] That we already have decided.
[4:26:35] Right, yeah, yeah, that's clear.
[4:26:36] So, what do you guys want to do?
[4:26:38] I mean, I think we need to hear from the two of you because we kind of talked it out as much as we can.
[4:26:54] Did nobody else have comments on the conditions of approval?
[4:27:01] I don't, um, I don't, I guess what I don't understand.
[4:27:05] I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that the city owns the land and if they own the land they have a say as to what goes on or is built on that land and we're being told that I mean I understand what winter is saying that we have the CDP before us and we could approve it or deny it.
[4:27:30] But I, as a commissioner, I've always understood that we could attach conditions of approval.
[4:27:39] And so I'm wondering if we can attach a condition of approval to have all the things that we're talking about being included in the D-D-D-L-A.
[4:27:55] No, because the applicant is not in charge of what ends up in the D-D-L-A, that's a negotiation between the city.
[4:28:02] the applicant.
[4:28:06] So no, and I just, I mean I know this is all, you all know this, but because
[4:28:11] the City Council still needs to negotiate the DDLA, if this change in the scope from
[4:28:17] the original response to the RFQ is troubling, they have every opportunity, I think it's been,
[4:28:25] you know, vocalized here and elsewhere, and if you do make sort of recommendation motion
[4:28:32] that will, you know, be carried to them as well.
[4:28:36] So this is not the last and final stop.
[4:28:40] And as we've discussed before,
[4:28:42] the Planning Commission's role is separate
[4:28:45] from the City Council in this way.
[4:28:46] The City Council will have both roles.
[4:28:49] They'll have the role of reviewing any appeal
[4:28:51] of the decision on the CDP if that should be appealed.
[4:28:55] And then they have their separate role as the body
[4:28:58] that's in charge of deciding what happens
[4:29:00] with City Land to negotiate the D.D.L.A.
[4:29:10] So just to answer your question, Margaret, because there's actually an answer,
[4:29:15] and there's almost always an answer in this document.
[4:29:18] Policy 2, 2, talks about complete policy compliance.
[4:29:23] And I'm going to read a portion of the policy, which says allow flexibility only when
[4:29:27] the Land Use Plan provides for an exception.
[4:29:30] And so the Land Use Plan and conjunction with State Density Bonus Law, these things all work together.
[4:29:35] And the state density bonus law knows there's all kinds of provisions, but
[4:29:41] it's embedded in what we're doing by statute, right?
[4:29:47] And so if there's a specific exception that's allowed, there's a policy that allows for it as great.
[4:29:52] One of the problems with the state density bonus law is it is a sledgehammer for
[4:29:56] a local control by design.
[4:29:58] It's designed...
[4:30:00] We're asking it every other planning commission across California for the last 50 years, and we're asking legitimate questions, and we would normally, in the course of things, push back and say, yes, you'll only be four stories, move on. But that's what we do for projects that don't have affordable housing in them. State density bonus law is designed to purposefully bypass this process. And so if we want to fix that, there's a second thing that needs to happen after this
[4:30:29] And after this particular item is we need to talk about how we're going to get organized because we are not organized as a city.
[4:30:35] We are in fact disorganized on this item and it is super, it's not imputing the character of anyone.
[4:30:41] We got a lot of things going on, but this demonstrates that we're not organized for how we address state,
[4:30:46] density, bonus lawn, how we harmonize it with our local coastal plant,
[4:30:52] the land juice plan, which is what we're supposed to be doing.
[4:30:54] So I would recommend we stop, we move forward with an item, we approve the project, and then I think we need to make a statement, and I'm happy to make a very strong statement as to my opinion on the project, but this is where we're at, we're not organized.
[4:31:12] So, unless you guys have something else to say, I would like to make a motion to approve this project as amended.
[4:31:19] We need to be careful because we just attached a bunch of, Hazel just proposed a bunch of changes that we have to do it all at once.
[4:31:32] We have to do it all at once, we have to do it all at once.
[4:31:32] Did you withdraw, can we?
[4:31:34] No, she made him an advisory.
[4:31:38] Sorry, I thought you proposed doing it as an advisory note.
[4:31:42] Just the one item that, just the one item that Commissioner Hernandez questioned.
[4:31:53] I'm sorry.
