Housing Element Task Force Subcommittee Meeting Minutes June 23, 2026
Video Recording
06.23.2026 HETF BOARD Housing Element Task Force Special Meeting Minutes
Location: LHPUSD Boardroom and Zoom 6pm
Subcommittee Members in Attendance: Dr. Patrick Horn (Chair), Nicholas Erridge (Secretary), Karen Curtisss (via Zoom), Rita Mancera (appointed during this meeting)
Absent: None
Quorum Achieved: Yes
Virtual Attendance: 8
People in Attendance: 10
Interpretation Services (Spanish/English): Present
Key Takeaways
The PMAC Housing Element Task Force subcommittee held this meeting to review the status of four housing element items (22.5, 22.6, 22.7, 22.8) and receive a briefing from San Mateo County staff.
Rita Mancera was formally appointed as a new member of the Housing Element Task Force.
County staff confirmed that Housing Element items 22.5 and 22.6 (Rural South Coast Housing Assessment and Farm Labor Housing Study) are delayed pending a statewide farm labor housing study being conducted by UC Davis and the California Coalition for Rural Housing, expected in the second half of 2026.
Item 22.7 (Preliminary Pescadero Community Plan Assessment) is also delayed as it relies on the findings of 22.5 and 22.6.
Item 22.8 (Sites Analysis and Regulatory Streamlining) is nearly complete; the Opportunity Sites Analysis report was substantially finished by November 2024 and is expected to be released publicly by end of summer 2026, pending property owner consent.
The sites analysis, conducted by consultant Opticos Design, evaluated four sites within the CSA11 boundary for workforce and farm labor housing feasibility, identifying an average financial gap of approximately $3.6 million per project and $619,000 per unit.
Wastewater/septic constraints were identified as a major barrier to housing development in Pescadero, with community members advocating for exploration of newer treatment technologies.
Three key next steps were agreed upon: (1) county staff to provide an updated timeline and milestones for all four housing element items; (2) presentation of the Opportunity Sites Analysis report at the September task force meeting; (3) county staff to follow up on defining "robust participation" and community engagement strategy.
Brainstorm Topics
1. Status of Housing Element Items (22.5, 22.6, 22.7, 22.8)
HETF BOARD (Patrick Horn): Sought clarity on where each of the four housing element items stands, noting that timelines listed in the policy appear to have shifted and that the community has not been adequately informed.
Details
Patrick Horn: Noted that the housing element called for robust community participation and that two years in, the community is unclear on what has been done, what is in progress, and what comes next. Requested an updated timeline and milestone map.
Nicholas Calderon: Clarified that the housing element was only formally certified by the State of California earlier in 2026, so many timelines need to be recalibrated from that point, not from the original drafting date.
Will Gibson: Confirmed that items 22.5 and 22.6 are delayed because the county is waiting on a comprehensive statewide farm labor housing study being conducted by UC Davis and the California Coalition for Rural Housing, expected in the second half of 2026. Item 22.7 depends on 22.5 and 22.6 and is therefore also delayed.
Raymond (Ray Hodges): Confirmed the state study was initially expected in the first half of 2026 but has been pushed to the second half; no specific month has been identified yet.
Patrick Horn: Asked about the status of the interdepartmental/inter-organization working group called for in 22.5, which was originally supposed to form in August 2024.
Steve Monowitz: Indicated that working with the task force would partially fulfill that commitment, and that Will and Ray would help identify the broader stakeholder group as part of standing up the study.
Will Gibson: Stated that identifying the working group composition would be part of creating the study structure, potentially with consultant assistance for outreach.
Conclusion
All four housing element items are delayed primarily due to late state certification and the pending statewide farm labor housing study.
County staff agreed to provide an updated timeline and milestone map for all four items, to be shared with the task force either by email or at the next HETF BOARD regular meeting.
2. Statewide Farm Labor Housing Study and Its Relevance to Pescadero
HETF BOARD / Rita Mancera: Raised concerns about whether the statewide study would be sufficiently detailed to serve Pescadero's needs.
