Half Moon Bay City Council
April 19, 2022

BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: April 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jill Ekas, Community Development Director
TITLE: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ORDINANCE
RECOMMENDATION:

Conduct a public hearing, waive first reading, and introduce an ordinance amending portions of Chapter 18 (Zoning) of the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The proposed amendments conform to State law and encourage development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs). As proposed, impact fees will be charged on new ADUs larger than 750 square feet. Staff is also proposing to charge for the associated Measure D certificates to cover a portion of the City’s cost to process these applications.

STRATEGIC ELEMENT:

This action supports the Healthy Communities and Public Safety and Inclusive Governance Elements of the Strategic Plan.

BACKGROUND:

On August 17, 2021, the City Council adopted a revised Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance (“2021 ADU Ordinance”), which is codified as Chapter 18.33 of the municipal code.

The 2021 ADU Ordinance was conditionally certified by the California Coastal Commission on February 11, 2022 with two modifications. The modifications pertain to parking in certain coastal access constrained neighborhoods, and one of the modifications also includes a revised reference to historic resources. Due to these modifications, the City must readopt the Ordinance as part of a follow-up process with the Coastal Commission to achieve final certification.

This staff report focuses on the Coastal Commission’s modifications. For background on the 2021 ADU Ordinance as adopted by City Council in August 2021, the following links provide references to past City Council staff reports:
• January 21, 2020 – City Council Ordinance Introduction (1st Reading) • July 20, 2021 – City Council Ordinance Re-Introduction (new 1st Reading) • August 17, 2021 - City Council Ordinance Adoption (2nd Reading) 171

DISCUSSION:

As proposed to City Council in July 2021, the 2021 ADU Ordinance attempts to accomplish three goals: (1) where permitted, it retains the requirements and structure of the City’s existing code; (2) where required, it brings the code into compliance with the new State ADU law; and (3) also where required, it continues to ensure the ordinance is consistent with the Coastal Act. State ADU law is very prescriptive and ADU regulations must closely conform to State law. However, the law allows cities within the coastal zone to modify their ADU ordinances where necessary to avoid conflicts with the Coastal Act. The most recent Coastal Commission guidance regarding State ADU law is provided in Attachment 2.

As originally adopted by City Council in 2021, the 2021 ADU Ordinance included several such modifications pertaining to the Coastal Zone, summarized here:
• Parking: The ordinance requires parking for ADUs for certain areas west of Highway 1 that are heavily used for coastal access parking.
• Coastal Development Permit: The ordinance continues to require applicants to obtain a coastal development permit for some types of ADUs, though the ordinance retains the streamlining previously developed in this section, which provides for administrative review by the Community DevelopmentDirector.
• Measure D: The ordinance continues to require Measure D certificates for ADUs. This requirement is consistent with the Measure D ballot language and written guidance from the Coastal Commission in 2014.
• Reserve Zoning Districts: The ordinance does not permit ADUs within the Open Space Reserve (OS-R) and Urban Reserve (U-R) zoning districts.

The Coastal Commission’s review of the City’s 2021 ADU Ordinance found the vast majority of the Ordinance to be consistent with the Coastal Act. The Coastal Commission staff report is provided in Attachment 3. The Coastal Commission’s certification of the City’s ADU Ordinance includes two modifications pertaining to parking. The strikethrough (deletions) and underline (insertions) format indicate Coastal Commission approved revisions to the City’s 2021 Ordinance:

18.33.050 - All Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units H.2. Notwithstanding Subsection (H)(1), a parking space shall not be required within the areas depicted in Figure 18.33-1 a. F for an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit that is on the same lot as a historic property resource listed on or eligible for listing on either the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources, if the applicant demonstrates that the required parking cannot be provided on-site without adversely impacting aspects of the resource that have make it eligible for such listing. b. When a parking exception has been granted in accordance with Section 18.36.080.

18.33.090 - Incentives
B. Parking. The covered parking requirement for the a proposed primary residence shall be limited to one covered parking space and one uncovered parking space if an 172

accessory dwelling unit is also proposed provided in areas outside of those designated in Section 18.33.050(H) and depicted in Figure 18.33-1. The uncovered parking space may be provided in the side yard setback (if on a corner lot) or front yard setback under this incentive with the parking design subject to approval of the community development director. The maximum impervious surfaces devoted to the parking area shall be no greater than the existing driveway surfaces at time of application. Not more than fifty percent of the front yard width shall be allowed to be parking area.

With respect to parking, other than for areas more than 0.5 miles away from a transit stop, State ADU law broadly limits local jurisdictions from imposing parking requirements for ADU development. Almost all of Half Moon Bay’s neighborhoods are within 0.5 miles of a bus stop on Highway 1, and thus the City does not have many residential parcels where this exception would apply. As previously explained, ADU law does provide for code deviations that are germane to the implementation of the Coastal Act. For example, coastal jurisdictions may impose parking requirements on ADUs to support coastal access. In fact, the City’s ADU Ordinance has included such a provision for several years. In a previous update to the ADU ordinance in 2018, the City identified and mapped portions of Half Moon Bay’s western neighborhoods that were known to support public parking for coastal visitors. For these areas, the 2018 ADU Ordinance required that parking be required for ADUs, unless a historic resource or parking exception was relevant to the specific property. The 2018 ADU Ordinance was certified by the Coastal Commission with those allowances. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) also raised no objections to the 2018 ADU Ordinance upon submission pursuant to State ADU law.

The City’s 2021 ADU Ordinance brought the 2018 ADU Ordinance’s parking provisions forward.

However, upon reviewing the 2021 ADU Ordinance, Coastal Commission staff were not satisfied with the previously certified language. Their assessment was that more should be done to maintain public street parking in coastal access impacted areas. To that end, the modifications associated with sections 18.33.050.H.2. and 18.33.090.B tighten up the parking requirements in portions of the City’s western neighborhoods.
• 18.33.050.H.2. As revised, this section requires that specific findings be made to waive ADU parking requirements for properties developed with historic resources in specified western neighborhood areas.
• 18.33.090.B As revised, this section no longer provides reduced parking requirements as an incentive to developers of new single-family homes for projects that also include an ADU in specified western neighborhood areas.

Staff notes that these changes may only impact a limited number of parcels. Very few properties in these areas contain historic resources; and furthermore, most of these properties are already developed with single-family homes that have conforming parking (2-car garages with driveways).

Staff finds the modifications acceptable.

Environmental Review
The proposed code amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Public Resources Code § 21080.17, as they implement the provisions of Government Code § 65852.2.
173

Next Steps
If City Council introduces the ordinance as amended incorporating the Coastal Commission modifications, a second reading will be scheduled for Council’s next meeting. Once adopted, the Ordinance will be submitted to the Coastal Commission, where the Executive Director will review the City Council’s action and make a determination for the Coastal Commission’s confirmation. Provided this outcome, the Ordinance will be effectively certified. Staff will also submit the Ordinance to HCD for further compliance review.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ordinance

2. California Coastal Commission memo, “Implementation of New ADU Laws,” April 21, 2020

3. California Coastal Commission Staff Report, February 11, 2022 174
1 ORDINANCE NO. C-2022-______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY AMENDING CHAPTER 18.33 “ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS” AND RELATED PROVISIONS OF

THE ZONING TITLE OF THE HALF MOON BAY MUNICIPAL CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Findings. The City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay hereby amends Chapter 18.33 “Accessory Dwelling Units” and related provisions of the Zoning Title of the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code (“ADU Ordinance Amendment”). The City Council finds and declares as follows:
(a) The State of California enacted changes to Government Code section 65852.2 to impose specific requirements on local government regulation of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), which became effective on January 1, 2020; and (b) The California Coastal Commission issued memos on April 18, 2017, November 20, 2017, March 11, 2020, and April 21, 2020 to provide guidance to jurisdictions located within the California Coastal Zone for implementing amendments to their Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) to be consistent with revised Government Code section 65852.2; and (c) The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) issued an Accessory Dwelling Unit Handbook to assist jurisdictions in implementing Government Code section 65852.2 and 65852.22 (related to Junior Accessory Dwelling Units); and (c) The City of Half Moon Bay, which is located fully within the Coastal Zone, seeks to revise its regulations as they pertain to ADUs for them to be consistent with Government Code section 65852.2 and the California Coastal Act, pursuant to the guidance from the Coastal Commission and HCD; and
(d) ADUs provide a community benefit by expanding the number and type of residential facilities available and assist ADU owners by providing additional affordable space for housing family or friend and/or revenue that may be used for maintenance, upgrades and other costs; and
(e) If not regulated, ADUs can create nuisances such as overcrowding, illegal vehicle parking, and traffic-flow disruptions. The restrictions of the ADU Ordinance Amendment are necessary to prevent a burden on City services and potential adverse impacts on residential neighborhoods posed by ADUs; and
(f) The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the ADU Ordinance Amendment on December 10, 2019, at which time all those desiring to be heard on the matter were given an opportunity to be heard, and recommended the proposed ADU Ordinance Amendment for adoption by the City Council; and 175
2 (g) The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the ADU Ordinance Amendment on January 21, 2019, at which time all those desiring to be heard on the matter were given an opportunity to be heard, and continued the hearing to a date uncertain; and
(h) In continuation of the January 21, 2019 public hearing, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the ADU Ordinance Amendment on July 20, 2021, at which time all those desiring to be heard on the matter were given an opportunity to be heard, and introduced the ordinance; and
(i)The City Council waived the second reading and adopted the ADU Ordinance Amendment at a duly noticed public hearing on August 19, 2021; and (j) The City submitted an application to the California Coastal Commission for an amendment to the certified Local Coastal Program for the ADU Ordinance Amendment; and
(k) The California Coastal Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Local Coastal Program Amendment for the ADU Ordinance and approved the proposed amendments to the ordinance with modifications related to coastal access and parking pursuant to the resolution of certification on LCP-2-HMB-21-0068-1; and (l) The City of Half Moon Bay revised the ADU Ordinance Amendment to incorporate the Coastal Commission modifications and (a) acknowledges receipt of the Coastal Commission’s resolution of certification, including the suggested modifications for final certification, (b) accepts and agrees to the modifications and takes this formal action to satisfy the modification through readoption and implementation of this Ordinance with said modifications, (c) agrees to issue coastal development permits throughout the City subject to the approved amendment; and
(m) The ADU Ordinance Amendment is consistent with Government Code section 65852.2 and the Coastal Act in so far as it attempts to comply with the standards in section 65852.2 to the greatest extent feasible while including several limited modifications to protect coastal resources; and
(n) Requiring ADUs to provide ADU-specific and any necessary replacement parking within certain narrowly tailored neighborhoods adjacent to publicly accessible beaches will protect coastal act resources, namely coastal access; and (o) Requiring ADUs to comply with Measure D is consistent with the City’s LCP, which includes residential growth allocations to protect coastal resources, and the Coastal Act; and
176
3 (p) Requiring ADUs to obtain administrative coastal development permits, subject to limited exemptions enacted as part of the ADU Ordinance Amendment, is necessary to implement the California Coastal Act, as explained in the coastal commission guidance; and
(q) Limiting ADUs in certain developed Planned Unit Development zoning districts, where developments were planned to take into account visual resources identified for protection pursuant to the Coastal Act, to units within existing structures is necessary to support the City’s LCP; and
(r) Limiting ADUs in substantially undeveloped PUD zoning districts to lots containing existing primary dwelling units is necessary to support the City’s LCP, which requires a master planning process to protect natural resources, coastal access, scenic and visual resources, and cultural resources before most development is permitted; and (s) Requiring all ADUs to provide drainage plans is necessary to protect the quality and hydrological functions of the City’s coastal waters, as provided in the City’s LCP. (t) The ADU Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the City’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan, in that it includes mechanisms to ensure protection of coastal resources and requires ADUs to comply with the Plan’s limitations on residential growth; and (u) The ADU Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the City’s Housing Element, which contains a policy to “encourage the development of affordable second units,” because the ADU Ordinance Amendment is intended to reduce barriers to the creation of ADUs.

Section 2. Amendments. The following sections of the Municipal Code are amended as specified below and in Attachment A. Attachment A generally shows additions with underlined text and deletions with strike out text.

Municipal Code
Provision
Action
Chapter 18.33 Amendments as shown in Attachment A
Section 18.02.040 Amendments as shown in Attachment A
Section 18.06.050 Amendments as shown in Attachment A
Section 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council herby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and adopted this Ordinance and each section, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
177
4 Section 4. CEQA. The City Council finds that the Ordinance is exempt from CEQA under Public Resources Code section 21080.17, as it implements the provisions of Government Code section 65852.2, as well as CEQA Guidelines sections 15305 (minor alterations to land use limitations) and 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption).

Section 5. Publication. The City Clerk of the City of Half Moon Bay is hereby directed to publish this Ordinance pursuant to Government Code section 36933.

Section 6. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force on the thirtieth (30th) day from and after its final passage and upon certification by the California Coastal Commission.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay, California, held on the 19th of April, 2022.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay, California, held on the __th of May, 2022, by the following vote:

Ayes, Councilmembers: __________________________________ Noes, Councilmembers: __________________________________ Absent, Councilmembers: __________________________________ Abstain, Councilmembers: __________________________________ ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________________ ______________________________ Jessica Blair, City Clerk Robert Brownstone, Mayor

178
5 Chapter 18.33

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS

18.33.010 Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to:

A. Increase the supply of smaller units and rental housing units by allowing accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units to locate on lots which that contain an existing or proposed single-family dwellings and existing two-family and multifamily dwellings;
B. Establish standards for accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units to ensure that they are compatible with existing neighborhoods; and C. Comply with state law regarding accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units (California Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22) and the California Coastal Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 30000 through 30900).

18.33.020 Review and approval.

A. Accessory Dwelling Unit Applications. Accessory dwelling unit applications, including applications for junior accessory dwelling units, shall be submitted to and processed by the community development director as follows:

1. Residential Dwelling Unit Allocation. Accessory dwelling units require a residential dwelling unit allocation pursuant to Chapters 17.06 and 18.04; provided, that no processing fee pursuant to Section 17.06.040 shall be required.

2. Coastal Development Permit. All accessory dwelling units shall conform to Chapter 18.20, as provided below.
a. No coastal development permit is required for Aan wholly within existing development accessory dwelling unit that is wholly within an existing single-family dwelling, as defined in Section 18.33.030, that does not involve the removal or replacement of major structural components (e.g., roofs, exterior walls, foundations), and that does not change the size of the structure or intensity of use, and that does not constitute “development” as defined in Public Resources Code Section 30106 and Section 18.20.020(C) and does not require a coastal development permit. A wholly within existing development accessory dwelling unit changes the intensity of use if it primarily involves the creation of new habitable space.
b. No coastal development permit is required for Aan accessory dwelling unit that is contained within or attached to an existing singlefamily dwelling unit or accessory structure and that does not change the intensity of use or expand the floor area, height, or bulk of the existing unit or structure by more than ten percent is and that is exempt from the requirement to secure approval of a coastal development permit pursuant to Chapter 18.20 and Public Resources Code Section 30610(a) or, for existing guest houses, Section 30610(b). An accessory dwelling unit changes the intensity of use if it primarily involves the creation of new habitable space. This exemption 179
6 shall not be granted if one or more of the criteria in Subchapter 7, Title 14, Section 13250(b) or, for existing guest houses, Section 13253(b) of the California Code of Regulations, as may be amended from time to time, are met. If any criteria are met, the applicant shall obtain a coastal development permit pursuant to Chapter 18.20 rather than an administrative coastal development permit pursuant to this section. c. Any other accessory dwelling unit shall obtain an administrative coastal development permit, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 30624. Such an administrative coastal development permit shall be processed as a “local coastal development permit” per Chapter 18.20 except:
i. The community development director is the approval
authority for an administrative coastal development permit; ii. The city shall not be required to publish any notice in a newspaper; and
iii. Any administrative coastal development permit issued by the community development director shall be listed on the planning commission and city council agendas at their first scheduled meetings after the permit is issued. If, at either meeting, one-third of the planning commission or city council so request, the permit issued by the community development director shall not go into effect and the applicant shall instead obtain a coastal development permit pursuant to Chapter

18.20. Administrative coastal development permits shall not become effective until after the planning commission and city council have had an opportunity to complete this review and any applicable appeal periods have ended.
d. No hearing shall be required for the issuance of the administrative coastal development permit, the issuance of a standard coastal development permit pursuant to Chapter 18.20, or any appeal, for any accessory dwelling unit.
e. The accessory dwelling unit shall comply with any existing coastal development permit issued for the property, unless an amendment thereof is obtained.

3. Building Permit. Accessory dwelling units require a building permit issued in conformance with this code, including Section 17.06.050.

4. Unless otherwise required by the Coastal Act, the community development director shall act on all required permits within one hundred and twentysixty days of receipt of a complete application.

B. Noncompliant Proposals. If the requirements in this chapter are not met, the proposed accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit cannot be approved under this cChapter. Notwithstanding the foregoing, applicants may seek approval of the unit, addition, or renovation under the city’s generally applicable standards and procedures, including a variance pursuant to Chapter 18.23.

C. Conversion of Existing Residence. An existing residence, in conformance with the above regulations, may be converted to an accessory dwelling unit in conjunction with development of a new primary dwelling unit.
180
7 D. Existing Accessory Dwelling Unit. An existing accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit may be enlarged or modified only in accordance with the requirements of this Chaptersection.

E. Density. To the extent required by California Government Code Section 65852.2, an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit built in conformance with this Chaptersection does not count toward the allowed density for the lot upon which the accessory dwelling unit is located.

F. General Plan and Zoning Designations. Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units approved in compliance with this chapter are a residential use that is consistent with the city’s general plan, local coastal land use plan, and zoning ordinance.