[4:31:54] So we have to go turn it off.
[4:31:55] I actually, I
[4:32:00] don't want to amend my motion to include that requirement, but there are other requirements.
[4:32:05] Okay, sure, it sounds good.
[4:32:07] And maybe in terms of clarity, if you don't mind reading back to us so that we understand all the conditions
[4:32:16] questions that were given to staff.
[4:32:20] Yeah, and just my recollection of what happened was Commissioner Hernandez made a motion second by Commissioner Ruddick.
[4:32:27] Then you withdrew your motion and chair Gossett made a motion to approve the project.
[4:32:33] Then there was discussion about whether to add any conditions.
[4:32:36] So I think technically it's chair Gossett's motion.
[4:32:39] And if she wishes to amend her motion to add any of these conditions, she may do so.
[4:32:45] So, and then we can vote on that, we, not me, you can vote on that.
[4:32:52] So, I move that we approve this as I read earlier, with the conditions of approval stated
[4:33:01] during the course of the discussion after this motion was introduced.
[4:33:06] Is that okay?
[4:33:06] Can I do that?
[4:33:07] So, you want all of them?
[4:33:08] All of Commissioner Arbyscher?
[4:33:10] Yes, and if someone wants to remove any of them right now is now is now is the time to speak up.
[4:33:17] I thought we could have like a little act of listening going on so that we're sure and clear about what they are.
[4:33:23] Would you like me to read back the ones?
[4:33:26] Yes, please.
[4:33:27] Okay, I just want to just pause like it's we just attached a bunch of stuff that I've never seen before in I mean.
[4:33:36] I mean, I haven't seen before this evening, I should say.
[4:33:40] Other cities do that.
[4:33:42] Yeah, but I haven't seen it.
[4:33:43] I guess that's the concern.
[4:33:45] You want me to just read the real.
[4:33:46] A lot of them seem like changes in policy.
[4:33:49] Like with that, that maybe we should have, definitely should have.
[4:33:54] But we haven't, it hasn't been in any reports and we haven't talked about it.
[4:33:58] That's all.
[4:33:59] Yeah, personally, I'm overwhelmed by that long list of proposals you made.
[4:34:04] I don't know how to think about them.
[4:34:07] I'm sure that some of them are things that the city, engineering and other staff oversee as part of any construction projects in the city.
[4:34:19] Some of them are also related to making sure that our community work force is employed through this project.
[4:34:27] But we don't, like we don't set that policy.
[4:34:31] Like council sets policy, our responsibility is to enforce policy.
[4:34:37] So then you can remove it.
[4:34:43] Are you talking about one condition of approval?
[4:34:47] The commission can remove any or all, okay.
[4:34:51] Do you want to read back?
[4:34:54] Yeah, I'm happy to read back.
[4:34:56] back.
[4:35:00] I do just from a procedural perspective, currently the motion is to include all of the conditions I'm about to read. So if you could take a vote on that, and then see if that motion passes, and if it doesn't, somebody else could propose it with different conditions, or Chair Gossett, you could amend your motion if you decide after discussion to not include all of the conditions I'm about to read. But my understanding was, Chair Gossett made the motion.
[4:35:29] She amended it to add all the conditions that had been discussed. I'm about to read them and then we'll go from there
[4:35:36] Is that is that clear? Is that what am I on the right where am I she wants I mean
[4:35:43] We don't even we don't remember what those conditions are. Yeah, that's what I'm about to read
[4:35:49] We need to see if there's a second for that motion before we spend time on that
[4:35:55] Did I make a second?
[4:35:57] I think there was a second.
[4:35:59] I'm not sure there was a second to the amendment, though,
[4:36:03] when Chair Gosset changed it.
[4:36:08] I make a second to the amendment,
[4:36:09] and you can read through the items.
[4:36:12] Okay.
[4:36:13] So what I have, I mean my glasses here,
[4:36:17] and these are not the conditions that we talked about
[4:36:19] with respect to the architectural review,
[4:36:22] we've already discussed those.
[4:36:23] So the first was the two conditions of approval,
[4:36:28] that were proposed by the applicant with the modifications that Commissioner Hernandez made to the second condition in order to require mercy to report back to this community development director with the memo explaining its analysis and then moving on to the conditions that were proposed by Vice Chair Joannis.
