OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Half Moon Bay Planning Commission Special Meeting - August 5, 2026: Housing Element Zoning Amendments

Planning Commission — Wednesday, August 5, 2026
BodyHalf Moon Bay, California
SessionPlanning Commission
DateWednesday, August 5, 2026
StatusNEW · FILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:43:00
Transcript — Verbatim
0:00

At least 20% of affordable units.

0:08

So this part uh allows for uh by-right processing only if the proposal includes 20% of affordable units.

0:23

And it doesn't require 20% affordable units be developed on the site, but if they are, it allows for by-wright processing.

0:34

So it's creating an incentive for affordable housing.

0:42

Now the our zoning code is part of the city's local coastal program implementation plan.

0:49

So implementation plan and zoning zoning code are synonymous here in Half Moon Bay.

0:57

All amendments to the zoning code require Coastal Commission review and certification.

1:04

Now this is what the implementation plan update project that we started this year is aiming to do.

1:12

It's aiming to update the entire zoning code and additional sections of the municipal code to address both land use plan rezonings and housing element rezonings that are that are in our in our LUP and our housing element and um well that was redundant, sorry.

1:37

Um and that is the process that we really would have preferred to engage in for these zoning amendments.

1:47

However, we have been put on a very strict timeline from HCD.

1:53

Um so we instead are where we are now.

2:00

A little bit of history.

2:02

Um the zoning changes that increase density um that are before you tonight can be found in the local coastal land use plan in appendix A.

2:16

There are also a number of policies pertaining to the workforce housing element and how it applies on um different underlying zonings.

2:26

Umly, the zoning changes that provide by right processing were added into the housing element by HCD during their first review of the city council approved housing element.

2:43

So they have been there for a long time.

2:46

Um we should all be aware of them.

2:49

They shouldn't be a surprise.

2:51

However, I certainly recognize that um because they've been there for a long time, it's easy to forget that they were there.

2:59

Um, we have been preparing for by right processing and SB35 by right processing um by adopting um objective design standards.

3:12

The city council approved interim objective design standards in December 2024.

3:19

Um and this planning commission uh pushed hard to get the objective design standards approved so that the city would have the tools that it needs to uh review um by right proposals.

3:33

The objective design standards address setbacks, height limits, design features like massing distribution and building articulation.

3:47

And then the city also has um other objective standards in our zoning code and other plans.

3:56

Um I'm gonna hand this over to Asher now, and he will take you through some of the details of these specific zoning amendments.

4:08

Thank you, Leslie, and good evening, members of the planning commission.

4:11

Uh my name is Asher Cohn.

4:13

I'm a principal planner with M Group.

4:15

I've been working with Hapman Bay on projects since 2020.

4:19

That includes this housing element for the past several years.

4:22

Tonight, as Leslie said, I'll be going to a bit more detail about uh uh rezonings before the commission, and I'll of course be available to answer any questions.

4:33

Next slide, please.

4:37

So first uh thought it'd be useful to clarify what the proposed ordinance means by by right development.

4:44

Um it goes hand in hand with the objective design standards that Leslie was just speaking to.

4:51

So review of a by-right proposal uh may include design review, but the ultimate approval of such a project must remain ministerial.

5:02

The project review may not require a conditional use permit, a plan development permit for any other local or any other discretionary local government review.

5:17

For the rezonings tonight, uh the proposed chapter 18.44 includes by-right approval.

5:24

This means that the director reviews such an application, and that the proposed um the application must be consistent with objective standards.

5:33

This includes the city's interim objective design standards that Leslie was speaking to, as well as the general plan, the development code, uh, the local coastal program and land use plan, as well as other objective city goals policies and standards.

5:50

In the director's review, uh they may impose conditions of approval on an application.

5:59

So now I'm going to go over the proposed amendments in detail.

6:02

There are four code amendments before the commission, zoning map amendments, revisions to the existing chapter 18.20 regarding local coastal development permits, and then two new chapters, chapter 18.43, higher density workforce housing, and 18.44 by right affordable housing development.

6:27

Um first the zoning map amendments.