18.33.030 Standards for wholly within existing development accessory dwelling unitsstreamlined accessory dwelling units.

Any accessory dwelling unit that is wholly contained within the existing space of a singlefamily dwelling or accessory structure shall meet the followingPursuant to California Government Code Section 65852.2(e), the City shall approve the following streamlined accessory dwelling units, including junior accessory dwelling units, if the specified development standards and use restrictions are met:

A. Within Existing Space (Single-Family) – ADUs and JADUs

1. The accessory dwelling unit is located in an R-1, R-2, R-3, C-D, C-R, C-VS, or C-G, or PUD zoning district.

2. B. The lot on which the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is located contains an existing or proposed single-family dwelling.

In the substantially undeveloped PUD zoning districts, the lot must be already developed with an existing single-family dwelling.

3. C. The lot on which the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is located does not contain another accessory dwelling unit, junior accessory dwelling unit, or guest house, unless a junior accessory dwelling unit is built pursuant to this Subsection (A) and an accessory dwelling unit is built pursuant to this Subsection (A) or Subsection (B).

4. The accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is wholly within the existing or proposed space of a single-family dwelling or the existing space of an accessory structure, or, for an accessory dwelling unit, requires an addition of no more than 150 square feet to accommodate ingress and egress. In Ocean Colony, accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units are not permitted in garages.

D5. The accessory dwelling unit has exterior access independent from the existing single-family dwelling.

E6. The existing single-family dwelling or accessory structure has side and rear setbacks sufficient for fire and safety. If the existing dwelling or structure complies with the city’s setback requirements as described in this code, it shall automatically meet this standard.

7. If a junior accessory dwelling unit is proposed, it complies with the requirements of California Government Code section 65852.22.

8. If the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is to be included in a proposed single-family dwelling, then the single-family dwelling 181
8 (including the accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit) shall meet all applicable development standards, including lot coverage and floor area ratio requirements.

B. Detached, New Construction (Single-Family) – ADUs

1. The accessory dwelling unit is located in: an R-1, R-2, R-3, C-D, C-R, C-VS, or C-G zoning district; a PUD zoning district where detached accessory dwelling units are permitted pursuant to a PUD Plan or Specific Plan; or, a substantially undeveloped PUD zoning district.

2. The lot on which the accessory dwelling unit is located contains an existing or proposed single-family dwelling. In the substantially undeveloped PUD zoning districts, the lot must be already developed with an existing singlefamily dwelling.

3. The lot on which the accessory dwelling unit is located does not contain another accessory dwelling unit or guest house, but may contain a junior accessory dwelling unit.

4. The accessory dwelling unit is detached from the single-family dwelling.

5. The accessory dwelling unit is new construction.

6. The accessory dwelling unit is located at least four feet from the side and rear lot lines, is no greater than eight-hundred square feet in gross floor area, and has a height of no more than sixteen feet.

7. The accessory dwelling unit complies with the front yard, street facing side, and double frontage setbacks applicable to the primary dwelling, unless such setback would preclude development of a unit pursuant to this Subsection (B) on the lot.

C. Wholly Within Existing Space (Two-Family or Multifamily) - ADUs

1. The accessory dwelling unit is located in an R-1, R-2, R-3, C-D, C-R, C-VS, or C-G zoning district.

2. The lot on which the accessory dwelling unit is already developed with an existing two-family or multifamily dwelling.

3. The accessory dwelling unit is located within a portion of the two-family or multifamily dwelling structure that is not used as livable space.

4. The total number of accessory dwelling units within the dwelling will not exceed twenty-five percent of the existing number of primary dwelling units within the dwelling, provided that all two-family or multifamily dwellings shall be permitted at least one accessory dwelling unit.

D. Detached, New Construction (Two-Family or Multifamily) – ADUs

1. The accessory dwelling unit is located in an R-1, R-2, R-3, C-D, C-R, C-VS, or C-G zoning district.

2. The lot on which the accessory dwelling unit is already developed with an existing two-family or multifamily dwelling.

3. The accessory dwelling unit is detached from the two-family or multifamily dwelling.

4. The accessory dwelling unit is located at least four feet from the side and rear lot lines and has a height of no more than sixteen feet.

5. The accessory dwelling unit complies with the front yard, street facing side, and double frontage setbacks applicable to the primary dwelling, unless 182
9 such setback would preclude development of a unit pursuant to this Subsection (D) on the lot.

6. No more than two detached accessory dwelling units are permitted per lot pursuant to this Subsection (D).

F. The accessory dwelling unit complies with applicable building codes and health and safety regulations; however, the accessory dwelling unit is not required to provide fire sprinklers if fire sprinklers are not required for the single-family dwelling.

G. The single-family dwelling or accessory structure was constructed in compliance with all then-applicable city requirements or was in existence on December 12, 2018.

H. The accessory dwelling unit may be rented in full or in part for the purpose of overnight lodging for terms of thirty or more consecutive days, but it shall not be rented for overnight lodging for shorter terms or subleased. Neither the single-family dwelling nor the accessory dwelling unit shall be sold or otherwise conveyed separately from the other unit.

1. Notwithstanding the above, the accessory dwelling unit may be rented in full or in part for the purpose of overnight lodging for a term of fewer than thirty consecutive days if (a) the accessory dwelling unit had been rented as a short-term rental for at least thirty nights in the six months prior to December 12, 2018, (b) the single-family dwelling is owner occupied, and (c) the short-term rental was in full compliance with all city requirements as of December 12, 2018. In the event of discontinued use of the accessory dwelling unit as a short-term rental for a period of six months, the short-term rental use shall be deemed discontinued and this exception shall no longer apply.

I. Either the single-family dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit is occupied by the owner of record as his or her principal residence.

18.33.040 Standards for new developmentother accessory dwelling units.

Any accessory dwelling unit that involves the addition of square footage to an existing singlefamily dwelling or accessory structure or the construction of a new detached structure, or is proposed in conjunction with a new single-family dwelling,Any accessory dwelling unit that does not meet the criteria of Section 18.33.030 shall meet the following development standards and use restrictions:

A. The accessory dwelling unit is located in: an R-1, R-2, R-3, C-D, C-R, C-VS, or C-G zoning district: a PUD zoning district where accessory dwelling units are permitted pursuant to a PUD Plan or Specific Plan; or a substantially undeveloped PUD zoning district.

B. The lot on which the accessory dwelling unit is located contains an existing or proposed single-family dwelling unit. In the substantially undeveloped PUD zoning districts, the lot must be already developed with an existing dwelling.

C. The lot on which the accessory dwelling unit is located does not contain another accessory dwelling unit, junior accessory dwelling unit, or guest house.

D. The accessory dwelling unit meets all nondiscretionary requirements for any single-family dwelling located on the same parcel lot in the same zoning district. These requirements include, but are not limited to, building height, setback, 183
10 site coverage, floor area ratio, building envelope, payment of any applicable fee, and building code requirements. The following exceptions to these requirements apply:

1. No setback is required for an accessory dwelling unit located within existing living area or an existing accessory structure, or an accessory dwelling unit that replaces an existing structure and is located in the same location and to the same dimensions as the structure being replaced. Side and rear yard setbacks may be reduced to four feet for all other accessory dwelling units, but all other standard setbacks (including front, street facing side, and double frontage setbacks) still apply. Detached accessory dwelling units shall have a minimum side setback of five feet and minimum rear setback of ten feet. If any portion of the accessory dwelling unit is located in front of the main building, then the front and side yard setbacks shall be the same as a singlefamily dwelling in the zoning district.

2. The distance between buildings on the same lot must be a minimum of six feet, unless sufficient fire restrictive improvements can be made to existing structures with a distance of less than six (6) feet.

2. Notwithstanding subsection (D)(1) of this section, if the proposed accessory dwelling unit is an addition to an existing private garage:
a. No setback shall be required for any portion of the existing private garage that is converted to the accessory dwelling unit; and
b. Standard setbacks shall apply to the new floor area, unless the accessory dwelling unit is constructed above the existing private garage, in which case the side and rear setbacks for the accessory dwelling unit shall not be less than five feet, and the front setback shall not be less than twenty feet.

3. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit required by the applicable district shall not apply, provided the minimum building site requirements shall be met.

4. The maximum building envelope required by Section 18.060.040(G) shall not be imposed to limit the height of an accessory dwelling unit below sixteen feet.

54. The only architectural and design standards that apply to accessory dwelling units are as follows:
a. If the accessory dwelling unit is attached to a single-family primary dwelling or visible from any public sidewalk or right-of-way, the accessory dwelling unit shall use similar exterior siding materials, colors, window types, door and window trims, roofing materials, and roof pitch as the single-family primary dwelling.
b. If the accessory dwelling unit is directly accessible from an alley or a public street, Tthe entrance to the accessory dwelling unit shall face the alley or public street. Otherwise, the entrance shall be located at least 10 feet from any property linethe interior of the lot unless the accessory dwelling unit is directly accessible from an alley or a public street.
c. For accessory dwelling units attached to the single-family primary dwelling unit, new entrances and exits are allowed on the side and rear of the structures only.
184
11 65. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65852.2, no passageway is required in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit. “Passageway” is defined as a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the accessory dwelling unit.

6. The accessory dwelling unit is not required to provide fire sprinklers if fire sprinklers are not required for the single-family dwelling.

7. If the proposed accessory dwelling unit is a manufactured home, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 18007, it shall comply with Section

18.06.060 (Manufactured homes), except Sections 18.06.060(B) (Approval), (C) (Location), (D)(1) (Width) and (D)(10) (Covered Parking).

E. The gross floor area of the accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed eight hundred and fifty square feet (for studios or one bedroom accessory dwelling units) or one thousand square feet (for accessory dwelling units that provide more than one bedroom). and the gross floor area of the accessory dwelling unit and other buildings on the lot shall not exceed the maximum floor area ratio.

F. Development standards, including limits on lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, and lot size, shall not be used to reduce the gross floor area of the accessory dwelling unit below eight-hundred square feet or the height of the accessory dwelling unit below sixteen feet.

GF. The minimum gross floor area of the accessory dwelling unit shall be no less than one hundred fifty square feet or the minimum required for an efficiency dwelling unit as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1, as may be amended from time to time.

G. Parking.

1. A minimum of one off-street parking space for the accessory dwelling unit, in addition to the spaces required for the single-family dwelling, shall be provided for units within the following portions of neighborhood areas, as depicted in Figure 18.33-1:
a. Miramar: Bounded by Mirada Road to the north, the California Coastal Trail and Naples Avenue to the west, Pullman Ditch to the south, and Highway 1 to the east.
b. Casa del Mar: Parcels with frontage on either side of Pilarcitos Avenue and parcels with frontage on the south side of Wave Avenue. c. Alsace Lorraine: Parcels with frontage on either side of Kelly Avenue between Balboa Boulevard and Pilarcitos Avenue; and parcels bounded by Kelly Avenue to the north, the former railroad right-of-way to the west, Central Avenue to the south, and Potter Avenue to the east.
d. Arleta Park: Parcels with frontage on either side of Poplar Street between Pacific Avenue and Third Avenue, and parcels bounded by Central Avenue to the north, Railroad Avenue to the west, Seymour Street to the south, and First Avenue/Alsace Lorraine Avenue to the east.

No parking space shall be required for any accessory dwelling unit located outside these areas.
185
12 2. Notwithstanding subsection (G)(1) of this section, a parking space shall not be required within the areas depicted in Figure 18.33-1:
a. For a unit that is on the same lot as a historic property listed on or eligible for listing on either the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources;
b. For a unit that is part of a proposed primary residence; c. When a parking exception has been granted in accordance with Section 18.36.080.

3. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this code, the required parking space may be located as a tandem space in an existing driveway or in the required setbacks, and may have a permeable, all-weather surface.

18.33.050 All accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units.

The following apply to all accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units:

A. The accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit complies with applicable building codes and health and safety regulations; however, the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is not required to provide fire sprinklers unless fire sprinklers are required for the primary dwelling.

BH. Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units shall not be approved absent a finding of adequate water supply and wastewater treatment capacity. The accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit can be accommodated with the existing water service and existing sewer lateral or private sewage disposal system, insofar as evidence is provided that the existing water service and existing sewer lateral or private sewage disposal system has adequate capacity to serve both the primary residence and accessory dwelling unit. No additional water meter shall be required, unless requested by the applicant.

C. If the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit will be connected to an onsite water treatment system, the applicant may be required to submit a percolation test completed within the last five years, or if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last ten years.

D. If the unit involves construction of new floor area, the applicant shall be required to submit a drainage plan pursuant to local coastal program land use plan policy 6-

84. EI. The accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit may be rented in full or in part for the purpose of overnight lodging for terms of thirty or more consecutive days, but it shall not be rented for shorter terms or subleased. Neither the single-family primary dwelling nor the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall be sold or otherwise conveyed separately from the other unit, except pursuant to California Government Code Section 65852.26.

1. Notwithstanding the above, thean existing accessory dwelling unit may be rented in full or in part for the purpose of overnight lodging for a term of fewer than thirty consecutive days if (a) the accessory dwelling unit had been rented as a short-term rental for at least thirty nights in the six months prior to December 12, 2018, (b) the single-family dwelling is owner occupied, and (c) the short-term rental was in full compliance with all city requirements as of December 12, 2018. In the event of discontinued use of the accessory dwelling unit as a short-term rental for a period of six months, the short-term 186
13 rental use shall be deemed discontinued and this exception shall no longer apply.

J. Either the single-family dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit is occupied by the owner of record as his or her principal residence.

F. No impact fees, as defined in Government Code Section 65852.2(f), shall be imposed on any accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit with a gross floor area of less than 750 square feet. Impact fees for all other accessory dwelling units shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.

G. The special setback allowances in this Chapter apply only to the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit. They do not apply to ancillary structures proposed in conjunction with the unit, such as decks, balconies, or garages, unless necessary for ingress or egress to the unit.

H. Parking.

1. A minimum of one off-street parking space for the accessory dwelling unit, in addition to the spaces required for the primary dwelling, shall be provided for units within the following portions of neighborhood areas, as depicted in Figure 18.33-1:
a. Miramar: Bounded by Mirada Road to the north, the California Coastal Trail and Naples Avenue to the west, Pullman Ditch to the south, and Highway 1 to the east.
b. Casa del Mar: Parcels with frontage on either side of Pilarcitos Avenue and parcels with frontage on the south side of Wave Avenue. c. Alsace Lorraine: Parcels with frontage on either side of Kelly Avenue between Balboa Boulevard and Pilarcitos Avenue; and parcels bounded by Kelly Avenue to the north, the former railroad right-of-way to the west, Central Avenue to the south, and Potter Avenue to the east.
d. Arleta Park: Parcels with frontage on either side of Poplar Street between Pacific Avenue and Third Avenue, and parcels bounded by Central Avenue to the north, Railroad Avenue to the west, Seymour Street to the south, and First Avenue/Alsace Lorraine Avenue to the east.

No parking space shall be required for any accessory dwelling unit located outside these areas.

2. Notwithstanding Subsection (H)(1), a parking space shall not be required within the areas depicted in Figure 18.33-1 for an accessory dwelling unit that is on the same lot as a historic resource listed on or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, if the applicant demonstrates that the required parking cannot be provided on-site without adversely impacting aspects of the resource that have made it eligible for such listing.

3. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this code, the required parking space may be located as a tandem space in an existing driveway or in the required setbacks.

4. When a private garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit within the areas depicted in Figure 18.33-1, or a junior accessory dwelling unit 187
14 anywhere in the city, the spaces contained in such structures shall be replaced to the extent they are required to meet the numerical parking requirements in Chapter 18.36. The replacement spaces may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the accessory dwelling unit, including, but not limited to, enclosed spaces, unenclosed spaces, or tandem spaces, or by the use of mechanical automobile parking lifts; provided, that the spaces and driveway comply with the requirements found in Sections 18.06.040(D) and (E), to the extent those requirements do not conflict with this chapter.

I. After January 1, 2025 and if permitted by state law, either the primary dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit shall be occupied by the owner of record as his or her principal residence.
188
15 Figure 18.33-1: Map of Required ADU Parking Areas

189
16 18.33.0650 Combination proposals.

When an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is proposed in conjunction with another proposal for which city approval is required under this code, the following options apply:

A. The applicant is encouraged to submit the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit and other proposal(s) for combined review by the city. If the applicant makes this election, he or she voluntarily forgoes the streamlining procedures described in Section 18.33.020.

B. The applicant may elect to have the city process the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit separately from the other proposal(s). If the applicant makes this election, the streamlining procedures described in Section 18.33.020 would apply to the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit proposal after the applicant obtains city approval for the other proposal(s).

For either option, the certificate of occupancy for the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be issued before the certificate of occupancy for the primary dwelling unit.

18.33.060 Converted parking.

When a private garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit, the spaces contained in such structures shall be replaced to the extent they are required to meet the numerical parking requirements in Chapter 18.36. The replacement spaces may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the accessory dwelling unit, including, but not limited to, enclosed spaces, unenclosed spaces, or tandem spaces, or by the use of mechanical automobile parking lifts; provided, that the spaces and driveway comply with the requirements found in Sections 18.06.040(D) and (E), to the extent those requirements do not conflict with this chapter.

18.33.070 Conformance with certified local coastal program.

New accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units shall conform to all applicable requirements of the city’s local coastal program, the zoning code, this chapter, and any existing coastal development permit, including that the proposed accessory dwelling unit will avoid environmental hazards and will not adversely impact any coastal resources including any of the following:

A. Environmentally sensitive habitat areas, or significant vegetation such as native trees, vegetation, riparian corridorsareas, wetlands, or riparian or wetland buffers or visually prominent tree stands as designated in the local coastal program or the zoning code.