[4:36:52] I have at a condition with a local workforce preference, grant the city the right to evaluate construction plans and specifications and bid proposals, a 10% tenant preference for local senior farm workers in the co-side area, and I'll note that overlaps with an existing condition of approval in there on the local preference so you might want to discuss that.
[4:37:23] Require the applicant to install safety rails in all units and hallways, and I apologize, I was writing quickly, so if I get it wrong, please correct me.
[4:37:36] Require the project to include walk-in showers in all units, and this one, I'm not totally sure, consider modifications for physically challenged units, including for site impaired.
[4:37:49] It's to include units that are sight impaired, hearing impaired, and include, okay.
[4:38:00] And locating ingress and egress of construction equipment, I think this was away from sensitive
[4:38:06] receptors,
[4:38:10] away from residential streets?
[4:38:11] Yes.
[4:38:13] Okay.
[4:38:17] Restrict operation of large earth moving equipment.
[4:38:21] That one was away from sensitive receptors, believe.
[4:38:26] Restrict activities that cause high levels of vibration so that there's not an overlap
[4:38:32] of different activities with these same high levels of vibration at the same time.
[4:38:37] Then there was one, I will need help on about weekend operations and rollers and packers.
[4:38:44] Yes, a restrict weekend construction activities and the utilization of
[4:38:49] vibratory rollers and packers.
[4:38:56] And then I think I just, I have a blank for the next one, so you need to just fill that one in.
[4:39:01] Offer temporary living accommodation, school rooms, and office space to those with high sensibilities to vibrations.
[4:39:08] Okay,
[4:39:13] and then require a pre-construction assessment of neighboring buildings,
[4:39:19] washed down of the church school and shoreline from, I understood it to be construction dust,
[4:39:29] provide air quality monitoring, and I'm not sure if that was specified where, mostly at the schools,
[4:39:39] with the kids protections for the children.
[4:39:42] And I think there's two schools, the one that's operating at the church in Cunha.
[4:39:50] And then there was a restriction on the use of the Farm Worker Resources Center.
[4:39:57] And I did not catch all the uses that you-
[4:40:00] We wanted to restrict it, too.
[4:40:05] It's the use to residents only for healthy living tea.
[4:40:08] Well, it's for residents for, you know, reserve for exactly what Aless wants to do for it, but it's restricted only to the residents.
[4:40:18] Okay, thank you. And then provide hotel accommodations for construction workers Monday through Friday, and provide lunches to construction workers.
[4:40:30] And then, so that was my list of Commissioner Joannis's conditions.
[4:40:37] There was some discussion about the Farm Worker Resources Center, but I didn't hear an actual condition proposed.
[4:40:43] Through the chair, so I just wanted to strongly make a, so I appreciate actually a lot of this because my kids went to a school where a mercy project was being built.
[4:41:00] next to it, and where other projects are being built next to it.
[4:41:03] So I think the fact that we're next to and existing, two existing schools in a church,
[4:41:09] a lot of these policies make sense.
[4:41:12] And they're based off of existing standards that other Bay Area communities have.
[4:41:19] I'm uncomfortable with everything after where we talk about what all of us can do with the site.
[4:41:28] Because I don't think that's within our purview, certainly not asking people to feed anyone.
[4:41:34] So I'd make the motion to strike everything from where we talk about all of us.
[4:41:41] And also, you already remove the restrictions on bathrooms, but
[4:41:47] I would modify the language around the rails, because that's kind of an implementation detail of the project that I think is best left to mercy, that would be my suggestion.
[4:41:55] I didn't remove the bathroom thing, I'm suggesting if you guys don't like it, you guys can remove it.
[4:42:02] I'm making the recommendation that we remove the bathroom from the changes and the railing changes from the amendment.
[4:42:09] Through the chair.
[4:42:12] So, there are all thoughtful suggestions, I would respectfully ask that they be advisory because I just don't have the time or
[4:42:24] I don't know, we haven't talked about any of them.
[4:42:27] Maybe even though they sound like really smart, good.
[4:42:31] Like, I'm sure other communities do them, I think as an advisory, it might work better.