Details
Will Gibson: Explained that the state study will not replace the county's housing element studies (22.5 and 22.6) but will serve as a valuable data foundation. The county is also working with the consultants from the Silicon Valley Community Foundation study to access their existing data.
Rita Mancera: Expressed concern that the statewide study, funded for only approximately 500 surveys, would not drill down specifically on San Mateo County's unique characteristics. She noted that the county had contributed existing data to the state researchers to ensure some San Mateo County representation.
Rita Mancera: Referenced a recently released report that includes San Mateo County data and builds on the 2014–2016 study in terms of units needed, suggesting it may be more useful for Pescadero than the statewide study.
Will Gibson: Confirmed this is likely the Community Planning Collaborative study, which the county already has and is working with.
Rita Mancera: Offered to sit down with county staff to co-create a logic model for the housing element items, including updated timelines and expanded stakeholder group.
Conclusion
The statewide study will inform but not replace the county's localized housing studies.
The Community Planning Collaborative study was identified as a potentially more useful near-term resource for Pescadero-specific planning.
County staff and the task force expressed mutual interest in collaborating on study design and outreach planning.
3. Opportunity Sites Analysis Report (Item 22.8)
Steve Monowitz / Bharat Singh: Presented an overview of the nearly completed Opportunity Sites Analysis conducted by consultant Opticos Design.
Details
Bharat Singh: Described the scope: four sites within the CSA11 boundary were analyzed — two larger sites south of Pescadero Creek Road at the intersection, the elementary school site, and one site on North Street. The study assessed constraints (infrastructure, regulatory, natural/environmental), financial feasibility across 13 scenarios, and regulatory changes needed to facilitate housing.
Bharat Singh: Key finding: the primary constraint to financial feasibility is the requirement for large leach fields due to soil conditions, limiting the number of units achievable on any given site. Of 13 scenarios across 4 sites, only 2 (for-sale options on larger sites) showed a profit without gap financing. The average financial gap was approximately $3.6 million per project and $619,000 per unit.
Bharat Singh: The report also includes an updated cost estimate for a community wastewater system (building on the 2008 study) and outlines potential funding sources including government programs and philanthropic foundations.
Steve Monowitz: Clarified that the sites analysis is part of item 22.8 (not 22.5), and that the regulatory streamlining component of 22.8 has been primarily completed in-house.
Bharat Singh: The report was substantially complete by November 2024 but has not been released pending: (1) consultation with property owners of identified sites for consent to release; (2) input from affordable housing developers (MidPen Builders and one other developer were consulted, as well as consultants who work across multiple Bay Area developers). The county intends to release the report by end of summer 2026.
Irma Mitton: Noted that the school site may no longer be viable for housing as the new school administration is considering it for elementary school renovation, and asked county staff to follow up with current school management before release.
Steve Monowitz: Confirmed the county will circle back with current property owners, including the school, before releasing the report.
Karen Curtiss: Asked whether the North Street site analysis was intended as a prototype for gentle density/ADU-type upzoning across similar parcels. Bharat Singh confirmed it was adjacent to that concept — looking at adding two to three units behind an existing structure — and could be replicated on similar North Street parcels.
Karen Curtiss: Asked about the demographic analysis underpinning the housing typology choices. Steve Monowitz acknowledged the study was directed specifically at workforce and farm worker housing quantity, not a full demographic needs assessment across all housing typologies.
Karen Curtiss: Noted that other housing needs in the community (e.g., multi-generational farm families) should also be addressed by the housing element.
Rita Mancera: Raised concern that traditional affordable housing developers (e.g., MidPen Builders) typically focus on larger-scale projects and may not be the right fit for Pescadero's smaller, constrained sites. Suggested continuing to search for developers specializing in mid-size or smaller lots with complex restrictions.
Rita Mancera: Suggested that philanthropy may be willing to help fill the financial gap, particularly if community engagement is demonstrated.
HETF Board: Asked whether the report addresses flood constraints as hard stops or explores mitigation pathways (e.g., FEMA map revisions). Steve Monowitz clarified that floodway zones are treated as a hard stop due to downstream impact complexity, but other flood plain zones with appropriate mitigation were considered.