B. Significant topographic features, including but not limited to steep slopes, ridgelines or bluffs, water courses, streams or wetlands or any areas as designated in the local coastal program.

C. Significant public views including Heritageold Ddowntown, upland slopesscenic hillsides or broad ocean views from Highway 1 as designated in the local coastal program.

D. Areas of public access to the coastal trail or beach areas including those as designated in the local coastal program.

E. Archaeological resources.
190
17 F. Prime agricultural land or soil.

18.33.080 Declaration of restrictions.

Any declaration of restrictions regarding owner occupancy previously recorded in conjunction with development of an accessory dwelling unit remains valid and binding on any successor in ownership of the property, unless the accessory dwelling unit is removed. If permitted by state law, Before obtaining a building permit for an accessory dwelling unit, theany property owner obtaining a building permit for an accessory dwelling unit after January 1, 2025 shall file with the county recorder a declaration of restrictions containing a reference to the deed under which the property was acquired by the present owner and stating that:

A. Neither the single-family dwelling nor the accessory dwelling unit shall be sold or otherwise conveyed separately from the other unit, either directly or indirectly.

B. The accessory dwelling unit is a permitted use only so long as either the main residence or the accessory dwelling unit is occupied by the owner of record as his or her principal residence, pursuantsubject to Section 18.33.050(H)30(I) or

18.33.040(J).

C. The restriction is binding on any successor in ownership of the property; lack of compliance will result in the accessory dwelling unit becoming an illegal, nonconforming use subject to the code enforcement and abatement proceedings established by this code.

D. The deed restrictions shall lapse upon removal of the accessory dwelling unit.

18.33.090 Incentives.

The following incentives are to encourage construction of accessory dwelling units:

A. Affordability Requirements for Fee Waiver. Accessory dwelling units proposed to be rented at rents affordable to very low or low income households for at least five years may request a waiver of all city fees, subject to the sole discretion and approval of the city council. The city and applicant shall enter into an affordable housing agreement governing the accessory dwelling unit and that agreement shall be recorded against the property.

B. Parking. The covered parking requirement for the a proposed primary residence shall be limited to one covered parking space and one uncovered parking space if an accessory dwelling unit is also proposed in areas outside of those designated in Section 18.33.050(H) and depicted in Figure 18.33-1provided. The uncovered parking space may be provided in the side yard setback (if on a corner lot) or front yard setback under this incentive with the parking design subject to approval of the community development director. The maximum impervious surfaces devoted to the parking area shall be no greater than the existing driveway surfaces at time of application. Not more than fifty percent of the front yard width shall be allowed to be parking area.

18.33.100 Owner occupied exception.

The owner occupancy requirement in Sections 18.33.030(I), 18.33.040(J) and

18.33.080(B) may be waived by the community development director for a period not to exceed two years in any ten-year period upon a finding of hardship due to medical, family, employment or other special circumstances provided the owner retains ownership and 191
18 establishes his or her intent to maintain the single-family dwelling or accessory dwelling unit as his or her primary residence.
192
19 18.02.040 Definitions.
“Accessory building” or “accessory structure” means a detached subordinate building, the uses of which are incidental to a permitted principal use conducted within the main or principal structure on a parcel. An accessory building or use is not permitted without a permitted use on the property. An accessory dwelling unit is not considered an accessory building or accessory structure. For purposes of Chapter 18.33 (Accessory Dwelling Units), an accessory structure must be fully enclosed.
“Accessory dwelling unit” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons on the same parcel as a single-familyprimary dwelling unit. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. An accessory dwelling unit also includes the following: (1) an efficiency unit, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1, and (2) a manufactured home, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 18007. “Efficiency Unit” has the same meaning as set forth in California Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1.

Dwelling, Accessory or Second. “Second or accessory dwelling” means a detached or attached dwelling unit located on a single-family residential lot that contains a one-family dwelling.
“Second dwelling unit” means a detached or attached permanent dwelling unit located within a residential zone on a lot which contains a single-family dwelling. A second unit provides complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, sanitation, and parking. A second unit may be attached to or detached from the primary dwelling. Second dwelling units are governed by Chapter 18.33, titled “Second Dwelling Units.” “Junior accessory dwelling unit” means a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within an existing single-family structure, including an attached garage. A junior accessory dwelling unit may include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure, as defined in California Government Code Section 65852.22.

Yard, Corner Side. “Corner side yard” means a yard between the street facing side lot line abutting the street on a corner lot and the nearest line of building.

193
20 18.06.050 Exceptions to development standards.
. . .

E. Development Standards for Exceptional, Substandard and Severely Substandard Lots. This section sets forth standards for development on substandard or severely substandard lots, which are defined in the zoning code definitions in Section 18.02.040.

1. Exceptional lots shall be subject to the R-1 development standards set forth in Table B of this chapter, unless otherwise specified.

2. Development on substandard or severely substandard lots, other than exceptional lots, shall meet all standards set forth in Tables E and F of this chapter, respectively, unless otherwise specified. Project design review pursuant to Chapter 14.37 is required for all development, including additions and accessory structures but not including any wholly within existing developmentstreamlined accessory dwelling unit, as defined in Section

18.33.030, on any substandard or severely substandard lot or building site except as provided in subsection (E)(3) of this section.

3. Coastal Act Consistency. The exception to development standards for substandard, severely substandard, and exceptional lots set forth in this subsection shall only be applied in full conformity with coastal development permitting requirements pursuant to Sections 30600 and 30610 of the Coastal Act and Title 14 Sections 13250, 13252, and 13253 of the California Code of Regulations and Sections 18.20.025 and 18.20.030 of the zoning code.
. . .
194

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
45 FREMONT STREET, SUITE 2000
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219
VOICE (415) 904-5200
FAX (415) 904-5400
To: Planning Directors of Coastal Cities and Counties
From: John Ainsworth, Executive Director
Re: Implementation of New ADU Laws
Date: April 21, 2020
The Coastal Commission has previously circulated two memos to help local governments understand how to carry out their Coastal Act obligations while also implementing state requirements regarding the regulation of accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) and junior accessory dwelling units (“JADUs”). As of January 1, 2020, AB 68, AB 587, AB 670, AB 881, and SB 13 each changed requirements on how local governments can and cannot regulate ADUs and JADUs, with the goal of increasing statewide availability of smaller, more affordable housing units. This memo is meant to describe the changes that went into effect on January 1, 2020, and to provide guidance on how to harmonize these new requirements with Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) and Coastal Act policies.

Coastal Commission Authority Over Housing in the Coastal Zone The Coastal Act does not exempt local governments from complying with state and federal law “with respect to providing low- and moderate-income housing, replacement housing, relocation benefits, or any other obligation related to housing imposed by existing law or any other law hereafter enacted.” (Pub. Res. Code § 30007.) The Coastal Act requires the Coastal Commission to encourage housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income households. (Pub. Res. Code § 30604(f).) New residential development must be “located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it” or in other areas where development will not have significant adverse effects on coastal resources. (Pub. Res. Code § 30250.) The creation of new ADUs in existing residential areas is a promising strategy for increasing the supply of lower-cost housing in the coastal zone in a way that may be able to avoid significant adverse impacts on coastal resources.

This memorandum is intended to provide general guidance for local governments with fully certified LCPs. The Coastal Commission is generally responsible for Coastal Act review of ADUs in areas that are not subject to fully certified LCPs. Local governments that have questions about specific circumstances not addressed in this memorandum should contact the appropriate district office of the Commission.
195
Implementation of New ADU Laws
April 21, 2020

Overview of New Legislation1
The new legislation effective January 1, 2020 updates existing Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 concerning local government procedures for review and approval of ADUs and JADUs. As before, local governments have the discretion to adopt an ADU ordinance that is consistent with state requirements. (Gov. Code § 65852.2(a).) AB 881 (Bloom) made numerous significant changes to Government Code section 65852.2. In their ADU ordinances, local governments may still include specific requirements addressing issues such as design guidelines and protection of historic structures. However, per the recent state law changes, a local ordinance may not require a minimum lot size, owner occupancy of an ADU, fire sprinklers if such sprinklers are not required in the primary dwelling, or replacement offstreet parking for carports or garages demolished to construct ADUs. In addition, a local government may not establish a maximum size for an ADU of less than 850 square feet, or 1,000 square feet if the ADU contains more than one bedroom. (Gov. Code § 65852.2(c)(2)(B).) Section 65852.2(a) lists additional mandates for local governments that choose to adopt an ADU ordinance, all of which set the “maximum standards that local agencies shall use to evaluate a proposed [ADU] on a lot that includes a proposed or existing single-family dwelling.” (Gov. Code § 65852.2(a)(6).)
Some local governments have already adopted ADU ordinances. Existing or new ADU ordinances that do not meet the requirements of the new legislation are null and void, and will be substituted with the provisions of Section 65852.2(a) until the local government comes into compliance with a new ordinance. (Gov. Code § 65852.2(a)(4).) However, as described below, existing ADU provisions contained in certified LCPs are not superseded by Government Code section 65852.2 and continue to apply to CDP applications for ADUs until an LCP amendment is adopted. One major change to Section 65852.2 is that the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) now has an oversight and approval role to ensure that local ADU ordinances are consistent with state law, similar to the Commission’s review of LCPs. If a local government adopts an ordinance that HCD deems to be non-compliant with state law, HCD can notify the Office of the Attorney General. (Gov.

Code § 65852.2(h).)
If a local government does not adopt an ADU ordinance, state requirements will apply directly. (Gov. Code § 65852.2(b)–(e).) Section 65852.2 subdivisions (b) and (c) require that local agencies shall ministerially approve or disapprove applications for permits to create ADUs.

Subdivision (e) requires ministerial approval, whether or not a local government has adopted an ADU ordinance, of applications for building permits of the following types of ADUs and JADUs in residential or mixed use zones:
• One ADU or JADU per lot within a proposed or existing single-family dwelling or existing space of a single-family dwelling or accessory structure, including an expansion of up to 150 square feet beyond the existing dimensions of an existing accessory structure; with exterior access from the proposed or existing single-family 1 This Guidance Memo only provides a partial overview of new legislation related to ADUs. The Coastal Commission does not interpret or implement these new laws. 196
Implementation of New ADU Laws
April 21, 2020

dwelling; side and rear setbacks sufficient for fire and safety; and, if a JADU, applicant must comply with requirements of Section 65852.22; (§ 65852.2(e)(1)(A)(i)-(iv)) • One detached, new construction ADU, which may be combined with a JADU, so long as the ADU does not exceed four-foot side and rear yard setbacks for the single family residential lot; (§ 65852.2(e)(1)(B))
• Multiple ADUs within the portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not currently used as dwelling spaces; (§ 65852.2(e)(1)(C)) • No more than two detached ADUs on a lot that has an existing multifamily dwelling, subject to a 16-foot height limitation and four-foot rear yard and side setbacks. (§ 65852.2(e)(1)(D))

ADUs and JADUs created pursuant to Subdivision (e) must be rented for terms greater than 30 days. (Gov. Code § 65852.2(e)(4).)
What Should Local Governments in the Coastal Zone Do?
1) Update Local Coastal Programs (LCPs)
Local governments are required to comply with both these new requirements for ADUs/JADUs and the Coastal Act. Currently certified provisions of LCPs are not, however, superseded by Government Code section 65852.2, and continue to apply to CDP applications for ADUs until an LCP amendment is adopted. Where LCP policies directly conflict with the new provisions or require refinement to be consistent with the new laws, those LCPs should be updated to be consistent with the new ADU provisions to the greatest extent feasible, while still complying with Coastal Act requirements.

As noted above, Section 65852.2 expressly allows local governments to adopt local ordinances that include criteria and standards to address a wide variety of concerns, including potential impacts to coastal resources. For example, a local government may address reductions in parking requirements that would have a direct impact on public access. As a result, we encourage local governments to identify the coastal resource context applicable in a local jurisdiction and ensure that any proposed ADU-related LCP amendment appropriately addresses protection of coastal resources consistent with the Coastal Act at the same time that it facilitates ADUs/JADUs consistent with the new ADU provisions. For example, LCPs should ensure that new ADUs are not constructed in locations where they would require the construction of shoreline protective devices, in environmentally sensitive habitat areas, wetlands, or in areas where the ADU’s structural stability may be compromised by bluff erosion, flooding, or wave uprush over their lifetime. Our staff is available to assist in the efforts to amend LCPs.

Please note that LCP amendments that involve purely procedural changes, that do not propose changes in land use, and/or that would have no impacts on coastal resources may be eligible for streamlined review as minor or de minimis amendments. (Pub. Res. Code § 30514(d); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 13554.) The Commission will process ADU-specific LCP amendments as minor or de minimis amendments whenever possible. 197
Implementation of New ADU Laws
April 21, 2020

2) Follow This Basic Guide When Reviewing ADU or JADU Applications a. Check Prior CDP History for the Site.

Determine whether a CDP was previously issued for development of the lot and whether that CDP limits, or requires a CDP or CDP amendment for, changes to the approved development or for future development or uses of the site. The applicant should contact the appropriate Coastal Commission district office if a Commission-issued CDP limits the applicant’s ability to apply for an ADU or JADU.
b. Determine Whether the Proposed ADU or JADU Qualifies as Development.

Any person “wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone” shall obtain a CDP. (Pub. Res. Code § 30600.) Development as defined in the Coastal Act includes not only “the placement or erection of any solid material or structure” on land, but also “change in the density or intensity of use of land[.]” (Pub. Res. Code § 30106.) Government Code section 65852.2 states that an ADU that conforms to subdivision (a) “shall be deemed to be an accessory use or an accessory building and shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot.” (Gov. Code § 65852.2(a)(8).)
Conversion of an existing legally established room(s) to create a JADU or ADU within an existing residence, without removal or replacement of major structural components (i.e. roofs, exterior walls, foundations, etc.) and that do not change the size or the intensity of use of the structure may not qualify as development within the meaning of the Coastal Act, or may qualify as development that is either exempt from coastal permit requirements and/or eligible for streamlined processing (Pub. Res. Code §§30106 and 30610), see also below. JADUs created within existing primary dwelling structures that comply with Government Code Sections 65852.2(e) and 65852.22 typically will fall into one of these categories, unless specified otherwise in a previously issued CDP or other coastal authorization for existing development on the lot. However, the conversion of detached structures associated with a primary residence to an ADU or JADU may involve a change in the size or intensity of use that would qualify as development under the Coastal Act and require a coastal development permit, unless determined to be exempt or appropriate for waiver. c. If the Proposed ADU Qualifies as Development, Determine Whether It Is Exempt.

Improvements such as additions to existing single-family dwellings are generally exempt from Coastal Act permitting requirements except when they involve a risk of adverse environmental effects as specified in the Commission’s regulations. (Pub. Res. Code § 30610(a); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 13250.) Improvements that qualify as exempt development under the Coastal Act and its implementing regulations do not require a CDP from the Commission or a local government unless required pursuant to a previously issued CDP. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 13250(b)(6).)
198
Implementation of New ADU Laws
April 21, 2020

Typically, the construction or conversion of an ADU/JADU contained within or directly attached to an existing single-family residence would qualify as an exempt improvement to a single-family residence. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 13250(a)(1).) Guest houses and “selfcontained residential units,” i.e. detached residential units, do not qualify as part of a singlefamily residential structure, and construction of or improvements to them are therefore not exempt development. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 13250(a)(2).) d. If the Proposed ADU is Not Exempt from CDP Requirements, Determine Whether a CDP Waiver Is Appropriate.

If the LCP includes a waiver provision, and the proposed ADU or JADU meets the criteria for a CDP waiver the local government may waive the permit requirement for the proposed ADU or JADU. The Commission generally has allowed a waiver for proposed detached ADUs if the executive director determines that the proposed ADU is de minimis development, involving no potential for any adverse effects on coastal resources and is consistent with Chapter 3 policies. (See Pub. Res. Code § 30624.7.)
Some LCPs do not allow for waivers, but may allow similar expedited approval procedures.

Those other expedited approval procedures may apply. If an LCP does not include provisions regarding CDP waivers or other similar expedited approvals, the local government may submit an LCP amendment to authorize those procedures. e. If a Waiver Would Not Be Appropriate, Review CDP Application for Consistency with Certified LCP Requirements.

If a proposed ADU constitutes development, is not exempt, and is not subject to a waiver or similar expedited Coastal Act approval authorized in the certified LCP, it requires a CDP.

The CDP must be consistent with the requirements of the certified LCP and, where applicable, the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. The local government then must provide the required public notice for any CDP applications for ADUs and process the application pursuant to LCP requirements, but should process it within the time limits contained in the ADU law if feasible. Once the local government has issued a decision, it must send the required final local action notice to the appropriate district office of the Commission. If the ADU qualifies as appealable development, a local government action to approve a CDP for the ADU may be appealed to the Coastal Commission. (Pub. Res.

Code § 30603.)
Information on AB 68, AB 587, AB 670, and SB 13
JADUs – AB 68 (Ting)
JADUs are units of 500 square feet or less, contained entirely within a single-family residence or existing accessory structure. (Gov. Code §§ 65852.2(e)(1)(A)(i) and 65852.22(h)(1).) AB 68 (Ting) made several changes to Government Code section 65852.22, most notably regarding the creation of JADUs pursuant to a local government ordinance. Where a local 199
Implementation of New ADU Laws
April 21, 2020

government has adopted a JADU ordinance, “[t]he ordinance may require a permit to be obtained for the creation of a [JADU].” (Gov. Code § 65852.22(a).) If a local government adopts a JADU ordinance, a maximum of one JADU shall be allowed on a lot zoned for single-family residences, whether they be proposed or existing single-family residences. (Gov. Code § 65852.22(a)(1).) (This formerly only applied to existing single-family residences. Now, proposals for a new single-family residence can include a JADU.) Efficiency kitchens are no longer required to have sinks, but still must include a cooking facility with a food preparation counter and storage cabinets of reasonable size relative to the space. (Gov. Code § 65852.22(a)(6).) Applications for permits pursuant to Section 65852.22 shall be considered ministerially, within 60 days, if there is an existing single-family residence on the lot. (Gov. Code § 65852.22(c).) (Formerly, complete applications were to be acted upon within 120 days.)
If a local government has not adopted a JADU ordinance pursuant to Section 65852.22, the local government is required to ministerially approve building permit applications for JADUs within a residential or mixed-use zone pursuant to Section 65852.2(e)(1)(A). (Gov. Code § 65852.22(g).) That section is detailed in bullet points on pages two-three of this memorandum and refers to specific ADU and JADU approval scenarios.