[4:42:41] Yeah, maybe we could do something along the lines of have a construction management practices,
[4:42:47] is consistent with sensitive receptors with the recognition that there are two schools next door to the project and leave it to city staff to make sure that this is addressed when work happened at Seacrest on the other mercy housing project, there was a lot of dust and mass thrown up and also with the other housing that wasn't just mercies that happened there and it was pretty frustrating as a parent because we had no
[4:43:17] So I do think that we can just make a recommendation that city put in place, unless there's other specific things that you think you really want to hang your hat on.
[4:43:27] So what were you saying?
[4:43:30] Delegated to the city to make sure that we have a strong.
[4:43:33] Sure, that's fine.
[4:43:36] And then maybe also delegated the city and I think winter perhaps this one was missed.
[4:43:42] provide, you know, maybe the city can do is delegated as a city, provide pre-construction assessment of the properties around so that, you know, there's some kind of baseline to show what the condition of the properties around here versus, you know, the construction activities causing damage to the neighboring, especially from the vibrations of the neighboring.
[4:44:09] That's reasonable, I think that's reasonable.
[4:44:13] I do the chair I'd second that, but I also want to make sure that we, through the chair, make additional amendment that we clarify that we need to have a clear policy on where construction workers are parking and they are not to disrupt the normal commercial activities of shoreline station or accessibility to Ted Adcock for community events during construction.
[4:44:42] Just for clarity, would you want to hook that up, but it sounds like you were asking the applicant to work with staff on basically a construction plan that address noise sensitive receptors and would you want to add construction worker parking?
[4:44:59] Yes.
[4:45:00] Absolutely. And construction, um, equipment staging.
[4:45:16] So it's your motion. Um, so I think we have to amend it because quite a few of the things became. Is it better just to withdraw the motion and reintroduce with? I think we've just. We just want to read it back one more time. That's what's been a minute. So what I heard. If I understand correctly, there was sort of a discussion to consolidate.
[4:45:40] Vice-Chair Juannis' list of conditions into two.
[4:45:45] So if I got that direction, generally right,
[4:45:48] I will read through the conditions.
[4:45:52] So your motion would be to approve the project
[4:45:54] with these additional conditions
[4:45:56] if you choose to it so amended.
[4:45:59] So the first two again are the two that the applicant proposed
[4:46:03] those weren't changed.
[4:46:04] And then the second two
[4:46:08] are that the applicant shall work with city staff on a construction management plan, addressing construction practices consistent with sensitive receptors nearby schools, and that also addresses construction worker parking and equipment staging, and then the second condition would be to provide a pre-construction as well.
[4:46:38] assessment of properties neighboring the project site.
[4:46:43] And maybe there could be some clarification,
[4:46:46] is this the applicant's going to provide this
[4:46:49] to the community development director
[4:46:51] or write up a report of neighboring properties conditions?
[4:46:55] Or to
[4:46:59] be defined at the discretion
[4:47:00] of the community development director,
[4:47:03] would be what I would do.
[4:47:05] And we also want to make sure that we get the guidance
[4:47:08] on architectural advisory,
[4:47:10] which is, they can proceed with the project with the design guidance we gave to which I don't want to repeat.
[4:47:20] Yeah, those two conditions, so you got height and you got, okay, at that.
[4:47:25] Well, I got the two conditions I had on your prior motion, is that what you're asking?
[4:47:29] Yes.
[4:47:30] Were to work with staff to better incorporate design elements from half Mumbai and use design elements to,
[4:47:36] to, and I think this was sort of like, did you write it up?
[4:47:44] Oh, and then the second, well, to use design elements to better mask the building mask,
[4:47:50] and then the second was to incorporate the mural process to the extent legally possible.
[4:47:55] And it was directed at the roof, so direct, incorporate design elements into the roof to help hide
[4:48:02] mass and provide for better screening from the wind.
[4:48:05] But
[4:48:14] those two are not part of this motion, that's part of the prior.
[4:48:18] I want to make sure we capture it all more.
[4:48:20] Okay.
[4:48:25] We need to get a roll call so we can do the advisory ones.
[4:48:28] Yes.
[4:48:31] Bridge area.
[4:48:32] Yep.
[4:48:36] Commissioner Gorn?
[4:48:37] Yes.