HETF Board: Asked whether the report explores innovative infrastructure solutions or simply documents constraints. Bharat Singh clarified the report focused on what is currently legally and practically feasible, not experimental technologies, though the infrastructure section does list alternatives.
Catherine (community member): Highlighted that the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) is an overriding constraint, limiting development to 30 affordable homes in the first tranche (none of which have been built since 1976), with a second tranche of 30 contingent on the first being completed.
Bharat Singh: Confirmed that regulatory recommendations in the report will require amendments to zoning ordinances and approval from the California Coastal Commission, including farmworker housing regulations currently being developed.
Conclusion
The Opportunity Sites Analysis report is expected to be released publicly by end of summer 2026.
The report will be presented at the September 2026 task force meeting.
County staff will consult with all relevant property owners, including the school administration, before release.
The RFP process for the consultant (Opticos Design) was initiated informally in late 2023; the total project cost was approximately $100,000+ (exact figure to be confirmed). The proposal can be made public upon community request.
4. Wastewater Technology and Infrastructure Constraints
HETF Board / Karen Curtiss / Catherine (community member): Raised the issue of outdated septic/leach field technology as a primary barrier to housing development and advocated for exploration of newer wastewater treatment systems.
Details
HETF Board: Argued that the assumption that all development must rely on leach fields is outdated, citing packaged wastewater treatment systems for community-scale housing that have existed since at least in Santa Cruz.
Karen Curtiss: Cited specific examples of newer technologies: Epiccleantec’s integrated system at Salesforce Tower in San Francisco; Kubota's membrane biofiltration system (established in Europe, now entering the US market); a $22 million contract in Los Angeles for ADU and 4-unit buildings using membrane biofiltration. Noted that black water systems at this level of treatment produce output that would be safe for the creek.
Karen Curtiss: Suggested a holistic zoning approach — like how bike-friendly zoning replaced garage requirements — could allow more units without necessarily removing all constraints, using other zoning tools to manage density and environmental impact.
Nicholas Calderon: Acknowledged that the county has evaluated various on-site wastewater treatment package systems over the past 15 years, and Environmental Health has consistently found them not meeting county quality standards. Invited Karen Curtiss to share specific systems for further evaluation by Environmental Health.
Steve Monowitz: Raised concern that removing wastewater constraints could have growth-inducing cumulative impacts on sensitive habitat, roadway capacity, and other environmental factors — a key concern of Environmental Health Services.
Rita Mancera: Asked whether the county tends to wait for other counties to pioneer new technology or whether it takes a leadership role. Nicholas Calderon indicated San Mateo County is often on the forefront of new technology but deferred the specific wastewater question to Environmental Health as the regulatory authority.
Patrick Horn: Emphasized that being in proximity to Silicon Valley presents an opportunity to lead on innovative wastewater solutions and that the community should not be constrained by "ancient technology."
Nicholas Calderon: Suggested that wastewater alternatives and the housing element be treated as related but separate workstreams to avoid one blocking the other. Noted he would ask Irma to add wastewater technology to the list of topics to connect on.
Conclusion
Wastewater technology is a critical constraint for housing development in Pescadero and warrants a dedicated, in-depth conversation with Environmental Health Services.
Karen Curtiss and Nicholas Calderon agreed to connect on specific newer systems for Environmental Health evaluation.
The wastewater issue will also be partially addressed through a broader Sustainable Pescadero technical assistance program for unincorporated areas.
The two workstreams (wastewater alternatives and housing elements) will be kept somewhat separate to avoid mutual blockage.
5. Community Engagement and "Robust Participation"
Patrick Horn: Raised the question of what "robust participation from all segments and stakeholders of the South Coast community" (as required by the housing element) means in practice, and how the task force can be a genuine partner rather than a recipient of completed reports.
Details
Patrick Horn: Noted that the sites analysis began approximately two years ago and the task force is only now hearing about it, with the report to be delivered in a few months. Expressed that the community wants to be involved throughout the process, not just at the end.
Community member (unnamed): Echoed the frustration of the community being kept in the dark, noting that the process is drawn out, dates change, and engagement is difficult to sustain.