Sale or Conveyance of ADUs Separately from Primary Residence – AB 587 (Friedman) AB 587 (Friedman) added Section 65852.26 to the Government Code to allow a local government to, by ordinance, allow the conveyance or sale of an ADU separately from a primary residence if several specific conditions all apply. (Gov. Code § 65852.26.) This section only applies to a property built or developed by a qualified nonprofit corporation, which holds enforceable deed restrictions related to affordability and resale to qualified lowincome buyers, and holds the property pursuant to a recorded tenancy in common agreement. Please review Government Code Section 65852.26 if such conditions apply.

Covenants and Deed Restrictions Null and Void – AB 670 (Friedman) AB 670 added Section 4751 to the California Civil Code, making void and unenforceable any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in a planned development, and any provision of a governing document, that either effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the construction or use of an ADU or JADU on a lot zoned for single-family residential use that meets the requirements of Section 65852.2 or 65852.22 of the Government Code.

Delayed Enforcement of Notice to Correct a Violation – SB 13 (Wieckowski) SB 13 (Wieckowski) Section 3 added Section 17980.12 to the Health and Safety Code. The owner of an ADU who receives a notice to correct a violation can request a delay in enforcement, if the ADU was built before January 1, 2020, or if the ADU was built after January 1, 2020, but the jurisdiction did not have a compliant ordinance at the time the request to fix the violation was made. (Health & Saf. Code § 17980.12.) The owner can request a delay of five (5) years on the basis that correcting the violation is not necessary to protect health and safety. (Health & Saf. Code § 17980.12(a)(2).) 200
STATE OF CALIFORNIA — NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION NORTH CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT 455 MARKET STREET, SUITE 300
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
PHONE: (415) 904-5260
FAX: (415) 904-5400
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
F14a
Prepared January 21, 2022 for February 11, 2022 Hearing To: Commissioners and Interested Persons
From: Stephanie Rexing, North Central Coast District Manager Julia Koppman Norton, North Central Coast District Supervisor Subject: City of Half Moon Bay LCP Amendment Number LCP-2-HMB-21-0068-1 (Accessory Dwelling Units)

SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The City of Half Moon Bay proposes to amend its Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan (IP) to incorporate revised accessory dwelling unit (ADU) provisions designed to help bring them into compliance with State ADU law.

Specifically, the proposed IP amendment provides for ADUs and Junior ADUs (JADU) in certain zoning districts where residential use is allowed, specifies the maximum numbers of ADUs/JADUs allowed per parcel, streamlines ADU/JADU review and permit processing, and provides ADU/JADU development standards (e.g., related to setbacks, parking, owner occupancy, etc.).

The changes proposed are mostly straightforward and should help to facilitate ADUs in the City, which is entirely within the coastal zone. In fact, a significant portion of the City’s coastal zone where ADUs would be allowed per the amendment consists of already developed residential areas with available public services that lend themselves to appropriate ADU development, including where ADUs can be developed without any significant coastal resource concerns. Where there are potential coastal resource issues (e.g., related to the protection of sensitive habitats, shorelines and beaches, public views, etc.), existing LCP policies will still apply and are generally adequate to appropriately safeguard such resources.

However, some modifications are necessary in terms of ensuring that ADU development does not adversely impact on-street public parking availability in areas that are significant coastal visitor destinations in the City, generally at and near popular coastal accessways along the immediate shoreline. Toward this end, the City’s proposed ADU provisions generally mirror the ADU regulations certified by the Commission in 2018, and continue to identify areas where ADU projects would still be required to accommodate their parking needs onsite (one parking space per ADU) as a means of ensuring that coastal access public parking in these critical public right-of-way areas is not adversely affected, similar to the ways that other local governments have 201
LCP-2-HMB-21-0068-1 (Accessory Dwelling Units)

carefully circumscribed such areas in other LCP amendment cases (over a half dozen amendments approved by the Commission in the past year along California’s north central and central coast using a similar construct1). However, the City here also proposes exceptions to such parking standards in this priority visitor parking area in certain circumstances, including where a new home is constructed in tandem with an ADU, when the ADU is proposed on a historic property, or when a parking exception has been granted pursuant to other general parking exceptions. Staff is not supportive of such exceptions in this key area, including as it undermines the objective of protecting on-street public access parking in these specifically carved out access areas.

In addition, the exceptions would require the City to evaluate any such exception request and make a discretionary decision to allow it or not, but ADUs in the City are required to be processed ministerially, and it is not clear how this assessment could even occur in these cases. Staff thus recommends modifications to eliminate such exceptions, which are the product of collaboration with City staff, and the two staffs agree regarding the suggested modifications. In addition, City and Commission staff consulted with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on the proposed amendment, and HCD indicated that the approach taken here in Half Moon Bay, including as modified, is consistent with similar LCP approaches at balancing Coastal Act and state ADU law issues, and that did not raise HCD issues.

With the suggested modifications, the LCP’s ADU provisions will be appropriately tailored to protect coastal resources while also encouraging development of ADUs, thus helping to increase ADU stock in the City’s coastal zone. At the same time, targeted parking requirements can avoid critical public access impacts, and specifically potential problems that could arise if ADU development were allowed to take over public recreational parking stock in a narrowly defined range of areas where on-street parking is critical for maintaining visitor access to the coast.2 Thus, the proposed amendment, if modified as proposed, will not adversely affect coastal resources and is consistent with and adequate to carry out the certified LUP.

Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission approve the proposed amendment with the suggested modifications. The required motions and resolutions are found on pages 4-5 below.
1 See, for example, LCP amendments related to ADUs in San Mateo and Santa Cruz Counties, and the Cities of Pacifica, Santa Cruz, Capitola, Pismo Beach, and Grover Beach). 2 The area in which such potential visitor parking issues have been identified is unchanged in this amendment, and is actually quite small, occupying less than 4% of the City’s coastal zone (and thus such provisions would not apply to over 96% of potential ADU areas). On this point, while it has been generically noted that such a provision in other LCP amendment contexts might lead to less ADUs in such an area as a result, staff is not aware of any evidence that has been developed specific to the mapped area in the City of Half Moon Bay (nor to mapped areas in past LCP amendment cases decided by the Commission) that would suggest that this is a significant burden that will lead to any sort of significant reduction in ADUs that might be constructed. The effect of such a limited ADU parking requirement in such a limited area is expected to be negligible, while the effect of not protecting these public streets at and near important public accessways for public parking would be expected to be significant and adverse.
202
LCP-2-HMB-21-0068-1 (Accessory Dwelling Units)

Staff Note: LCP Amendment Action Deadline
This proposed LCP amendment was filed as complete on September 28, 2021. The proposed amendment affects the LCP’s IP only, and the 60-working-day deadline for Commission action was originally December 24, 2021. However, on December 17, 2021 the Commission extended the action deadline to December 24, 2022, and thus the Commission has until that date to take a final action on this amendment. 203
LCP-2-HMB-21-0068-1 (Accessory Dwelling Units)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS ........................................................................ 5 A. Deny the IP Amendment as Submitted.................................................................. 5 B. Certify the IP Amendment with Suggested Modifications ..................................... 5

2. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS......................................................................... 6

3. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS..................................................................... 6 A. Description of Proposed LCP Amendment ........................................................... 6 B. Evaluation of Proposed IP Amendment................................................................ 8 D. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)..................................................... 17

4. APPENDICES ....................................................................................................... 18 A. Substantive File Documents............................................................................... 18

EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Proposed IP Amendment
204
LCP-2-HMB-21-0068-1 (Accessory Dwelling Units)

1. MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS
Staff recommends that the Commission, after public hearing, approve the proposed LCP amendment with suggested modifications. The Commission needs to make two motions on the LCP amendment in order to act on this recommendation. First, the IP amendment needs to be denied as submitted, and then needs to be approved as modified, to complete the staff recommendation.

A. Deny the IP Amendment as Submitted
Staff recommends a YES vote on the motion below. Passage of this motion will result in rejection of the IP amendment as submitted and the adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion passes only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present.

Motion: I move that the Commission reject LCP Implementation Plan Amendment LCP-2-HMB-21-0068-1 as submitted by the City of Half Moon Bay, and I recommend a yes vote.

Resolution to Deny: The Commission hereby denies certification of LCP Implementation Plan Amendment LCP-2-HMB-21-0068-1 as submitted by the City of Half Moon Bay and adopts the findings set forth below on grounds that the Amendment as submitted does not conform with, and is inadequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified LCP Land Use Plan. Certification of the Amendment would not meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act as there are feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that would substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts on the environment that will result from certification of the Amendment as submitted.

B. Certify the IP Amendment with Suggested Modifications Staff recommends a YES vote on the motion below. Passage of this motion will result in certification of the IP amendment with suggested modifications and the adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion to certify with suggested modifications passes only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present:

Motion: I move that the Commission certify LCP Implementation Plan Amendment LCP-2-HMB-21-0068-1 as submitted by the City of Half Moon Bay if it is modified as suggested in this staff report, and I recommend a yes vote.

Resolution to Certify: The Commission hereby certifies LCP Implementation Plan Amendment LCP-2-HMB-21-0068-1, if modified as suggested, and adopts the findings set forth below on grounds that the Amendment with the suggested modifications conforms with, and is adequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified LCP Land Use Plan, as amended. Certification of the Amendment if modified as suggested complies with the California Environmental Quality Act, because either 1) feasible mitigation measures and/or alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the Amendment on the environment, or 2) there are no further feasible alternatives 205
LCP-2-HMB-21-0068-1 (Accessory Dwelling Units)

and mitigation measures that would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts on the environment.

2. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS
The Commission hereby suggests the following modifications to the proposed LCP Implementation Plan amendment, which are necessary to make the requisite Land Use Plan consistency findings. The City of Half Moon Bay has six months from the date of Commission action to accept the suggested modifications (i.e., by August 11, 2022), by formal resolution of the City Council, and the modified amendment takes effect once the Executive Director determines that the local government action to accept the Commission’s suggested modifications is legally adequate and reports that determination to the Commission at the next regularly scheduled public meeting. Where applicable, text in single cross out and single underline format denotes proposed text to be deleted/added by the City. Text in double cross-out and double underline denotes text to be deleted/added by the Commission’s suggested modifications.

1. Modify IP Section 18.33.050(H)(2) as follows:

Notwithstanding Subsection (H)(1), a parking space shall not be required within the areas depicted in Figure 18.33-1:
a. Ffor an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit that is on the same lot as a historic property resource listed on or eligible for listing on either the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources, if the applicant demonstrates that the required parking cannot be provided on-site without adversely impacting aspects of the resource that have made it eligible for such listing.
b. When a parking exception has been granted in accordance with Section

18.36.080.

2. Modify IP Section 18.33.090(B) as follows:

Parking. The covered parking requirement for the a proposed primary residence shall be limited to one covered parking space and one uncovered parking space if an accessory dwelling unit is also proposed provided, in areas outside of those designated in Section 18.33.050(H) and depicted in Figure 18.33-1.

3. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS
A. Description of Proposed LCP Amendment
The proposed City of Half Moon Bay LCP amendment would update accessory dwelling unit (ADU) provisions in the LCP’s Implementation Plan (IP) to comply with recent changes to State housing law, including changes established by Assembly Bills 68 and 881, and Senate Bill 13, which all took effect on January 1, 2020 (referred to herein as “ADU laws”). As most recently updated in 2020, the ADU laws authorize local governments to establish ordinances regulating ADUs, where those ADU provisions are 206
LCP-2-HMB-21-0068-1 (Accessory Dwelling Units)

intended to help streamline the process of review and approval of ADUs in order to help alleviate severe housing shortages throughout California.

The City recently replaced the LCP’s then-second dwelling unit provisions3 in 2018 with new ADU provisions consistent with ADU laws that were in place at the time (certified by the Commission through LCP amendment LCP-2-HMB-18-0080-1 that was certified on December 12, 2018). The City now proposes to update those 2018 ADU provisions, including to refine them consistent with the most recent changes in ADU law. The most significant proposed IP changes would identify updated development standards for ADUs (e.g., in terms of square footage, setbacks, building envelope, height, size, parking, owner occupancy, etc.); incorporate new Junior ADUs (JADU) provisions; allow ADUs on parcels with existing multi-family dwellings; clarify that an ADU “wholly within” a single-family residence may not require a CDP if it does not constitute “development” as defined in the Coastal Act; and identify where ADUs are allowed (i.e., in single-family zoning districts, commercial zoning districts that allow for residential use, PUD zoning districts where ADUs are permitted pursuant to a PUD Plan or Specific Plan, and only on developed lots in substantially undeveloped PUD zoning districts). In addition, the changes would require submittal of recent percolation tests if the ADU would be connected to an onsite water treatment system, submittal of a drainage and runoff control plan consistent with the requirements of LUP Policy 6-84 if the ADU involves construction of new floor area and would allow ADUs to be connected to private sewage disposal systems. ADU CDP decisions would continue to be ministerial and without public hearings and would continue to be required to meet all applicable LCP provisions.

In terms of parking, the proposed provisions would not require off-street parking for ADUs or JADUs in almost the entire coastal zone (more than 96% of it),4 and would not require replacement parking when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished or converted as part of ADU development in that same area. For areas at or near important public accessways (and located in portions of the Miramar, Casa del Mar, Alsace Lorraine, and Arleta Park neighborhoods; see Figure 18.33-1 in Exhibit 1), the LCP would continue to require that residential and ADU parking needs be accommodated on-site and off-street in that limited and targeted area.5 In that area, a minimum of one off-street parking space would continue to be required for each ADU in addition to the spaces required for the primary dwelling. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished or converted as part of ADU development in those same areas, on-site required parking spaces would be required to be replaced. In all cases, the City proposes that additional parking would not be required for ADU projects on historic properties (i.e., listed on or eligible for listing on either the National 3 The LCP up to that time called out such units as second dwelling units, and not ADUs. 4 The City determined that the majority of all potential ADUs in the City would be located within one-half mile walking distance of transit options, and thus qualify for such parking exceptions by state ADU law. 5 In other words, the LCP currently carves out this area, less than 4% of the City’s potential ADU area, for such requirements given the concern over the potential loss of on-street public parking for coastal visitors in these key areas. These areas were identified and certified for such treatment via LCP amendment in 2018, and here the City does not propose to change that aspect of the LCP’s ADU program. 207
LCP-2-HMB-21-0068-1 (Accessory Dwelling Units)

Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources), or if the City grants a parking exception to any particular project in relation to brand new residential development along with an ADU.

Finally, the proposed IP provisions maintain required ADU conformance with the certified LCP as a whole, including that any proposed ADU is required to avoid the need for shoreline armoring, and to avoid impacts to coastal resources otherwise (specifically, environmentally sensitive habitat areas or “ESHAs”, riparian corridors, wetlands, or riparian or wetland buffers; significant topographic features; significant public views; public access areas; archaeological resources; prime agricultural land or soil; etc.).

Please see Exhibit 1 for the proposed IP amendment.

B. Evaluation of Proposed IP Amendment

1. Standard of Review
The proposed LCP amendment consists of changes to the certified Implementation Plan. For the proposed IP changes, the standard of review is whether the IP, as modified by the proposed amendment, would be in conformance with, and adequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified LUP.

2. Public Access and Recreation
Applicable LUP Provisions
The LCP LUP contains objectives, policies, and other provisions designed to protect and provide for maximum public access and recreational opportunities, as well as to encourage free and lower cost opportunities. These provisions require that existing public access and visitor-serving opportunities be protected and enhanced, that barriers to such opportunities be reduced, and that public access parking, including explicitly onstreet parking spaces, be protected for public use. These LUP provisions include:

LUP Policy 5-1. Maximum Coastal Access and Recreational Opportunities.

Provide maximum coastal access and recreational opportunities for all people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse.

LUP Policy 5-3. Environmental Justice. Minimize barriers to public coastal access to the maximum extent feasible, including ensuring that public access and recreational opportunities account for the social, physical, and economic needs of all people.

LUP Policy 5-5. Distribution of Public Facilities. Continue to distribute public facilities, including parking areas, on both sides of Highway 1 so as to mitigate against the impacts of overcrowding or overuse by the public of any single area.

LUP Policy 5-11. Public Beach Parking Inventory. Maintain and enhance the existing public beach parking inventory by providing on-street public parking spaces, providing opportunities for alternative modes of transportation and beach 208
LCP-2-HMB-21-0068-1 (Accessory Dwelling Units)

shuttles, and, where feasible, providing new beach parking areas where there are no conflicts with adjacent land uses or environmentally sensitive habitat areas.

LUP Policy 5-21. Restrictions on Parking. Prohibit restrictions on public parking that would adversely affect public access to beaches, trails, or other recreational lands along the coast except where necessary to protect public safety and preserve neighborhoods for primarily residential use. Mitigation may be required for implementation of parking restrictions where adverse impacts to public access cannot be avoided, such as through provision of off-site parking or an in-lieu fee to support a public access project in the City.