6:30

There's 10 sites that are to be rezoned from R2 to R3.

6:34

This is to provide sufficient capacity for the proposed chapter 1844 regarding by right affordable housing development.

6:42

State law requires that such sites allow at least 20 dwelling units per acre, um, with DUAC is how we shorten it on this presentation.

6:52

And R2 allows a maximum of 17.42 dwelling units per acre, whereas R3 allows up to 29.04 dwelling units per acre.

7:02

So this rezoning allows that by right process to work.

7:09

This slide uh shows the 10 sites and their APNs.

7:14

And I should add here um that the land use plan, the LUP calls for all 10 of these sites to re-rezoned from R2 to R3.

7:23

This rezoning that we're discussing tonight implements the LUP.

7:29

Next slide, please.

7:31

Um Chapter 18.20.

7:34

This chapter covers local coastal development permits.

7:38

And the amendment here modifies the language of 182055A and clarifies that a public hearing shall not be required for by-right affordable housing development applications for the proposed new chapter 1844.

7:53

As noted in the staff report, this amendment's required by the government code, um section 65583.2i, which states that by-right developments cannot require discretionary local government review or appeal.

8:06

Again, this is that by right we were discussing earlier.

8:12

Um next, the first proposed new chapter, 18.43, introduces higher density workforce housing into the code.

8:21

Uh this overlay is also part of the LUP.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Housing█████████████████████████████████33%
Planning And Zoning█████████████████17%
Affordable Housing█████████████13%
Public Comment█████████████13%
Legal Affairs██████████10%
Public Engagement███3%
Community Engagement███3%
Mobile Home Space Rent Control██2%
Pending Litigation██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Half Moon Bay Planning Commission Special Meeting - August 5, 2026: Housing Element Zoning Amendments

At a special meeting on August 5, 2026, starting at 7:00 PM and concluding after 10:30 PM, the Half Moon Bay Planning Commission considered a package of municipal code amendments to implement the city's Sixth Cycle Housing Element. The amendments included rezoning 10 parcels from R2 to R3, revisions to Chapter 18.20 (Local Coastal Development Permits), and two new chapters: 18.43 (Higher Density Workforce Housing) and 18.44 (By-Right Affordable Housing Development). The commission heard extensive public testimony, deliberated on the implications of by-right ministerial approval, and voted 4-1 to recommend approval to the City Council with a condition to explore swapping out a controversial church-owned site.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Brad Steinweed questioned why the workforce housing overlay was not applied to agricultural designations.
  • Steve Wilson (attorney for the Catholic Church) opposed the inclusion of the church property (300 block Church Street) in the housing element, stating the church plans to build a school and will not sell voluntarily; he also noted a prior council member's bias against the church.
  • Nancy Fontana opposed the dilution of public hearing rights and supported the church's position.
  • Liesel Tanner (lifelong resident, parent of school children) objected to the church property being listed, noting no alternative sites have been studied in two years.
  • Hal Bagner criticized the state's coercion and urged the commission to reset the process, citing over 1,000 signatures from citizens.
  • David Kolda (sixth-grade student at the church's school) asked the city to find other locations.
  • Derek Kolda (board chair of the school) proposed a win-win solution to replace the church site with other suitable locations.
  • Matt Bauman (online) asked about the underlying PS zoning of school district properties.
  • Mariana Stark (online) suggested four alternative sites on Main Street (Bank of America, Tri-County Bank, water department, former fruit stand).
  • Mike Ferrara (online) expressed concern about ministerial approvals and lack of transparency, noting the city's limited planning capacity.
  • Sherry (online) asked about incentives and where to find objective design standards.
  • Lee Argabright (online) expressed surprise, asked what other parcels were examined, and clarified that only a strip of Poplar Street is being rezoned, not all R2.