[4:48:38] Commissioner Reddick?
[4:48:39] Yes.
[4:48:41] Commissioner Hernandez?
[4:48:42] Yes.
[4:48:44] Vice Chair, I'm sorry, Vice Chair Johannes, I have to say abstain.
[4:48:50] And Chair Gossett?
[4:48:52] Yes.
[4:49:01] It's four, four, four,
[4:49:07] if
[4:49:11] I could just get a little clarification for my comment earlier
[4:49:15] since we did this in two steps, I'm taking those two motions together as effectively approving
[4:49:23] the resolution with those additional conditions that were discussed during those two motions.
[4:49:29] Do I have that correct?
[4:49:29] That's correct.
[4:49:30] That was the intention.
[4:49:31] Yes.
[4:49:31] Okay, thank you.
[4:49:36] So I'd like to make a motion that we issue an advisory statement to the City Council on this project.
[4:49:47] I will second that.
[4:49:50] I'd like to discuss that before we vote on it.
[4:49:52] Okay.
[4:49:53] I don't think that's an appropriate thing for the Planning Commission to do.
[4:49:58] I don't think it's within our-
[4:50:00] I'm urging the council to revert to a less tall building. I worry that it has the force of urging the city council to violate the state laws in this case. I suggest that it might be more fruitful if individual planning commissioners feel free to talk to the city council about their opinions. I think the state law has been explained very clearly to us and
[4:50:28] And we'll be very clearly explained to the City Council.
[4:50:31] Yeah, so my motion is not going to deal with height.
[4:50:36] It's going to be, how about I make a motion and we can discuss it.
[4:50:41] And we can figure out if we want to.
[4:50:43] Well, I haven't actually provided any detail, I just said, let's say something.
[4:50:48] I haven't said what we're going to say.
[4:50:50] I heard you make a motion in some second.
[4:50:53] So I like to make a motion that we, I like the motion, let's clarify what the motion,
[4:50:58] the advisory statement is, this is up for discussion.
[4:51:04] I think we're looking for, actually, what I would like to make an advisory statement is clarification.
[4:51:16] Shoot, I'm going to back off.
[4:51:18] Gorn, do you want to make this, I'm going to withdraw my motion.
[4:51:21] Okay,
[4:51:24] I would make a motion that the city council strongly look at.
[4:51:33] that the motion at the ENA that it approved
[4:51:43] 2023 in June 2023 or
[4:51:58] representative of the project that they has for in the first place.
[4:52:06] I would also add to that motion the other advisory concerns that we had.
[4:52:13] And I actually don't remember what they were.
[4:52:19] I'd like to.
[4:52:21] Yeah, so I
[4:52:30] think the point is there.
[4:52:32] No, no, I think City Council needs to provide direction on the whether or not this project is applicable to the scope of work they originally issued and it's consistent with what their objectives are from a policy perspective.
[4:52:46] I would say that this project can be accommodated at this site with a significantly reduced mass in many formulations, which could include removal of parking from the site and location at another place.
[4:53:03] It could include a reduction in the office space and the programming space, which seems excessive because there's no clear plan for it.
[4:53:15] And the consideration of, I mean, yeah, those are, I mean, just consistent with the original scope of the project.
[4:53:25] I mean, the City Council should make its termination, what he said in a more coherent way, I hope.
[4:53:33] And also looking at the original scope of having, you know, 31 studios with 9 1 bedroom units.
[4:53:42] It's like they should revisit that,
[4:53:46] because that might, even though we're not supposed to consider parking.
[4:53:52] We were told we couldn't as part of this process.
[4:53:55] This is a vibrant area that people use and we haven't really come up with a way to deal with all the parking that may occur.
[4:54:04] Although we need a coherent, I think with the point was we need a coherent parking plan for
[4:54:10] this part of not all of downtown, but specific to this particular area that includes the campus of the middle school,
[4:54:20] the boys and girls club, shoreline station, the Catholic church.
[4:54:25] This needs to be addressed urgently, and
[4:54:30] And in particular, the intersection between the event center and 555 Kelly today is severely
[4:54:41] problematic.
[4:54:42] We've heard testimony about the death of a bicyclist at this intersection on Kelly.
[4:54:49] But this area is problematic.
