Half Moon Bay City Council and Planning Commission Special Study Session on Measure D Growth Management System – January 13, 2026

This was a joint special study session of the City Council and Planning Commission to review Measure D (the city’s growth management system, Municipal Code Chapter 17.06) and its allocation system. The meeting included a staff presentation, clarifying questions from council and commission members, public testimony, and direction-setting for future revisions. The meeting began at approximately 5:45 PM and adjourned around 9:10 PM.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Greg Jameson suggested giving points to applicants who reapply after being denied in previous years (e.g., 3 points) to help them cross the threshold.
• Nancy Fontana raised concerns about deed-restricted ADUs interfering with aging-in-place plans (e.g., owners moving into the ADU and renting out the main house). She noted that fire restrictions might require removing shade trees from landscaping criteria.

Discussion Items

• Staff Presentation: Leslie and Okoe provided an overview of Measure D’s history (voter-approved in 1999, implemented 2009), the annual allocation process (4 steps: unit authorization in December, application period in January, scoring ratification by April, transfer process in September), scoring criteria (6 categories, max points from deed restrictions for affordable units), and trends (increasing ADU demand, outside-downtown allocations oversubscribed since 2020, 50–75% of outside-downtown applications are ADUs). They also identified future updates required by the Housing Element: fractional ADU allocations and carryover of unused allocations for ADUs and affordable housing. The possibility of a ballot measure to align the downtown map with the Land Use Plan town center map was discussed.
• Clarifying Questions:
  • Councilmember Nakengast asked about tracking expired/unused allocations since 2009; staff said data before 2021 may be incomplete.
  • Vice Chair Hernandez raised concerns that deed-restriction commitments are not tracked after allocation; staff confirmed no tracking system exists yet but very few deed restrictions have been completed.
  • Commissioner Ruddick questioned whether the one-year expiration period is appropriate; staff said it is a practice rather than codified.
  • Mayor Reddick asked why the scoring ratification takes until April; staff explained the thorough review of each application (47 in 2025) by limited staff.
  • Chair Gorn asked about the possibility of reviewing unused allocations mid-year to reallocate; staff noted it would require code amendments or a ballot measure.
  • Councilmember Johnson asked about updating fencing material criteria to reflect new fire regulations.
  • Many members noted that the current downtown map (from redevelopment areas) differs from the Land Use Plan town center map, causing confusion and potentially misallocating multifamily projects.
• Council and Commission Comments/Direction:
  • Commissioner Hernandez recommended revisiting criteria mid-2026, adding fire-hardening points (e.g., external fire suppression systems, fire-resistant plants), tracking deed restrictions publicly, and providing annual updates on application-to-occupancy timelines.
  • Councilmember Nakengast supported periodic criteria reviews and clarification of expiry/unused language.
  • Commissioner Ruddick proposed replacing detailed scoring with a lottery for middle-tier applications, saving staff time and letting applicants know results earlier.
  • Councilmember Johnson urged updating landscaping criteria to require fire-resistant plants instead of shade trees.
  • Chair Gorn noted staff works closely with applicants, resulting in close scores, and cautioned against major changes without voter approval.
  • Vice Mayor Penrose emphasized efficiency concerns: staff time on scoring is costly, delays frustrate the public, and ADUs should require only a fractional allocation (e.g., half).
  • Councilmember Brownstone stressed the need for better education of realtors and buyers about Measure D limitations.
  • Mayor Reddick supported aligning the Measure D map with the LUP map and codifying vesting/expiration rules. He also asked staff to explore methods to speed up the allocation-to-occupancy pipeline.

Key Outcomes

• Consensus on Code Amendments (likely Council direction):
  1. Revise Measure D to require only a fractional allocation for ADUs (e.g., half a unit) and consider exempting JDUs entirely.
  2. Allow carryover of unused or expired Measure D allocations for ADUs and affordable housing, as committed in the Housing Element.
  3. Clarify and codify the vesting/expiration process so it is transparent to the public.
• Consensus on Ballot Measure: Direct staff to prepare a November 2026 ballot measure to change the downtown map from the current redevelopment-area map to the Land Use Plan town center map, consistent with other city maps. (Some members expressed the measure should be clearly communicated as a technical fix, not a change to Measure D’s growth limits.)
• Future Study and Staff Direction:
  • Staff to bring back to the Planning Commission in mid-2026 a review of the scoring criteria, including potential updates for fire hardening, fire-resistant landscaping, and possibly a lottery system for mid-range applications.
  • Staff to develop a tracking system for deed restrictions and provide annual reports on allocation-to-occupancy timelines.
  • Staff to consider a customer feedback survey (post-completion) to gather data on the permit process.
  • Staff to assess whether additional staffing or reallocation could speed up the allocation review and subsequent permitting.
• No formal votes were taken; direction was given by consensus.