LUP Policy 5-46. On-Street Public Parking. Protect and enhance the City’s onstreet public parking supply, including by requiring new development to provide sufficient off-street parking and frontage improvements or payment of in-lieu fees to support such improvements.

LUP Policy 5-68. No-Cost and Lower-Cost Visitor and Recreational Facilities. Protect no-cost and lower-cost public access, visitor-serving, and recreational facilities including overnight accommodations from removal, redevelopment, and/or environmental hazards including erosion. These include major, free recreational attractions such as the California Coastal Trail and numerous beaches; and low-cost facilities such as Half Moon Bay State Park and other camping and RV facilities.

Consistency Analysis
The LUP requires that coastal access be provided and protected, including specifically in terms of on-street public parking and lower-cost visitor opportunities Specifically, LUP provisions speak to protecting on-street public parking, prohibiting restrictions on public parking that would adversely affect public access to beaches, trails, or other recreational lands, and minimizing barriers to public coastal access to the maximum extent feasible. In addition, the LUP explicitly requires that on-street public parking be protected (enhanced even) and requires that new development provide for its own parking needs off-street. As a result, any proposed IP provisions that do not do so would be inconsistent with the LUP.

As a general rule, residential development generates parking needs, including when existing garages, carports, or other designated parking locations are converted into livable space (which can actually increase site parking demand while simultaneously decreasing site parking supply). Where a site does not accommodate all of its parking demand on-site and off-street, such parking demand is pushed onto adjacent public streets and rights-of-way. That in turn reduces the availability of on-street parking for coastal visitors, including most importantly in areas of the coast at or near significant public accessways. Recent updates to the ADU laws restrict the circumstances when local governments can require that parking demand associated with ADU-generated residential needs be accommodated onsite, but these laws explicitly do not supersede the Coastal Act, and by extension the LUP that implements it locally, and is the 209
LCP-2-HMB-21-0068-1 (Accessory Dwelling Units)

standard of review here. The LUP is clear that public on-street coastal parking is a critical coastal resource in the City and doesn’t allow it to be reduced in any way.

To address this issue, the City undertook an LCP amendment effort in 2018 to identify and to map the most critical of these on-street public parking areas in its coastal zone, and to identify proposed ADU provisions that require that ADU projects in these areas account for their parking needs on-site and off-street (see the map of this area in Figure

18.33-1, in Exhibit 1). This area covers portions of four neighborhoods (the Miramar, Casa del Mar, Alsace Lorraine, and Arleta Park neighborhoods) that are densely developed and that are on top of popular beach and shoreline visitor destinations in the City, occupying less than 4% of the City. In that area, the City generally found there was potential for adverse impacts to the public’s ability to access the coast if ADU projects did not properly account for their parking needs on-site, and thus the LCP was structured to require that all parking demand in those areas be accommodated on-site with such projects. Conversely, no parking would be required for an ADU located outside of the mapped areas if it met state ADU law criteria (i.e., if the subject ADU is less than a half-mile walking distance from public transportation, is located within an architecturally and historically significant district, is part of the proposed or existing primary residence, when on-street permits are required but not offered to the ADU occupant, and/or when located within one block of a car share), even when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure was demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of the ADU. These ‘no parking required’ areas encompass the vast majority of the remainder of the City’s coastal zone (i.e., over 96%). The Commission agreed with the City in 2018, certifying these LCP ADU provisions at that time, and the City in this amendment does not propose to change that LCP mapping construct.6 Such an approach in the mapped visitor parking sensitivity area is consistent with the LUP’s public access policies because it ensures that such on-street public parking spaces are protected for public use, as the LUP requires.7
However, the proposed LCP amendment also includes some exceptions to such requirements in the mapped visitor parking sensitivity area that could undermine its intent, and lead to adverse impacts to such public access parking that is prohibited by the LUP. First, parking would not be required for ADU projects on the same lot as a historic property (i.e., listed on or eligible for listing on either the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources). The City indicates 6 Indeed, such a construct is not unusual in the Commission’s experience and has been successfully incorporated into a number of LCPs as they relate to certified ADU provisions in recent years (see, for example, LCP amendments related to ADUs in San Mateo and Santa Cruz Counties, and the Cities of Pacifica, Santa Cruz, Capitola, Pismo Beach, and Grover Beach). 7 Outside of the mapped visitor parking sensitivity area, ADU-related parking needs would not have to be accounted for on-site, and parking requirements applicable to all uses on a site would not have to be replaced when a garage or carport structure is repurposed as an ADU. Thus, outside of the mapped area, ADU-related parking needs could lead to a loss of on-street public parking. While such an outcome would not be consistent with LUP policies requiring the protection of on-street public parking, the City’s proposal to address key visitor parking areas differently addresses the objective behind such policies in that it focuses on the critically important visitor parking areas and ensures that these are protected for public access parking use.
210
LCP-2-HMB-21-0068-1 (Accessory Dwelling Units)

that there are only two such currently designated historic properties that could propose ADUs in the parking required area, and both of those parcels have sufficiently large areas to accommodate on-site parking regardless. However, this could change in the future as more properties are added to historic registries. In addition, as to these two properties, it is unclear why such an exception is necessary as the parcels appear to have sufficient space to accommodate required parking. While the impact of the exception to parking requirements on these types of currently historically designated lots may not seem significant at this point in time, Suggested Modification 1 is required to assure that parking needs for ADUs proposed on all sites (for now and into the future) with designated historic resources can be accommodated onsite where feasible. With this suggested modification, the provisions regarding exceptions to the parking requirements for historical resource-designated parcels in the mapped area can be found consistent with the LUP’s requirements to protect on street parking for public access.

Perhaps more problematic is the proposed provision that would apply the LCP’s more general parking exception criteria8 to certain ADU projects9 in the mapped visitor parking sensitivity area. There are multiple problems with such an approach. First, the intent of the mapping exercise was and is to specifically identify the area of concern where on-street public parking would be adversely impacted by ADU project parking needs. In other words, the map establishes an area where on-street parking is required to be maintained for the public, and an area where it is inappropriate to offer up such public property to meet private parking demands. Thus, the map already identified the critical area where parking must be accommodated on-site, and it would only make sense to provide exceptions outside of that area, not within it, because to do so within it would be to lead to the types of impacts the mapped area is trying to avoid.

Second, if the City wanted to further refine the map, they would need to show that there was some subset of the area that did not have the potential to lead to adverse public access parking impacts should ADUs be pursued there. The City did not attempt such an exercise, and rather submits that the exception is intended as an incentive to increase housing stock via in-filling vacant parcels. However, it has already been established that accommodating residential and ADU parking needs on-street in the mapped visitor parking sensitivity area would lead to adverse impacts on public coastal access inconsistent with the LUP. No evidence has been provided that changes that conclusion.
8 IP Section 18.36.080 allows exceptions to LCP parking requirements in cases where it is determined that there is a practical difficulty, unusual hardship, or exceptional circumstance; where it is further determined that allowing an exception would not adversely affect public health or safety, and it would be as close to conformance with the LCP as possible; and where it is further determined that not granting the exception would interfere with normal use or enjoyment of the property. 9 The exception would apply to circumstances where both a primary residence and an ADU were proposed at the same time, and such a project would only need to accommodate one covered parking space and one uncovered space onsite for such a project (when the LCP otherwise would require parking for the primary residence based on its size).
211
LCP-2-HMB-21-0068-1 (Accessory Dwelling Units)

Third, the City also asserts that there are a limited number of cases where this exception may apply, citing to approximately 30 vacant properties with the potential for new primary single-family residential development accompanied by new ADUs.

However, the exception policy does not specifically indicate that it only applies to vacant properties, and thus could also be applied to a case where a single-family dwelling is demolished and replaced. In other words, applicability is not limited to 30 properties, and in fact could ultimately apply to the entire mapped visitor parking sensitivity area as a whole, leading to exactly the types of public access impacts the LCP is trying to avoid.

Finally, even if such a proposal did not raise all of the previously cited issues, such an exception would require the City to evaluate the exception request through a discretionary review. However, per State ADU law and LCP requirements, ADUs must be processed ministerially and without public hearings by the City, which does not contemplate or allow for discretionary decision making at that time. That is why the decision regarding where parking issues may arise must be accounted for at the LCP amendment stage and cannot be deferred to individual ADU considerations (because that decision would introduce discretionary processes regarding applicability and onstreet parking availability). Thus, in order to find LUP consistency, this exception must be eliminated (see Suggested Modification 1).

In conclusion, these proposed parking exceptions, and additional incentives for reduced parking for single-family residences and ADUs, would apply to the coastal access areas of the City where it is most important to ensure some on-street parking is available to members of the public seeking to access popular coastal destinations. These areas specifically include the Miramar, Casa del Mar, Alsace Lorraine, and Arleta Park neighborhoods, because these areas are frequented by both local residents and visitors from the Bay Area and inland communities where on-street parking provides an important component of the public visitor parking supply, particularly free parking. It is likely that the additional parking associated with ADU projects in cases in which the parking is not accommodated on-site will instead be pushed onto public streets which would reduce free and/or low-cost, on-street parking in areas that provide visitor-serving and public recreation opportunities, and thus adversely impact public access and, specifically, low-cost visitor serving amenities, especially for those not fortunate enough to live in Half Moon Bay. As a result, the public will be displaced from public on-street parking by residential ADU parking needs. This will have adverse impacts both on public access parking at those locations, but also cumulatively as ADU projects are developed in Half Moon Bay over time. It would also eliminate lower cost parking options, here free on-street parking, when the LUP requires that this resource be protected, including for those unable to afford other sorts of parking options.

Thus, the City’s proposed ADU ordinance is largely consistent with the requirements of the City’s certified LUP. However, the proposed IP amendment will adversely impact public access because it includes several exceptions to parking requirements that apply in the visitor parking-impacted areas of the coastal zone and could undermine the intent of the proposed LCP amendment to ensure the provision of adequate off-street parking for ADU projects in those important public access areas, as discussed above. In addition, while the Commission is generally supportive of reducing energy use and 212
LCP-2-HMB-21-0068-1 (Accessory Dwelling Units)

vehicle miles travelled, as well as facilitating multi-modal access to the coast, there is nothing concrete in the record to suggest that these types of alternatives, and particularly transit, would be meaningful alternatives to offset the lost on-street parking opportunities in these important coastal access areas that would occur absent the suggested parking modifications. Rather, it appears that coastal access visitors to the Half Moon Bay coastline predominantly arrive via personal vehicle, which is a function of the limitations associated with transit availability, the use of transit for such purposes (e.g., for bringing beach and surf equipment, etc.), as well as the distances involved.

Thus, solutions to the public access problems associated with increased housing development near the coast appropriately focus on ensuring that visitors who are not fortunate enough to live near the coast have an equal opportunity to access it.

Therefore, Suggested Modifications 1 and 2 are necessary to assure protection of coastal access in prime visitor parking areas of the Half Moon Bay coastal zone, as more specifically described and delineated in IP Section 18.33.050 and depicted in Figure 18.33-1. The amendment with the suggested modifications thus strikes an appropriate balance that will encourage and streamline review of ADUs in the coastal zone while protecting public access to the coast in the City’s unique coastal zone context consistent with the City’s certified LUP as it applies to this mapped area.

Accordingly, the proposed IP amendment as modified is consistent with and adequate to carry out the LUP.

3. Other Coastal Resource Protection
Applicable LUP Provisions
In addition to protecting public recreational access opportunities, as described above, the LUP also includes a slew of provisions requiring the protection of other coastal resources, including requiring that development be sited and designed in such a way as to avoid significant adverse impacts on such resources. These provisions include:

LUP Policy 2-2. Complete Policy Compliance. Ensure that all new development as defined by the Coastal Act complies with the policies of the Land Use Plan. New development means any project for which a coastal development permit is required. Allow flexibility only when the Land Use Plan provides for an exception.

LUP Policy 6-10. Protection and Enhancement of ESHA. Protect and, where possible, enhance or restore environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs).

LUP Policy 6-2. ESHA Policy Applicability. The ESHA policies of this chapter apply to all categories of ESHA, except where modified by the more habitatspecific policies of the LCP (i.e., Policies 6-19 through 6-21 for the marine environment; Policies 6-22 and 6-23 for sea cliffs; Policies 6-24 through 6-28 for dunes; Policies 6-29 through 6-31 for coastal terrace prairie; Policies 6-32 through 6-35 for non-aquatic habitat for special status or unique species; Policies 6-36 through 6-45 for wetlands, and Policies 6-46 through 6-55 for watercourses).
213
LCP-2-HMB-21-0068-1 (Accessory Dwelling Units)

LUP Policy 9-1. Scenic Resource Protection. New development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean, to minimize the alteration of natural land form, to be visually compatible with the character of its setting, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.

LUP Policy 7-1. Hazard Avoidance. All new development shall be sited, sized, and designed to minimize risks to life and property and protect coastal resources from geologic, flood, and fire hazard over the life of the development. Coastal resources to be protected may occur on- or off-site, upstream or downstream.

Development standards shall anticipate that hazards may be compounded by climate change.

In addition, the LUP looks to concentrate development where it can best be accommodated, including by prioritizing it in the City’s Town Center area, and encourages a diversity of housing types, including specifically referring to ADUs. These provisions include:

LUP Policy 2-4. Sustainable Land Use Pattern. Concentrate new development within the defined Urban Boundary by prioritizing development in the Town Center, allowing for infill development within established neighborhoods, and protecting the rural, open space, agricultural and habitat values of undeveloped areas.

LUP Policy 2-72. Residential Land Use Compatibility. Ensure that development, including a change in intensity of use, in residential land use designations avoids impacts on the residential living environment and the adjacent land uses, including proximate agricultural and agricultural compatible land uses, with respect to noise, lighting, parking, loading, and aesthetics. … LUP Policy 2-6. Housing Diversity and Affordability. Encourage a diversity of housing types, including housing at a range of affordability levels, densities, sizes, and ownership types with equitable access to environmental benefits.

Meet the needs of Half Moon Bay’s diverse population, including young families, multi-generational families, students, young professionals, and seniors.

LUP Policy 2-66. Residential Land Use Permitted Uses. Permitted uses in Residential – Low Density, Residential – Medium Density, and Residential – High Density land use designations include but are not limited to residential development, accessory dwelling units, …
LUP Policy 2-74. Accessory Dwelling Units. Update IP standards as necessary to ensure that the Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance complies with State law, provides for objective design standards, and allows an administrative review process provided there is no potential for impacts to coastal resources.

Consistency Analysis
214
LCP-2-HMB-21-0068-1 (Accessory Dwelling Units)

Taken together, these LUP provisions generally direct new residential development to existing developed areas when such development will not significantly impact coastal resources and encourage a diverse range of housing opportunities (especially low- and moderate-income housing), including ADUs, as long as such development can be accommodated without adverse impacts on its surroundings. As applied in the ADU context in the City, such policies direct development away from the City’s more undeveloped areas that are often rich in coastal resource value, and direct it toward the City’s more developed areas, and specifically to its more densely developed residential neighborhoods. It is in this context that this proposed amendment must be understood.

The broader context in which it must also be understood is in terms of State goals and priorities. The State is experiencing an unprecedented affordable housing crisis that is particularly acute in the coastal zone, and the California Legislature recently enacted ADU laws are intended to encourage and streamline approval of ADUs in developed areas able to accommodate them as a means to alleviate affordable housing shortages throughout the State. The same issues apply in the City of Half Moon Bay, where the median home price is currently inching towards $2 million, pricing all but the most fortunate financially out of the market altogether, including service workers who are the engine of the City’s tourist economy. While ADUs themselves are not likely to be enough to correct such imbalance, they can provide what is typically a more affordable housing option in the City than a single-family residence, 10 and can at least provide
some relief in terms of the availability of smaller housing stock.

In that sense, the proposed amendment helps to implement LCP housing provisions, albeit related to diversification of housing stock and not so much to affordable housing.

In addition, although the amendment provides for some relaxed ADU development standards consistent with state ADU laws (e.g., reduced setbacks, increased floor area ratio or FAR, and streamlined permitting for ADUs), ADUs are still subject to the same types of coastal resource constraints analyses as other development, and the LCP includes substantial coastal resource protection provisions that should be capable of protecting coastal resources otherwise (e.g., related to ESHA, wetlands, riparian corridors, public views, agriculture, natural landforms, coastal hazards, etc.). To make this even more clear, the proposed amendment includes language indicating that all ADUs shall conform to all such applicable LCP requirements (see proposed Section

18.33.070 in Exhibit 1). In short, ADUs proposed in areas that do have coastal resource 10 To be clear, however, new smaller housing stock, like ADUs, in less affordable areas like Half Moon Bay may be less expensive than other housing options, but they are still quite expensive. For example, the current average rental cost for a one-bedroom unit in San Mateo County (where Half Moon Bay is located) is the highest in the state (at nearly $3,000 per month), and some two and a half times the state average (per RentData.org based on Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) data). Even other estimates specific to Half Moon Bay (as opposed to the broader County) show rents in the City to be some two times the state average. So, while ADUs sometimes are seen as a proxy for ‘affordable housing’, they must be understood in terms of the actual market in which they are located, and they do not necessarily constitute affordable housing. Rather, they are probably better understood as additional housing stock that can help alleviate housing stock shortages overall, especially at the smaller unit side of the market, but, absent being required to be affordable, they will be market rate housing. And here in Half Moon Bay, like the rest of the greater Bay Area, the market rate is quite high. 215
LCP-2-HMB-21-0068-1 (Accessory Dwelling Units)

constraints must be evaluated and appropriately sited and designed to protect such resources.
11 The amendment also includes some language related to possible exceptions to LCP standards when ADU development is proposed on a substandard, severely substandard, and exceptional lots (see Section 18.06.050 in Exhibit 1). The language of that section is somewhat ambiguous, but the City has indicated that its intended meaning is to simply reiterate that development in that context can be afforded the same types of exceptions that might apply via the LCP for such development, as applicable, but that only exceptions that are consistent with the LCP, the Coastal Act, and the Commission’s implementing regulations12 would be allowed. In other words, the language is not intended to be understood as allowing for other sorts of exceptions not explicitly accommodated in the LCP. The Commission has evaluated the language with that understanding, and has no suggested modifications directed to it as a result.