[4:54:53] And so it needs to be addressed urgently.
[4:55:00] As part of this project. Further, the city council needs to make a determination as to whether and what the definition of major transit stop is. I haven't received clear evidence that we have a major transit stop in the city. I've heard a staff report, but there's no evidence to demonstrate that we're using practices consistent.
[4:55:29] that with other communities and I think it's important for City Council to weigh in on this and staff to provide background on how we got here because I, again, I just, yeah, that's four minutes, that's it, can, wait, there was, can we make a motion to extend the meeting 15 minutes?
[4:55:47] Yes.
[4:55:48] So moved.
[4:55:49] So moved.
[4:55:52] All
[4:55:55] in favor?
[4:55:56] Yes.
[4:55:56] Yes.
[4:55:57] Yes.
[4:55:59] Did we also have the condition on the air quality, the air monitoring, and was that an advisory on the air monitoring?
[4:56:08] I think my expectation is that Matt's going to take air monitoring into consideration as part of the condition of approval.
[4:56:13] He's going to come up with an air management plan.
[4:56:15] It's already part of the standard conditions of approval, but he's going to look at it for sensitive receptors.
[4:56:20] So I think we're covered there.
[4:56:22] And what about the washing, the washdowns?
[4:56:24] Did we talk about the washdowns?
[4:56:26] Yes, can.
[4:56:26] Okay.
[4:56:28] So, so, so that's my advisory statement is, is I just, I really, City Council needs to look at this and like, you know,
[4:56:38] do you want to read it back?
[4:56:39] Projects.
[4:56:40] No.
[4:56:41] That was a lot.
[4:56:42] So I was understanding that this was going, this is not going to be a written document that we are producing.
[4:56:50] Now you are making a motion based on what you just discussed was my understanding.
[4:56:54] And I understood Commissioner Goren to have initially made the motion and
[4:56:58] Commissioner Hernandez and others added to it.
[4:57:02] So maybe Commissioner Goren, if you wanted to amend your motion to include the additions of the other commissioners.
[4:57:09] And then you could take a vote on whether, as a planning commission, you want to make that recommendation to the City Council.
[4:57:15] Yes, I would amend my motion to include what the other commissioners have said.
[4:57:22] Thank you.
[4:57:23] Second.
[4:57:27] Well, I like the language you just stated about urging Council to prioritize the study of the regional parking and safety.
[4:57:40] I'm not comfortable with us feeling that it's our place to tell City Council to go back and revisit the entire project.
[4:57:48] You think if they want to do that, they'd be well able to do it without the planning commission's input.
[4:57:57] Could we get a vote?
[4:58:01] They may get to on appeal anyway.
[4:58:04] I wish there was a way we could split those two things up so I could support the traffic and the-
[4:58:10] I make a motion so which to you I don't you wanted to
[4:58:15] You should should we do that or no?
[4:58:19] Doesn't even matter
[4:58:28] We have a motion and we've got a second. Yes, do you want to all in favor?
[4:58:34] No, I think we should do a roll call or you want to do a roll call, okay?
[4:58:38] Commissioner Gorn yes, please commission erudic no
[4:58:43] Commissioner Hernandez. Yes
[4:58:44] Yes.
[4:58:45] Commissioner Vice-Chair Joe Hannes.
[4:58:48] Yes.
[4:58:49] And Chair Gosset.
[4:58:50] Yes.
[4:58:52] Okay.
[4:58:52] Motion approved, 4-0.
[4:58:55] 4-1, I'm sorry.
[4:58:56] I'm sorry, 4-1.
[4:58:58] It's late.
[4:59:00] Sorry.
[4:59:02] So that's for the advisory meeting.
[4:59:04] Do we want to give a summary of what happened?
[4:59:05] Do you guys, I mean,
[4:59:06] the project was approved.
[4:59:07] The project was approved with us tonight.
[4:59:09] The project has been approved.
[4:59:10] Approved about half an hour ago.
[4:59:12] I'm not done yet.
[4:59:13] So the project's been approved.
[4:59:14] The permit for tonight, the CDP has been approved, so I just want you to know that.
[4:59:20] And the next item on our agenda is public forum for anything that wasn't us on the agenda tonight, if anyone wouldn't want to speak out.