Will Gibson: Described the county's intent to create a front-loaded outreach plan at the start of each study, identifying hard-to-reach community segments and appropriate outreach methods, relying on community members' local knowledge to shape that plan.
Karen Curtiss: Asked what the county would need from the task force to make it a genuine ally in the outreach and engagement effort.
Will Gibson: Acknowledged this is a question that requires further internal discussion before a clear answer can be given.
Nicholas Calderon: Committed to huddling internally and providing a clear, considered answer on robust participation rather than responding ad hoc.
Bharat Singh: Proposed creating a Pescadero-specific email subscription list as an immediate first step, to be launched alongside the release of the Opportunity Sites Analysis report, as a foundation for ongoing communication.
Rita Mancera: Cautioned that a distribution list alone is insufficient given that many community members (including Spanish-speaking farm workers) do not have email addresses, and advocated for a co-created, comprehensive outreach plan.
Patrick Horn: Confirmed the task force's role is to facilitate community dialogue and transparency, and that it stands ready to support outreach planning.
Conclusion
County staff will follow up with a clear definition and plan for "robust participation" and community engagement.
The task force and county will co-create an outreach plan, with the task force serving as a community ally and resource.
A Pescadero-specific email notification list will be established as an initial step upon release of the Opportunity Sites Analysis report.
6. Meeting Cadence and Milestone-Based Engagement
Nicholas Calderon / HETF BOARD: Discussed how frequently the task force and county staff should meet and what should trigger those meetings.
Details
Nicholas Calderon: Recommended scheduling meetings around milestones and deliverables rather than fixed calendar dates, to avoid meetings for their own sake given that housing studies often alternate between fast progress and slow background work.
HETF BOARD: Agreed with the milestone-based approach but emphasized the need for a reference document showing the phases, steps, and expected cadence of each housing element item so the community can understand what to expect and when.
Steve Monowitz: Agreed to map out milestones and engagement points for each policy and share with the task force, potentially by email or at the next HETF BOARD regular meeting.
Nicholas Calderon: Suggested that for each policy, the county identify specific points in the process where it makes sense to convene with the task force.
Conclusion
Meetings will be milestone-driven rather than on a fixed quarterly schedule.
County staff will produce a milestone and engagement map for all four housing element items and share it with the task force.
Action Items
County Staff (Steve Monowitz, Will Gibson, Nicholas Calderon, Ray Hodges)
Develop and share an updated timeline and milestone map for all four housing element items (22.5, 22.6, 22.7, 22.8), including key engagement points for the task force. To be shared by email or presented at the next HETF BOARD regular meeting.
Finalize property owner consultations and consent process for the Opportunity Sites Analysis report, including follow-up with the current Pescadero elementary school administration regarding the school site.
Present the Opportunity Sites Analysis report at the September 2026 Housing Element Task Force meeting.
Provide a clear, internally aligned response to the question of what "robust participation" means and how the task force will be engaged throughout the process (not just at deliverable endpoints).
Develop a co-created outreach plan with the task force for community engagement on housing element studies, ensuring it reaches Spanish-speaking farm workers and other hard-to-reach community segments.
Establish a Pescadero-specific email notification/subscription list, to be launched in conjunction with the release of the Opportunity Sites Analysis report.
Share the Opticos consultant proposal with the community upon request, and confirm the exact total project cost for the sites analysis.
Confirm the identity of the second affordable housing developer consulted during the sites analysis (in addition to MidPen) and provide that information to Rita Mancera.
Nicholas Calderon
Connect with Irma to add wastewater technology alternatives to the list of topics for follow-up discussion.
Facilitate a detailed conversation with Environmental Health Services regarding newer wastewater treatment technologies, incorporating specific systems to be provided by Karen Curtiss.
Karen Curtiss
Send Nicholas Calderon specific information on newer wastewater treatment systems (e.g., Epiccleantec, Kubota membrane biofiltration) for Environmental Health Services evaluation.
HETF BOARD
Provide input and co-create the outreach plan once the county shares its initial proposal for robust community participation.
Confirm September 2026 as the date for the next Housing Element Task Force meeting focused on the Opportunity Sites Analysis report presentation.