The proposed amendment therefore appropriately facilitates development of ADUs while protecting coastal resources, consistent with and adequate to carry out the relevant LUP provisions.

5. IP Amendment Conclusion
In summary, the proposed IP amendment, as modified, would update the LCP’s ADU provisions consistent with recent changes in statewide ADU law, while simultaneously protecting important coastal resources, particularly as it relates to public recreational access, consistent with the Coastal Act, the LCP’s Land Use Plan, and the State’s ADU laws. In other words, the ADU laws allow local governments to tailor their ADU provisions as necessary to protect coastal resources if required to be consistent with the Coastal Act (or a certified LCP). With the suggested modifications the LCP’s ADU provisions will be appropriately tailored to protect coastal resources while also encouraging development of ADUs. Commission staff worked closely with City staff, and the two staffs are now in agreement on the suggested modifications. In addition, the amendment as modified should help to increase ADU stock in the City’s coastal zone, including in prime visitor parking areas where an ADU will need to accommodate a parking space on-site.
13 Thus, the proposed amendment, as modified, will not adversely 11 Which is also consistent with the statement in Government Code Section 65852.2(l) that provisions related to ADUs do not supersede, alter, or lessen the intended effect or application of the Coastal Act. 12 Title 14, Division 5.5 of the California Code of Regulations. 13 The area in which such potential visitor parking issues have been identified is unchanged in this amendment, and is actually quite small, occupying less than 4% of the City’s coastal zone (and thus such provisions would not apply to over 96% of potential ADU areas). On this point while it has been generically noted that such a provision in other LCP amendment contexts might lead to less ADUs in such an area as a result, the Commission is not aware of any evidence that has been developed specific to the mapped area in the City of Half Moon Bay (nor to mapped areas in past LCP amendment cases decided by the Commission) that would suggest that this is a significant burden that will lead to any sort of significant reduction in ADUs that might be constructed. The effect of such a limited requirement in such a limited area on ADU development is expected to be negligible, while the effect of not protecting 216
LCP-2-HMB-21-0068-1 (Accessory Dwelling Units)

affect coastal resources and is consistent with and adequate to carry out the certified LUP.

6. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Section 21080.9 of the California Public Resources Code—within the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)—exempts local government from the requirement of preparing an environmental impact report (EIR) in connection with its activities and approvals necessary for the preparation and adoption of LCPs and LCP amendments.

The Commission's LCP review and approval program has been found by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to be functionally equivalent to the EIR process. Thus, under CEQA Section 21080.5, the Commission is relieved of the responsibility to prepare an EIR for each LCP or LCP amendment action.

Nevertheless, the Commission is required, in approving an LCP or LCP amendment submittal, to find that the approval of the proposed LCP, as amended, conforms with CEQA provisions, including the requirement in CEQA Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) that the amended LCP will not be approved or adopted as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the activity may have on the environment (see California Code of Regulations Title 14 Sections 13540(f) and 13555(b)).

The City’s LCP amendment consists of an IP amendment and the City Council exempted the amendment from CEQA requirements pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17, asserting that it implements state law, it is considered a minor alteration to land use limitation (CEQA Guidelines 15305), and it is also considered a commonsense exemption (CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3)). As discussed above, the IP amendment as originally submitted does not conform with, and is not adequate to carry out, the policies of the LUP. The Commission has, therefore, suggested modifications to the proposed IP to include all feasible measures to ensure that potentially significant environmental impacts of new development are minimized to the maximum extent feasible consistent with the requirements of the Coastal Act. These modifications represent the Commission’s analysis and thoughtful consideration of all significant environmental issues raised in public comments received, including with regard to potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed IP amendment, as well as potential alternatives to the proposed amendment. As discussed in the preceding sections, the Commission’s suggested modifications represent the most environmentally protective alternative to bring the proposed IP amendment into conformity with the LUP consistent with the requirements of the Coastal Act.

Therefore, the Commission finds that there are no other feasible alternatives or mitigation measures under the meaning of CEQA which would further reduce the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts, either individually or cumulatively, and that the proposed IP amendment, as modified, conforms with CEQA. these public streets at and near important public accessways for public parking would be expected to be significant and adverse.
217
LCP-2-HMB-21-0068-1 (Accessory Dwelling Units)

4. APPENDICES
A. Substantive File Documents14
 City of Half Moon Bay Adopted Ordinance No. C-2021-01  City of Half Moon Bay Planning Commission Staff Reports  City of Half Moon Bay Planning Commission Minutes
 City of Half Moon Bay City Council Staff Reports
 City of Half Moon Bay City Council Minutes
14 These documents are available for review from the Commission’s North Central Coast District office. 218

BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: April 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Bob Nisbet, City Manager
FROM: John Doughty, Public Works Director
Maz Bozorginia, City Engineer
Jonathan Woo, Assistant Engineer

TITLE: AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS FOR THE JOHN L. CARTER PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (CIP NO. 0611)
______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt the following resolutions authorizing the City Manager to:
1) Authorize the Administrative Services Director to transfer $700,000 from General Fund to Capital Improvements Project No. 0611 (John L. Carter Park Improvements Project); and
2) Award and execute a construction contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Wickman Development and Construction of San Francisco, CA, in the bid amount of $4,971,000 and approve a construction contingency not exceeding an amount of $745,650 (15 percent); and
3) Execute a professional services agreement with SWCA, Inc. for Biological and Environmental Services in the amount of $35,079; and
4) Execute a professional services agreement with Bay Area Geotechnical Group (BAGG) for Material Testing and Special Inspection services in the amount of $115,415.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This project has an existing budget of $954,121, including the original FY 21-22 budget of $44,121 for completion of design, $410,000 in amendments for construction management support (Reso-C-2021-84) and architectural support services (Reso-C-2021-91), and a $500,000 general fund transfer as part of the mid-year budget request in anticipation of upcoming construction. Upon execution of the funding agreement with the State, the City will receive $4,750,000 from the State Department of Parks and Recreation towards the construction of the project. The current request of $700k from the General Fund will cover the remaining balance needed to complete the project. The total cost of construction is $6,360,000. 219

Anticipated Project Expenditures:

The following are the estimated project construction expenditures:

Construction $4,971,000
Architectural Support Services $165,000
Project/Construction Management Support $245,000
Biological and Environmental Services $35,079
Material Testing and Special Inspection Services $115,415 Construction Contingencies (15%) $745,650
Non-Construction Contingencies $82,856
Total $6,360,000
STRATEGIC ELEMENT:

This action supports the Infrastructure and Environment and Healthy Communities and Public Safety Elements of the Strategic Plan.

BACKGROUND:

The Parks Master Plan adopted by the City Council on February 5, 2019, identified John L.

Carter Memorial Park (Carter Park) as an opportunity to increase community recreation at an underutilized City Park. The Park Master Plan specifically identified Carter Park’s potential to become a “well utilized cultural events park with performances and summer day camps.” While preparing the City’s FY 2018-19 budget, the Parks and Recreation Commission and residents expressed desire to consider Carter Park improvements as a priority. City Council accepted this recommendation and designated the Carter Park Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) project to be a priority.

The John L. Carter Park Improvements Project includes a new amphitheater including terraced seating, a new stage with storage space and changing room, a children’s play area, picnic area, restroom and concession stand building, park access improvements, a solidarity trail, landscaping, lighting, and utility improvements.

On December 8, 2020, the Planning Commission approved the environmental review and adopted a mitigated negative declaration (MND) and approved PDP-19-059, an application for a Coastal Development Permit, Use Permit, Architectural Review, and Parking Exception, to allow the renovation of the John L. Carter Park Project. On March 9, 2021, the Planning Commission approved an addendum to the MND for the project to clarify some lighting and height discrepancies for the theatrical stage.

The City of Half Moon Bay, with support from Assemblymember Berman, was successful in obtaining funding through the California State Budget in the amount of $4.75 million to assist the City in constructing improvements at John L. Carter Park, effective FY 2021-22.

220

On October 5, 2021, following open solicitation, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a contract with Griffin Structures, Inc. for project management/construction management services (PM/CM) the John L. Carter Park Improvements Project.

On October 19, 2021, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a contract with ELS Architecture and Urban Design to complete permit plans, to assist with bidding, and to provide support during construction. ELS served as the Architect for the City during entitlement and permit processes.

On December 21, 2021, as stated in Resolution No. C-2021-106, the City Council:
1) Approved the filing of the project application for the State grant funds; and 2) Certified that said applicant has or will have available, prior to commencement of any work on the project included in this application, including the funds provided by this grant, sufficient funds to complete the project; and
3) Certified that the applicant has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project; and
4) Certified that the City has reviewed, understood, and agreed to the General Provisions contained in the contract stated in the Procedural Guide, which was presented on December 21, 2021; and
5) Delegated the authority to the City Manager to designee, to conduct all negotiations, sign and submit all documents, including, but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, and payment requests, which may be necessary for the completion of the grant scope; and
6) Agreed to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and guidelines.

On January 26, 2022, the City initiated circulation of a request for public bids for the John L.

Carter Park capital project.

DISCUSSION:

The City received seven (7) bids before the scheduled bid opening time and date of 2:00 PM on Thursday, March 17, 2022. The engineer’s estimate and submitted bids are summarized as follows:

Bidder Total
Engineer’s Estimate $4,807,000
Wickman Development and Construction $4,971,000
S.J. Amoroso Construction Co., LLC $5,137,000
Azul Works, Inc. $5,195,500
S&H Construction $5,498,600
Bothman Construction $6,182,645
Patriot Contracting, Inc. $6,972,000
Minerva Construction, Inc. $8,820,000
221

The Wickman Development and Construction bid was initially deemed by the City to be the lowest responsible bid. The bid was reviewed by staff and City consultants and deemed formally to be the lowest responsible bid in accordance with City and State public bid requirements. References have been checked as well. The bid was approximately 3.41% above the Engineer’s Cost Estimate and well within City expectations given the volatility of the construction marketplace. Additional services, such as Biological and Environmental Services, Geotechnical Services, and construction contingences will also be needed throughout construction and are subject to separate City Professional Services Agreements. Due to the necessary improvements for Carter Park and services required for construction, an additional $700,000 is being requested as part of tonight’s action.

Three items were purposefully excluded from the bid documents and are thus, not part of the Wickman Development and Construction contract. These items are the audio/visual system, children’s play structures and the main entry sign at Main Street due to budget constraints. City Staff will be reaching out to the Friends of Half Moon Bay Parks and Recreation, Mariners Church, Half Moon Bay Shakespeare Company and other parties who may be willing to assist in fundraising for the remaining improvements. Entry signage was left as a distinct item due to the unknown aspects of fundraising and sponsorship/naming interest. The sign is subject to a separate design review process through the Community Development Department. Following design review and approvals of the entry the of sign, Staff will return to augment the budget.

Relative to the remaining items, staff will keep the City Council appraised of fundraising efforts.

Staff may eventually return to City Council seeking additional General Funds to complete one or all of the remaining improvements should fundraising prove inadequate. We are hopeful that a portion of the contingency funds will be available to augment.

Wickman Development and Construction was deemed the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. City Staff has reviewed their bid and determined that their bid is acceptable and free from significant material discrepancies. City Staff recommends City Council to authorize the City Manager to:
1) Authorize the Administrative Services Director to transfer $700,000 in General Fund to Capital Improvements Project No. 0611 John L. Carter Park Improvements (Project); and 2) Award and execute a construction contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Wickman Development and Construction of San Francisco, CA, in the bid amount of $4,971,000 and approve a construction contingency in an amount of $745,650 (approximately 15 percent of the contract amount) for potential change orders; and 3) Execute a professional services agreement with SWCA, Inc. for Biological and Environmental Services in the amount of $35,079; and
4) Execute a professional services agreement with Bay Area Geotechnical Group (BAGG) for Material Testing and Special Inspection services in the amount of $115,415.

ATTACHMENTS:
222

1. Resolution to authorize the City Manager to authorize the Administrative Services to transfer $700,000 in General Fund to Carter Park Improvements Project (CIP Project No. 0611), and to award the construction contract to Wickman Development and Construction in the bid amount of $4,971,000 and approve a construction contingency in an amount of $745,650.

2. Resolution to authorize the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with SWCA, Inc. for Biological and Environmental Services in the amount of $35,079.

3. Resolution to authorize the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Bay Area Geotechnical Group (BAGG) for Material Testing and Special Inspection services in the amount of $115,415.

4. Capital Improvement Project Page
223
Resolution No. C-2022-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY TO AUTHORIZE THE

CITY MANAGER TO AWARD AND EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH WICKMAN

DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, IN THE BID AMOUNT OF $4,971,000, APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY IN AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING 15 PERCENT, OR $745,650, OF THE CONTRACT AWARD AMOUNT FOR POTENTIAL CHANGE

ORDERS, AND AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR TO AMEND THE EXPENDITURE BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $700,000 IN FISCAL YEAR 2021-22 BUDGET FOR THE JOHN L. CARTER PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP PROJECT NO. 0611) WHEREAS, The John L. Carter Park Improvements Project includes a new amphitheater including terraced seating, a new stage with storage space and changing room, a children’s play area, picnic area, restroom and concession stand building, park access improvements, a solidarity trail, landscaping, lighting, and utility improvements.

WHEREAS, on December 8, 2020, the Planning Commission approved the environmental review, adopted a mitigated negative declaration (MND), and approved the Coastal Development Permit, Use Permit, Architectural Review, and Parking Exception for the project; and
WHEREAS, the City advertised and opened seven (7) responsive bids received by the scheduled time, date, and place set forth in the Public Contract Code for the John L. Carter Park Improvements Project; and
WHEREAS, the lowest responsive and responsible bid was submitted by Wickman Development and Construction, of San Francisco, California, in the total amount of $4,971,000; and
WHEREAS, with the execution of the funding agreement with the State Department of Parks and Recreation to accept to finds in the amount of $4,750,000 and with the amendment to the expenditure budget capital funds in the amount of $700,000, sufficient funds will be available to award this contract and complete the project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay hereby:
1) Accepts the submitted seven (7) responsive bids; and 2) Authorizes the City Manager to award and execute a contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Wickman Development and Construction, of San Francisco, California, in the total amount of $4,971,000, and approve a construction contingency in an amount not exceeding 15 percent, or $745,650, of the contract award amount for potential change orders; and
224
3) Authorizing the Administrative Services Director to amend the revenue and expenditure budget in the amount of $4,750,000 in Fiscal Year 2021/22 budget for the John L Capital Park Improvements Project
4) Authorizing the Administrative Services Director to amend the expenditure budget in the amount of $700,000 in Fiscal Year 2021/22 Budget for the John L. Carter Park Improvements Project with a supporting transfer from the General Fund ***************************************************************** I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted on the 19th day of April 2022 by the City Council of Half Moon Bay by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
___________________________ _____________________________ Jessica Blair, City Clerk Debbie Ruddock, Mayor
1496582.1
225
Resolution No. C-2022-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY AUTHORIZING THE

CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES WITH SWCA, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,079 FOR THE JOHN L.

CARTER PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (CIP PROJECT NO. 0611) WHEREAS, Chapter 2.50 of the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code establishes a personnel system and procedures for the administration of personnel matters; and WHEREAS, The John L. Carter Park Improvements Project includes a new amphitheater including terraced seating, a new stage with storage space and changing room, a children’s play area, picnic area, restroom and concession stand building, park access improvements, a solidarity trail, landscaping, lighting, and utility improvements.

WHEREAS, on December 8, 2020, the Planning Commission approved the environmental review, adopted a mitigated negative declaration (MND), and approved the Coastal Development Permit, Use Permit, Architectural Review, and Parking Exception for the project; and
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2021, the State Department of Parks and Recreation awarded the City a $4,750,000 grant for construction for the John L. Carter Park Improvements Project; and
WHEREAS, biological and environmental services are necessary for the project and SWCA, Inc. have provided quality biological and environmental services for numerous capital projects in the last several years.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay hereby authorizes the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services Contract with SWCA, Inc. in the amount of $35,079 for biological and environmental services for the John L. Carter Park Improvements Project (CIP No. 0611).
***************************************************************** I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted on the 19th day of April 2022 by the City Council of Half Moon Bay by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
226
ATTEST: APPROVED:
___________________________ _____________________________ Jessica Blair, City Clerk Debbie Ruddock, Mayor
227
Resolution No. C-2022-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY AUTHORIZING THE

CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR MATERIAL TESTING

AND SPECIAL INSPECTION SERVICES WITH BAY AREA GEOTECHNICAL GROUP (BAGG) IN THE AMOUNT OF $115,415 FOR THE JOHN L. CARTER PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (CIP PROJECT NO. 0611)
WHEREAS, Chapter 2.50 of the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code establishes a personnel system and procedures for the administration of personnel matters; and WHEREAS, The John L. Carter Park Improvements Project includes a new amphitheater including terraced seating, a new stage with storage space and changing room, a children’s play area, picnic area, restroom and concession stand building, park access improvements, a solidarity trail, landscaping, lighting, and utility improvements.