[4:59:31] I have no speakers.
[4:59:33] All right.
[4:59:35] Director's report.
[4:59:39] Director's report.
[4:59:40] Thank you, Chair Gossip.
[4:59:41] Members of the Commission, Steve McCarrison, term community development director of one brief report.
[4:59:46] For the Caltrans, that's our one multi-asset maintenance project that the Planning Commission
[4:59:52] approved on April 9th.
[4:59:54] We received two appeals for that, and that is scheduled for City Council consideration.
[5:00:00] I'm May 21st, that's my report.
[5:00:06] Through the chair. When are we going to hear 880 stone pine? As a actual item, I know an emergency CDP has been issued, but are we going to hear that as a actual item?
[5:00:23] Through the chair. So as you recall, 880 stone pine was approved under an emergency CDP, and as a condition of that,
[5:00:33] a full CDP had to be filed with the city that happened within the 60-D period.
[5:00:41] My understanding is that the secret documentation is being finalized right now.
[5:00:47] It will likely be circulated next month, and then there's an appeal period.
[5:00:53] So probably the earliest that that can be heard here is 45 to 60 days.
[5:00:59] Would that be before we break round?
[5:01:01] That is not the plan.
[5:01:03] The whole purpose of the emergency CDP was to move that project forward and not have to wait for the traditional process and the timelines are based on moving forward in the next few weeks.
[5:01:15] Is there anything we can do in the interim to assist the city in the process until the reach need to wait, I guess, until you get the sequa?
[5:01:25] Yeah, we will follow the normal, normal process and of course this is a project that doesn't qualify for the types of bonuses or the density bonus here so it'll be a much more traditional process for the regular CDP.
[5:01:40] I think the bigger issue that I'm concerned with is we have, my understanding is from listening to the Coastal Commission meetings this week, is that we have significant changes coming to state law that impact us in January.
[5:01:55] of 2025, where any that effect density bonus law projects, specifically our discretion
[5:02:09] as a community it sounds like is going to be reduced to ministerial approval based on
[5:02:15] objective development criteria.
[5:02:17] And I have not seen any object, I mean we don't even have standards we can agree on for
[5:02:22] this project, so I'm very concerned that we're behind the eight ball in terms of planning.
[5:02:28] So I understand there's a budget item for this, but where are we at with establishing those objective design criteria under whatever it is state bill 237?
[5:02:39] I would have to have a conversation with our planning staff, but I don't believe we've started that process.
[5:02:45] I think the funding would be the give us the ability to start moving that forward.
[5:02:50] it's beyond the capacity of our existing staff.
[5:02:54] Okay, it's very concerning that from what I've heard, and we want affordable housing in our community.
[5:03:05] I think we want to make more of it, we want to make it work, but I'm sure we'll have a lot to say on it later.
[5:03:14] The other thing is there's another bill coming that's promoted by Assembly Member Albarez,
[5:03:22] which is going to basically remove the coastal act from state density bonus law altogether.
[5:03:31] And I think for those coastal communities aren't paying attention to it, my personal view is that it's a disaster.
[5:03:39] So we've got a lot of work to do just to keep up with the objective design criteria.
[5:03:44] But Senator Albarez's bill is something that I think poses a significant threat to us as a community.
[5:03:50] And I think the, I read the Coastal Commission's report on this.
[5:03:53] They also strongly oppose Albarez's bill.
[5:03:56] And I think it's important for people to get the word out on that.
[5:03:59] And I will say, do you believe we actually took a position of opposition to this bill?
[5:04:05] I can confirm that with our city clerk who manages the legislation.
[5:04:08] Great, thank you.
[5:04:11] Thank you, Matthew.
[5:04:12] Do we have a motion to adjourn or any?
[5:04:16] I have one quick communication.
[5:04:19] You all may know this, but last week the Coastal Commission denied the appeal of the so-called wave crest CLT trail.
[5:04:27] Which means the project is moving forward.
[5:04:30] I've watched that meeting.
[5:04:32] Me too.
[5:04:34] For a bunch of nerds.
[5:04:35] Do you have a motion to adjourn?
[5:04:37] Motion to adjourn.
[5:04:40] Second.
[5:04:41] All in favor?
[5:04:42] Thank you. Good night.