Commission hears SB 35 briefing as residents weigh safety, parking and local‑preference concerns over proposed MidPen project

The City of Half Moon Bay’s Planning Commission spent the bulk of its June 23 meeting on an informational briefing about California Senate Bill 35 and its implications for affordable housing projects in the city, fielding extensive public comment about a preliminary MidPen notice of intent for the Metzger Street site.

Mary Wagner of the city attorney team (Burke, Williams & Sorensen) told the commission SB 35 — as amended by SB 423 — creates a streamlined ministerial review and approval process for qualifying multifamily developments that meet objective planning standards and specified affordability levels. Wagner explained key eligibility rules, including minimum unit thresholds, an urban‑infill test, recorded affordability covenants (55 years for rented units, 45 years for ownership), and a series of coastal‑zone and site‑specific exclusions such as tidal lands, prime farmland, delineated earthquake fault zones and some high fire‑hazard areas unless fire mitigation is adopted. "SB 35 projects are subject to the Permit Streamlining Act and the Housing Accountability Act," she said, noting timelines (60/90 days for eligibility determinations depending on size, 90/180 days for final approval by application size) and that ministerial projects are not subject to CEQA.

Wagner also said SB 423 extended SB 35’s reach (including some coastal areas with exceptions), added prevailing wage and skilled‑and‑trained workforce requirements for larger projects, and requires tribal consultation after a notice of intent is filed.

Public commenters expressed a mix of support for affordable housing and intense concerns about the Metzger Street proposal’s local impacts. Julie McGowan told commissioners she was worried about evacuation and emergency access on the project’s narrow street: "If there's a natural disaster, a major fire in town, where do these people go, and what plans would they have to be evacuated?" Nearby resident Michael Swanovic, represented at the meeting by James Havey, cited increased vehicle trips, impacts on seniors and Seacrest students, and heritage trees that could be affected by proposed street widenings. "These will be just some of the concerns," Havey said.

Speakers in the audience voiced both support and caution. Rocio Avila, a community leader and member of the committee for accessible housing, urged support for projects that provide affordable housing for working families: "This project will represent an opportunity, a real opportunity for the families who have been waiting for many years." Several commenters stressed local infrastructure limits (water, roads, transit and parking) and warned that greater density without supporting services could create safety and quality‑of‑life issues.

Commissioners sought clarification on several points raised by the public: whether AB 2553’s changed definition of major transit stop affects local parking limits; whether SB 35 removes the city’s ability to apply building and fire standards (it does not — objective safety standards still apply); how the appealability of ministerial approvals works; and how local master plans (for example bike and pedestrian routes) intersect with objective design standards. Wagner advised that objective standards may be applied and that the city must perform completeness checks and consistency determinations in statutorily prescribed timeframes, but that some aspects — such as ministerial appealability — can be ambiguous and in some jurisdictions are being tested through litigation.

Vice Chair Hernandez and other commissioners emphasized urgency in clarifying transit definitions, how objective design standards will be applied, and outreach: the city will post a project webpage for the Metzger inquiry and related SB 35 materials and expects to return substantive zoning/rezoning items to the commission after preliminary Coastal and HCD review. Director Lehi Aiko confirmed that rezonings required by HCD are under preliminary Coastal review and that the ADU ordinance is with HCD for preliminary review.

No formal action was taken on SB 35 or any project; the session was informational. Commissioners said they would seek clearer written guidance on how objective design standards, parking exceptions, and safety requirements will be applied to any ministerial SB 35 application that the city receives.

What’s next: staff will publish a project webpage with application materials when an application is filed; rezonings required by HCD will be returned to the commission after Coastal staff review; and the commission signaled interest in developing clear objective design standards and outreach steps before a ministerial SB 35 project is processed for final action.