WHEREAS, on December 8, 2020, the Planning Commission approved the environmental review, adopted a mitigated negative declaration (MND), and approved the Coastal Development Permit, Use Permit, Architectural Review, and Parking Exception for the project; and
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2021, the State Department of Parks and Recreation awarded the City a $4,750,000 grant for construction for the John L. Carter Park Improvements Project; and
WHEREAS, material testing and special inspection services are necessary for the project and Bay Area Geotechnical Group (BAGG) have provided quality material testing and special inspection services for numerous capital projects in the last several years.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay hereby authorizes the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services Contract with Bay Area Geotechnical Group (BAGG) in the amount of $115,415 for material testing and special inspection services for the John L. Carter Park Improvements Project (CIP No. 0611). ***************************************************************** I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted on the 19th day of April 2022 by the City Council of Half Moon Bay by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
228
ATTEST: APPROVED:
___________________________ _____________________________ Jessica Blair, City Clerk Debbie Ruddock, Mayor
229
Category: 0611
Project Location:

Type:

Initial Funding: FY 18‐19 Estimated Completion: 125 Fund Name: Parks XXX

PRIOR YEARS BUDGET

EXPENDITURES
FY 21‐22 FY 22‐23 FY 23‐24 FY 24‐25 FY 25‐26 FUTURE YEARS TOTAL ALL FY $ 60,276 $ 209,121 $ 269,397
$ 150,494 $ 150,494$ 5,716,650 $ 5,716,650$ 245,000 $ 245,000$ 82,856 $ 82,856 $ 60,276 $       ‐ 6,404,121 $                      ‐ $                 ‐ $                 ‐ $                                ‐ $ $ 6,464,397

PRIOR YEARS BUDGET

ALLOCATIONS
FY 21‐22 FY 22‐23 FY 23‐24 FY 24‐25 FY 25‐26 FUTURE YEARS TOTAL ALL FY $ 60,276 $ 1,215,000 $ 1,275,276
$ 439,121 $ 439,121
$ 4,750,000 $ 4,750,000
$ ‐
$ 60,276 $       ‐ 6,404,121 $                      ‐ $                 ‐ $                 ‐ $                                ‐ $ $ 6,464,397 Prop 68
Non‐Construction Contingency
PROJECT TITLE: CARTER PARK IMPROVEMENTS
Parks Project Number:

Carter Park Lead Department: Public Works/Administration Capital Maintenance/Community Enhancement Status: Previously Approved FY 22‐23 Fund Number:

DESCRIPTION:

The Parks Master Plan identified John L. Carter Memorial Park as an opportunity to create a more actively utilized space by adding improvements to facilitate greater opportunities for performances and day camps.

This project includes a new amphiltheater including terraced seating, a new staged with storage space and changing room, children's play area, picnic area, restroom and concession stand building, park access improvemetns, a solidarity trail, landscaping, lighting, and other utility improvements.

InfrastructureHealthy Community/Public Safety
STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL (please check all that apply)
JUSTIFICATION:

This project was identified as a project in the Parks Master Plan completed in FY 18‐19.

TOTAL
Fiscal Sustainability ADDITIONAL DETAILS:Inclusive Governance Accomplishments in FY 20‐21 include completion of the 40% design documents. CEQA and CDP for this project were completed in prior years.

EXPENDITURES
Prof.Serv/Env.ConstructionPM‐CM
TOTAL
Engineering & Design

SOURCE(S) OF FUNDS
UNFUNDEDGeneral FundPark Facility/Development ‐ Fund 125 230

BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: April 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Bob Nisbet, City Manager
FROM: Matthew Chidester, Deputy City Manager
Victor Gaitan, Management Analyst

TITLE: COMMUNITY SERVICES FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:

Receive an update on the FY 2021-22 cycle of the Community Services Financial Assistance (CSFA) Grant program and provide direction on the funding levels and selection process for FY 2022-23.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Any funding allocations will be included in the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Recommended Budget.

STRATEGIC ELEMENT:

This action supports all elements of the Strategic Plan.

BACKGROUND:

In FY 2018-19, the City piloted the Community Services Financial Assistance (CSFA) grant program and distributed $129,750 to 15 local non-profit organizations. The purpose of the program was to support important services and programs in the community.

In FY 2019-20, based on the successes of the pilot program, the City provided another round of grants and distributed $150,000 to 15 organizations. Many of these organizations achieved their program goals by the end of the fiscal year, while others sought City approval to redirect funding towards COVID-19 relief and recovery.

During FY 2020-21, the City Council made the decision to focus funding on COVID-19 response and relief totaling $200,000 across seven nonprofit organizations.

In the following FY 2021-22, the City took a hybrid approach by granting $200,000 to the same seven organizations that provided COVID-19 relief and recovery services during the previous fiscal year, as well as an additional $50,000 to 10 other organizations for general community serving projects and programs.
231

As part of their funding agreements, each grant recipient is required to submit a mid-year report including program updates. End-of-year reports and financial statements are due in June 2022.

The City Council’s CSFA Subcommittee met on February 7, 2022, to seek direction on FY 2022- 23 programming. A second meeting of the Subcommittee on March 17, 2022 included a summary of the mid-year reports from the FY 2021-22 recipients, an update on the Coastside Recovery Initiative (CRI), and further discussion of the funding, process, and requirements for the upcoming FY 2022-23 program.

CRI is a comprehensive economic development planning process initiated to address immediate recovery needs and provide a blueprint for a more sustainable and resilient future. The effort culminated in a set of recommendations that, among other things, can inform CSFA funding priorities and grants administration, while at the same time support CRI implementation.

One of CRI’s working groups, Team Thrive, analyzed challenges facing nonprofits emerging from the pandemic and the potential role they play in driving economic recovery. Findings in the Coastside Recovery Report reveal growing inequality and need, a lack of community connectedness, loss of revenue from cancelled fundraisers, capacity issues, and challenges reaching the hard-to-reach. Mental health issues and housing insecurity were additional challenges that required immediate solutions that complement longer range planning efforts.

Given these realities, Team Thrive put forth the following recommendations:
• “Develop a more coordinated and integrated approach to providing safety net services for vulnerable individuals and families.”
• “Increase and strengthen capacity of providers to connect vulnerable residents to rental, financial and other public benefits assistance for which they may be eligible.” These recommendations highlight the urgency of basic needs such as housing, shelter, food, clothing, and financial assistance (including connections to public benefit programs) and affirm what current CSFA grant recipients have identified as the key challenges and needs in their midyear reports. Additionally, promoting collaboration and efforts to better communicate and coordinate between service providers could also address the recommendations and improve access to safety net services.

Based on the recommendations included in the CRI report, and the continued impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Subcommittee identified an opportunity to align the CSFA program with the Coastside Recovery Initiative (CRI) and directed staff to develop a plan that integrates the CSFA program with CRI taking into account the recommendations and directing more impactful funding amounts to a smaller number of organizations what serve those most impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
232

DISCUSSION:

Mid-Year Update for FY 2021-22:

At the mid-year, the large majority of the 17 funded organizations reported that they are on track to meet their goals by the end of the fiscal year. The few organizations that have completed less than 50% of their stated goals have detailed steps that will ensure program deliverables are on time and within budget.

Mid-Year Highlights:

Funded organizations have been hard at work to provide the Half Moon Bay community with a wide variety of essential services and programs. The following are a few of the highlights gleaned from the mid-year reports:
• Coastside Hope has continued providing its Critical Family Needs Safety Net services, which include food, shelter, rental assistance, utility assistance, infant needs, unemployment services, and more. In the first two quarters of the current funding cycle, 2,034 unduplicated Half Moon Bay households received some level of assistance • There has been some important collaboration on grants for the Community Resilience Hub as a result of the City’s funding support of the project. ALAS, Boys and Girls Club of the Coastside, and the Cabrillo Education Foundation are in closer alignment than ever before. The three partners submitted a proposal for the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative Community Fund grant and the Community Hub received $50,000 in November 2021, and a program manager has been identified
• ALAS has seen an increased need for mental health services due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing economic crisis. They currently have a wait list of 15 people and all mental health clinicians have full caseloads. For this grant they have been able to provide services to 12 clients, which are free and ongoing to fully support individuals and families. These services have been impactful and necessary as it has helped to address and reduce depression, anxiety and isolation among clients. • During the first half of FY 2021-22, Sonrisas Dental Health’s Half Moon Bay clinic continued to serve low-income residents living on the Coast, with support from the City of Half Moon Bay’s CSFA Program. 83% of dental clinic visits to the Half Moon Bay center served low-income individuals.
• At the Coastal Arts League, adult art classes provided an opportunity for seniors to get together socially, make new friends, and learn new skills. Their free art classes on Fridays, at the Senior Center have been quite popular. Six member artists volunteered 233

to teach classes in drawing, painting, collage, and beading. These classes were always full, and participants regularly request more.
• St. Vincent de Paul noted that food insecurity has increased over the past two years as the COVID-19 Pandemic has dealt a double blow to families - reducing incomes and increasing food prices. This has placed greater demand on the SVdP Our Lady of the Pillar Food Pantry and other financial resources. The City of Half Moon Bay CSFA grant of $5,000 has enabled SVdP to extend the program to help meet the growing demand. • The HEAL Project mentioned that as a result of their Intensive Garden Program (IGP), students were sent home with recipes to cook with their families, and outside of formal surveys, students indicated to their IGP teacher the following information compared to the beginning of the year:
o They are eating more vegetables each week
o They are eating more fruits each week
o They more frequently have eaten food picked from a garden or farm o They agree more with the statement, "It is important to read nutrition labels on foods"
Key Learnings and Ongoing Challenges:

The majority of the funded organizations noted that the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to provide challenges to organizational operations as well as clients’ financial and mental / emotional well-being. These challenges include difficulties in providing certain services, increased need for food and financial assistance, and increased mental health issues as a result of ongoing hardships.
• Coastside Adult Day Health Center noted that their clients are among the most vulnerable populations at risk for the effects of COVID-19, and that it has been challenging to keep everyone healthy and safe. Most of their clients need assistance using the restroom, walking, and eating, which is the time when masks are removed.

Many of their clients have dementia and do not understand fluctuating public health guidelines.
• ALAS has seen an increase in need and calls coming in for mental health services. They’ve also had to adjust to working both in person and remotely depending on what works best for clients, which has included visits onsite at farms and homes.

Hope Services reported that finding safe activities for clients in the Half Moon Bay/Peninsula Diversified Network (HPDN) program has been challenging during the pandemic. Many of the community sites at which they had previously volunteered, and other locations previously accessed in the community, were no longer open, did not meet the program’s social distancing requirements based on the CDC guidelines, or did not have restroom access. Thankfully, Half 234

Moon Bay and its surrounding towns are rich with outdoor trails and parks, and staff took advantage of these locations as destination sites for program activities with clients.

A detailed chart summarizing the mid-year reports of all CSFA grant recipients for FY 2021-22 is attached at the end of this report.

Recommendation for FY 2022-23:

For FY 2022-23, the Subcommittee recommends continuation of the CSFA grant program at a funding amount of $300,000, with fewer but larger grant amounts of up to $50,000. Due to the continued impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and associated economic and mental health effects, and based on the findings from Team Thrive of the Coastside Recovery Initiative, staff recommends that funding be made exclusively available to organizations/programs providing essential safety net services to the residents of Half Moon Bay.

For the purposes of the CSFA program, safety net services include:
• Services related to basic needs, such as food, shelter, clothing, employment, and other public benefits assistance
• Services related to housing insecurity, such as shared housing capacity, rent relief and renters rights assistance
• Mental health and wellness services, such as individual and family counseling and case management
Eligibility Requirements:
• Applicants must provide essential safety net services • Applicants must be formally incorporated nonprofit entities based in Half Moon Bay, or provide services throughout San Mateo County and can demonstrate they are serving individuals who live or work in the City of Half Moon Bay • Top consideration will be given to applicants who:
o Demonstrate how program funding increases collaboration, coordination, and capacity building among other nonprofits providing safety net services o Incorporate culturally competent and language accessible outreach services that combat misinformation and link the hard-to-reach with existing programs and resources
o Incorporate innovative approaches and best practices in the delivery of services Proposal Process:
• Applicants must complete and submit the required application online • The application period for fiscal year 2022-23 will open - TBD • Deadline to apply for funds for fiscal year 2022-23 - TBD • City staff will review all applications to ensure eligibility requirements are met and for completeness; any applications which are incomplete will not be considered. 235

• The City Council CSFA Subcommittee will review the content of all applications and make a recommendation to the full City Council.
• The City Council of Half Moon Bay will take the CSFA Subcommittee's recommendation into consideration and make the final decisions on all grant funding. • Once grantees have been selected, staff will prepare funding agreements and distribute funding between July-August 2022.

Reporting Requirements / Cohorts:
• Grant recipients will be expected to participate in one to two cohort convenings per grant cycle. The purpose of these convenings is to encourage an integrated and collaborative approach among safety net service providers. Another goal is to exchange best practices and discuss challenges in an open and supportive peer learning environment.
• Grant recipients will be required to submit a mid-year report. • New grant recipients who have not received CSFA funding in the past will need to submit a copy of their latest IRS Form 990 and will be required to provide an end of year financial statement
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Summary of Mid-Year Reports

2. Link to Coastside Recovery Report 2022
236
FY 2021-22 CSFA Grant Mid-Year Report Summary
Program Grantee Funding
Amount
Avg. % of
Goal
Achieved
Program Outcomes for first half of FY 21-22 Challenges / Obstacles ALAS - COVID-19
Basic Needs Crisis
Fund
$30,000 75% Seen an increased number of requests for food and economic relief. Food has been a critical need.

Many are not working due to being home and we are getting requests for economic support as well.

Sent Instacart to homes of families with COVID, have dropped off food and also provided walk up opportunities for food to our pantry at ALAS. Served over 100 people for both food and economic relief. 75 have received direct support with food, food cards and resources, including critical needs like medicine for COVID, and 25 individuals with economic relief. Hired front line staff to answer and triage calls, providing direct support for consumers who are primarily farm and essential workers needing support. The case management support has included connecting to basic needs such as food, economic relief, medical insurance registration, educational connections. Our team is supporting an average of fifty calls a week and in six months have H2 our caseload of 30 individuals and families through this grant.

The challenge has been addressing the level of need with minimal resources for COVID this year. Thus this grant has been a true safety net to get these services out. Last year we found there was much more funding directed for support. So we are grateful for this funding to help those we have been working with.

Coastside Hope -
Critical Family
Needs Safety Net
$30,000 86% From July 1st, 2021 to December 31st, 2021 we provided Critical Family Needs Safety Net services to 2,034 unduplicated Half Moon Bay residents making up 68% of clients served. The services provided included food, shelter, rental assistance, utility assistance, infant needs, unemployment services, job application completion help, Adopt-A-Family Christmas program, and COVID -19 relief.

We provided 183 food service units per month to the 819 individuals residing in Half Moon Bay.

Coastside Hope was able to provide direct financial assistance, rental assistance, and utility assistance to 214 households totaling 620 individuals.

The challenges and obstacles we faced during the reporting period are still consequences of the pandemic. Our clients are the working poor, seniors on fixed incomes, the disabled, the fallen middle class, the homeless, and the working folks who do not qualify for federal sponsor programs and are still at a disadvantage when it comes to financial stability. The current inflation is not helping the existing challenges faced by our clients. Additionally we have noticed violations of workers’ rights in our community. We received several requests for assistance to address wage theft, wrongful terminations, and unsafe working conditions at worksites.

Coastside Hope doesn’t have a legal division in the labor field, but thankfully we have a partnership with non-profits that specialize in this field.

Abundant Grace
Coastside
Worker - COVID19 Relief Services
for Homless in
HMB
$30,000 61% The Center is fully operational and able to handle about30 people daily. During the reporting period700+ showers and 900+ loads of laundry done, assistance with job and housing applications, job readiness training programs, and case management and medical services through partner organizations. In addition, provided daily AA meetings 5 days a week, repurposed the garage into a clothing room for distribution of clothing, worked with staff of the Coast House to place over 20 people in the shelter, distributed thousands of lunches daily and some 4,000 lbs. of produce to lowincome families in HMB. Introduced some new community programming at the Center in 2021. The Bike Temple is a volunteer-run monthly event for bicycle repair and training. AGCW staff also host monthly movie nights and provide a space to create intentional community for those experiencing homelessness. Hosted two holiday dinners in 2021.

Challenge: some of usual food distribution partners were either closed or not accepting produce donations. For example, our longtime partners at Coastside Lutheran Church suspended their twice weekly community breakfast out of safety concerns. Solution: in 2021 we built and installed a produce “farm stand” at the Center that allows us to host a twice weekly free produce distribution. In addition, we have continued to build our partnership with ALAS by providing produce for their Saturday food distribution program.

Senior
Coastsiders -
COVID-19 Relief
Services
$30,000 50% Approximately 1,000 seniors served in the first six months. Provided over 1,000 hours of care management information, assistance, referrals, resources. Home delivered almost 12,000 meals and served more than 5,500 meals at our facility. Provided an average of 50 different regularly scheduled classes and activities per month and an average of 5 special and guest presentations per month.

Held a flu clinic in partnership with CVS. Conducted minor home repairs on 7 homes. Arranged over 150 transportation rides to and from our center. Loaned out over 20 assistive devices. Engaged over 200 volunteers in meaningful community service.Equipped our center as a community resilience hub (this was done with the support of additional funds provided by the County of San Mateo Office of Sustainability. Shared our commercial kitchen with Table of Plenty and No Strings Attached Breakfast who provided more than 200 additional 200 meals/month to the community We reopened in-person activities to provide lunch, classes, and socialization at a time when many other senior centers remained closed. However, the Omicron surge and the need to reintroduce various restrictions like indoor mask wearing for everyone, no matter the vaccination status, caused much anxiety among our participants, staff, and volunteers. We continue to carefully monitor CDC and San Mateo County Health Department guidelines and carry out best practices to keep our participants, staff, and volunteers safe. Wanted to offer opportunities for those that wished to remain at home but lacked good quality technological infrastructure. To address this, we upgraded to a different internet provider and invested in cameras, microphones, and other technology. Had difficulty finding volunteers to assist with meal delivery so have expanded the communication channels we use to raise awareness about our volunteer opportunities.
237
FY 2021-22 CSFA Grant Mid-Year Report Summary
Boys & Girls
Club of the
Coastside -
Remote Learning
Access
$25,000 48% We have over 100 middle school students enrolled and an average daily attendance of approximately 85. We have 25 high school students enrolled and an average daily attendance of approximately 15.All interested students have been accommodated. Volleyball had 3 teams for sixth grade with 31 girls, 2 teams for seventh grade with 28 girls, 3 teams for eighth grade with 37 girls. 6 out of the 8 teams made the playoffs, 3 teams made the championship game and the 6A volleyball team won league title. Flag Football had a JV team with 14 players and a Varsity team with 14 players. Cross County had 30 athletes.

Like many other organizations, we are having a hard time finding enough employees. We could use more Youth Development Professionals to work in the After School programs for both the middle school and the high school. We really struggled to find enough volleyball coaches. In response, we have increased our pay, we are marketing ourselves in new channels, and we are working hard to retain our current staff. Recently, we have struggled with COVID again. This week all of our basketball games were postponed when the schools we were schedule to complete against were sidelined with ill players. We have had some staff need to quarantine after family exposures (luckily no one is too sick). Right now other staff are covering for them, but everyone is working more than they are scheduled for and we can’t maintain this pace indefinitely. I have heard experts expect this Omicron surge to pass quickly and we are hopeful.

Sonrisas Dental
Health, Inc. -
COVID-19 Relief
$20,000 67% During the first half of FY2021-22, Sonrisas Dental Health’s Half Moon Bay clinic continued to serve low-income residents living on the Coast, with support from the City of Half Moon Bay’s CSFA Program. 83% of dental clinic visits to our Half Moon Bay center served low-income individuals: 1.

Total patient visits (All patients): 1625 - 2. ATC visits (Low-income patients): 1349 - 3. Total patients (All patients): 831 - 4. Total ATC patients (Low-income patients): 686 - 5. # of new ATC patients with 2+ visits: 43 - 6. # of ATC (new + existing) with 2+ visits: 337 Dentistry is high‐risk for exposure to COVID‐19, and as such, safety is paramount. In FY2021- 22, SDH has maintained extensive changes to our patient flow, work processes, facilities, and equipment/supplies to continue to serve low‐income patients through our Coastside Clinic location in Half Moon Bay during the COVID‐19 pandemic.

ALAS - La Misma
Luna Mental
Health Clinic
$20,000 50% Increase need for mental health services due to COVID and the economic crisis. We currently have a wait list of 15 people with all mental health Clinicians full. For this grant we have been able to provide services to 12 clients, free and ongoing to fully support the individual and or family. These services has been impactful and necessary as it has helped to address and reduce depression, anxiety and isolation.

We have an increase in need and calls coming in for mental health services. We have also had to adjust working both in person and remotely depending on what works best for the client. We have also been going out onsite into the farms, housing and supporting at all levels to make sure they are being seen. We increased a Therapist in our program as the numbers have grown.

Coastside Adult
Day Health
Center - Leave No
Senior Behind
$15,000 98% Because of our daily assessments performed by our nurse, we can prevent more acute care. Our nurse works closely with the families and the physicians to provide care and attention. She also does weekly covid assessments, covid education, and covid testing. She also encourages vaccinations and boosters. 100% of our clients and staff are vaccinated, 80-% have received their boosters. This has reduced the hospitalizations to 5% and ER visits to 5%. Of the 64 clients we have enrolled, 44 of our clients are attending on site services. The other 20 receive remote services and doorstep visits with food and supplies. Once a week we have Zoom physical therapy which has proven to increase their strength and endurance. Onsite we have physical therapy twice a week along with occupational therapy once a week. We have seen a vast improvement
Our people are the most vulnerable population and at risk for covid. It is challenging to keep everyone healthy and safe. Even though we social distant, mask, take temperatures, and complete covid assessments daily, it is a real challenge to keep the environment safe. Most of our people need assistance in the bathroom, assistance walking and some assistance eating, which is the time the mask are removed. Many of our people have dementia and do not understand. The solution to safety is talented, understanding, and endearing staff members, which we are lucky to have. All our previous staff returned to work when we opened.

Cabrillo
Education
Foundation -
Community
Resilience Hub
$10,000 90% The Community Hub steering committee: Jill Jacobson (BGCC), Pat Carbullido (ALAS), Corrine Bucher (CEF) and Rosalva Segura (CUSD) worked with a professional facilitator – Kerry Slattery Consulting – in a collaborative planning process. The goals of the process were (1) Flesh out the Community Resilience Hub model and governance structure (2) Create MOU (3) Develop a plan to engage additional partners and community supporters (4) Establish a 1-3 year work plan forimplementation of vision (5) Help partners plan for sustainable funding, including but not limited to, donor campaigns, and investment campaigns. In addition to the initial performance measures, there has been some important collaboration on grants to support the Community Hub as a result of the City’s funding support of our project. Submitted a grant in August 2021 for the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative Community Fund grant. CZI granted the Community Hub $50,000 in November 2021.

Worked in collaboration with CoastPride for a Social Isolation Support grant, which is a direct example of how we can engage our community partners in the delivery of services through the Hub.

The submission date for this grant is on hold.This could mean $250,000 in funding for the Hub. In addition to academic and social-emotional supports, the Hub will deliver culturally relevant programs consistent with the following priorities: youth leadership development, youth skillsdevelopment, counseling and case management, community events and convenings, and training for students and staff.

Building the alignment needed takes time and perseverance. Community Hub participants are dedicated to positive results, and ensuring they are achieved short, medium, and long-term.

Allocating time needed to nurture, maintain, revise, and add or change new and/or ongoing collaboration between all the partner agencies, communities served, and challenging needs can be complicated. Community Hub Leadership Partners are aware of the demanding schedule that will be needed for success and are dedicated to ensuring positive results.The clear solution is a regular cadence of accountability and collaborative meetings. This process has allowed us to begin to identify the players that need to be at the table from CUSD. One mistake we made was waiting too long to bring the CUSD CBO into the creation of the MOU. He is an important partner and has a special passion for this project, just including the Superintendent was not enough. This has been valuable learning. The staffing shortage may pose a challenge as we begin to search for a Program Coordinator, but we are ready to work creatively to uncover a solution.
238
FY 2021-22 CSFA Grant Mid-Year Report Summary

ALAS - LISTOS
Outreach
$5,000.00 30% To date we have 30 graduates for Listos. We have offered 2 separate sessions for people to attend for the Listos classes. One was in August and we graduated 23 residents. We had a smaller class in November graduating 7 new residents. Some of our graduates have expressed how important these classes are and they feel engaged to help the community better prepare in case of an emergency.

We have found that many people have a difficult time with ( 2 hour sessions on line. Some attend the first sessions but do not show up for the second session. We are trying to remedy this by offering a ( four hour session on a Saturday morning. The 2 previous classes were held during the week and we feel people are tired from work or school and they do not want to sit for another class at night. This Saturday class is scheduled for February 5. We are also expanding our outreach through different avenues to expand our reach. We are doing a radio interview to promote the class and continue to post on our social media. Other avenues we are doing are posting the class flier at businesses, the church and email blasts.

Coastal Arts
League - Public
Art Gallery
$5,000.00 50% Between July 1 and December 31, 2021, a total of seven shows were held in the exhibition gallery.

Free art classes for adults resumed at the Senior Center in September 2021. The Exhibition program included 12 shows in 2021. Typically, 50 - 60 artists are included in juried and benefit shows. The calendar for 2022 is full and 2023 is filling fast. After a slow 2020, attendance at monthly opening receptions increased in 2021, averaging about 90 visitors per event. Sales increased in both the Exhibition Gallery and the Collective Gallery. Our mailing list has grown from 800 to 1000 subscribers, with an open rate of 50 – 60%. Advertising has been purchased in the Coastside Magazine, published by the Coastside News Group. As of December, 112 artists have renewed their membership for 2022. Most of these participated in the end-of-year Member Shows in November and December. Four artists are contracted annually to display their work in the Guest Artist space of the Collective Gallery. This display rotates quarterly. Regular members of the Collective participate in an Artist of the Month program, with a display over the front desk.

During 2021, many member artists were uncomfortable returning to host the gallery. Five substitute hosts were trained and available for hosting. Gallery ventilation was enhanced by the purchase of two air purifiers and keeping the back doors open. Space heaters were added to keep the galleries comfortable for visitors. Outdoor benches allow for visitors to socialize outside. During the second half of 2021, our program did not receive any articles in the HMB Review newspaper. We purchased advertising in the Coastside Magazine but this was not directly connected with our exhibition program. We encourage exhibitors to submit press releases. We distribute our Exhibition brochures to post offices, hotels, and other public spaces, such as La Piazza. We ask our volunteers to help with the distribution.

Our galleries have no classroom space. We offer free classes at the Senior Center but will need to find another location to offer more classes. The capacity of the art room is 15 and the Senior Center schedule allows for only one class per week.

El Centro de
Libertad - SUD
Prevention
Program
$5,000.00 50% Initial Pre-test upon enrollment: During this reporting period our pre-test performance measurements were modified to accommodate the on-going COVID-19 pandemic. To establish a baseline for performance evaluation, El Centro used modified metrics to evaluate program success. This includes school based assessments and students caught on campus with drugs and alcohol. Final post-test upon program completion: During this reporting period our post-test performance measurements were modified to accommodate the on-going COVID-19 pandemic. El Centro used modified metrics to evaluate program success. This included requirements for goal setting and a demonstrated understanding on the part of students of the effects of substance use on their minds and bodies.

While we have not met our numbers as we had hoped, we have done what we could during the Pandemic. We have provided 7 prevention education classes to Pilarcitos and have provided Individual counseling services to 3 students at HMB high as an alternative to suspension.

During this period, we have been challenged with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. One of the challenges we have faced is being able to reach youth as some of the schools were not allowing outside providers to come in and provide services. We have made our prevention education classes available via zoom, however the students have fell behind in their core education and schools wanted to wait until we are able to come in person. The other challenge we have faced is with the students we have reached they are experiencing severe mental health issue and or substance abuse, due to the pandemic we have seen a rise in both these areas.

Sea Hugger -
Camp Sea Hugger
$5,000.00 0% We received the funds for this grant on 7/26/21 and our last Camp Sea Hugger Summer session ended 7/30/21 so we have not been able to fund any scholarships yet. We will be funding scholarships for Spring Break Camp 2022 in April and Summer Break Camp 2022 in June and July.

We do not have any challenges or obstacles for scholarship recipients for the first half of FY 2021-22 for reasons stated above.

St. Vincent de
Paul of San
Mateo County -
SVdP Grocery Gift
Card Program
$5,000.00 100% SVdP Our Lady of the Pillar Conference distributed 200 $25 Safeway grocery store gift cards to families to purchase food items not available through their Food Pantry.

Food insecurity has increased over the past two years as the COVID-19 Pandemic dealt a double blow to families - reducing incomes and increasing food prices. This has placed greater demand on the SVdP Our Lady of the Pillar Food Pantry and financial resources. The City of Half Moon Bay CSFA grant of $5,000 enabled us to extend our program to help meet the growing demand.
239
FY 2021-22 CSFA Grant Mid-Year Report Summary
The HEAL Project
- Intensive Garden
Program at Hatch
Elementary
$5,000.00 25% We saw students in person in fall 2021 and they were happy to spend time in the garden after a year of virtual learning. We served 83 3rd grade students in fall semester and they graduated IGP in December. There was a pre and post survey sent to students to self-report changes in behavior and understanding of concepts covered in the program, questions were not answered by some students.

Third graders graduated from IGP in December and we saw an increase in the number of students who self-reported consuming two or more fruit servings the day before from 36 to 40 students of the 69 who answered the question. Third graders graduated in December and self-reported a decrease in their understanding behaviors that support environmental stewardship from 50 to 46 students of the 62 students who answered the question. For the first time, CUSD has underwritten some of the costs for IGP. As a result, some CSFA grant funds will be used to support our work with Cunha School in Half Moon Bay to get a rain catchment system set up for their garden. THP does not serve students at Cunha and a credentialed teacher will do the garden education with her science students and will not have performance measurement results to share.

Staff turnover is always an issue for us. Hatch IGP has a new educator this year and will better facilitate the completion of the surveys with the next cohort of 80 2nd graders in spring semester. The Garden Educator had this to say about the reason the survey results did not meet our goal:
“I attribute this to students' difficulty completing the post survey - they did this on their own before going to a fun activity. Next time, I would facilitate completion of the survey together in a slow, paced way to allow students to ask questions if they were unsure about the survey.” Responding to surveys have always been a challenge for students and our anecdotal input from students is more encouraging than were our survey results.

CUSD - Early
Intervening
Services Program
$3,500.00 100% As of December, 2021: We have completed 40 pre/during assessments, We have completed 14 post assessments, We have made 2 referrals based on the results, We use the Ages and Stages Developmental Screening Questionnaire which is divided in to two parts-communication and problem solving and gross/fine motor development. Teachers met in collaboration and analyzed the results of the screening. They identified primary focus areas for both the children and their parents. The two referrals made were for speech therapy, to assist these children in communication. Based on assessment results and parent input, we have delivered materials to parents and explained/demonstrated their use in monthly one hour zoom sessions. The focus has been primarily on communication, math, literacy, self care, social emotional development.

The funds provided have supported our teachers in meeting to collaborate and plan lessons based on the assessment results. We were able to send materials home for parents to use in working with their children. We’ve identified other funds to support expanding this process to include our inclusion teachers for next year. That way their special needs students would have their needs identified and access to early learning materials prior to starting school in the fall.

One of the main obstacles was not having all early learning staff participate in the assessment process. Our goal for next year is to include them by providing them a stipend, if possible.

Hope Services -
HMB diversified
network program
for adults with
developmental
disabilities
$3,000.00 85% 1. Increase inclusion of individuals with developmental disabilities in all aspects of community life. HPDN met this outcome to the best of its ability through its process of phased-in reopening of in-person services, since it is a 100%-community-based program, and therefore enabling participating clients to return to in-person services meant enabling them to access their community to the fullest extent safely possible. 2. Assist individuals with developmental disabilities to overcome the obstacles that they may face in their efforts to access community resources.

HPDN met this outcome by making every possible provision within its purview, including staff testing, masking, social distancing, PPE, vehicle cleaning, and scouting out sites in advance to make sure that they met COVID safety protocols, in order to make it safe for clients to return to in-person services. 3. Overcome clients’ transportation-related barriers to accessing community resources and services. HPDN met this outcome by having a safe, ready, and fully operable vehicle fleet to transport clients from their homes to every program destination back to their homes at the end of the day, and by adding to that fleet a van and a larger SUV to allow for social distancing, cleaning vehicles after every use, and providing staff CPR training. 4. Build community partnerships and a network of local collaborators who support and serve individuals with developmental disabilities and mental health needs. HPDN did not actively pursue achievement of this outcome during the reporting period. Hopefully, there will be more opportunities to do so during the second half of the grant period if pandemic protocols are able to be eased. 5. Educate the public to the advantages of including people with disabilities in all aspects of community life.

HPDN did not actively pursue achievement of this outcome during the reporting period.

Finding safe activities for the clients in the HPDN program, which is 100% community-based, has been challenging during the pandemic. Many of the community sites at which they had previously volunteered, and other locations previously accessed in the community, were no longer open, did not meet the program’s social distancing requirements based on the CDC guidelines, or did not have restroom access. Using a checklist, staff made in-person visits to potential locations for client outings, lunch sites, or volunteer sites to assess whether they met the program’s safety protocols. Thankfully, Half Moon Bay and its surrounding towns are rich with outdoor trails and parks, and staff took advantage of these locations as destination sites for program activities with clients.
240
FY 2021-22 CSFA Grant Mid-Year Report Summary
Coastside CERT -
LISTOS Program
Backpacks
$2,500.00 30% Two LISTOS class sessions (2 2-hr classes =1 session) were held via Zoom on August 6 & 13 and November 4 & 5. 30 students have graduated: 23 students graduated from the August class and 7 graduated from the November class. Gustavo Agredano, LISTOS Program Manager, replaced Alma Pelayo as Lead Instructor. The partnership of ALAS, LISTOS, and Coastside CERT continues to work well together.

Our hardworking Latino community is challenged to carve out 4 hours from their work and family responsibilities to complete the course.
• The Zoom format necessitated by COVID is challenging. Wifi service is sometimes unreliable.

It is not easy for multiple members of the same family to see or be visible by the Zoom screen.

Each person has to be visible throughout the 4 class hours to be counted as graduating. • Trust or “shyness.” Some are concerned about their image being shown on Zoom. • Recruiting participants has proved difficult – family prioritize are focused food, shelter, work/school, and health – the vital issues they struggle with daily - before emergency preparedness.
• Almost twice as many people register and begin the class than actually complete it. Part of the problem might be that students don’t understand that both classes of a single session have to be completed to graduate.
• We need to ramp up our recruiting efforts. So we are:

Purple Heart
Anglers, Inc. -
Disabled Veterans
Fishing Program
$1,000.00 25% The volunteers, Disabled Veteran participants and family members were able to take back to their homes and community a sense of thank you from the day with PHA. Some of them had never had this since their return to civilian life.

Everything went as planned. It’s always a challenge taking Disabled Veterans out for a day of fishing, fun, food and friendship but nothing that we would consider an obstacle. It is a very rewarding experience.

Total Funding $250,000
241