Discussion Items

  • Staff Presentation: Leslie (planning staff) and Asher Cohn (principal planner, M Group) presented the amendments. Asher explained that by-right ministerial approval applies to proposals with at least 20% affordable units (for lower-income households) on sites zoned to allow at least 20 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC). The rezoning from R2 (max 17.42 DU/AC) to R3 (max 29.04 DU/AC) enables that by-right process. New Chapter 18.44 applies to 14 parcels, including the church site (300 block Church Street), 101 Kenyatta Cove Avenue (mobile home park), and 10 parcels along Poplar Street. Chapter 18.43 (workforce housing overlay) applies to four parcels, including the church site and three others also in 18.44.
  • Staff Clarifications: Leslie corrected several typos in the staff report and noted that a requirement for school district workforce housing was removed due to fair housing concerns. The CEQA guideline reference was also corrected.
  • Commissioner Questions:
    • Commissioner DelNagro asked about the removal of the school district employee requirement; staff explained it conflicted with fair housing law but a disparate impact analysis could allow it later.
    • Vice Chair Hernandez confirmed that proposals without 20% affordability would require discretionary review by the Planning Commission. He also noted that converting the mobile home park site (101 Kenyatta Cove) would require a use permit and extensive process.
    • Chair Gorn expressed surprise that by-right processing was not highlighted earlier, noting that the public had been told only about rezoning, not ministerial approval. He questioned whether the city council previously understood the implications.
    • Commissioner Reddick asked about other jurisdictions; City Attorney Mary confirmed many are in similar situations.
    • Commissioner Rems raised concerns about the church site overlay (45 DU/AC) and whether it could pressure the church to sell.
  • Legal and Consequence Discussion: City Attorney Mary outlined the risks of not adopting the housing element: ongoing lawsuit from the Attorney General, potential fines, loss of grant funding (e.g., Caltrans InfraStructure and Sustainability Communities program, SB1), and exposure to the builder's remedy (allowing developers to bypass zoning in any parcel). Staff estimated grant losses in the millions of dollars.
  • Commissioner Deliberation:
    • Commissioner Ruddock supported approval, emphasizing the urgency of compliance and that the church site is only an opportunity site, not a mandate.
    • Vice Chair Hernandez noted that while the by-right provisions were in staff reports, they were not emphasized. He supported approval with a recommendation to swap the church site later.
    • Chair Gorn strongly opposed the loss of public hearings and transparency, stating that ministerial approval gives developers too much power and undermines planning.
    • Commissioner DelNagro acknowledged the state's aggressive stance but argued that Half Moon Bay has already contributed significantly to housing growth (tripling in size since 1970 vs. county growth of 37%). He supported approval with a recommendation to revisit the church site.
    • Commissioner Rems voted no, citing concerns about the church property and the lack of time to properly vet the amendments.

Key Outcomes

  • Motion: Vice Chair Hernandez moved to approve the resolution recommending the City Council adopt the zoning amendments as proposed, with two additional recommendations: (1) within six months of HCD and Coastal Commission certification of the housing element, the City Council should consider replacing the 300 block Church Street site with another suitable site; and (2) include a statutory reference to the definition of by-right processing in the ordinance text. The motion was seconded by Commissioner DelNagro.
  • Vote: 4–1 in favor (Commissioners Ruddock, DelNagro, Hernandez, and Gorn voted yes; Commissioner Rems voted no).
  • Adjournment: The meeting adjourned by unanimous roll call vote after 10:30 PM.

Meeting Transcript

At least 20% of affordable units. So this part uh allows for uh by-right processing only if the proposal includes 20% of affordable units. And it doesn't require 20% affordable units be developed on the site, but if they are, it allows for by-wright processing. So it's creating an incentive for affordable housing. Now the our zoning code is part of the city's local coastal program implementation plan. So implementation plan and zoning zoning code are synonymous here in Half Moon Bay. All amendments to the zoning code require Coastal Commission review and certification. Now this is what the implementation plan update project that we started this year is aiming to do. It's aiming to update the entire zoning code and additional sections of the municipal code to address both land use plan rezonings and housing element rezonings that are that are in our in our LUP and our housing element and um well that was redundant, sorry. Um and that is the process that we really would have preferred to engage in for these zoning amendments. However, we have been put on a very strict timeline from HCD. Um so we instead are where we are now. A little bit of history. Um the zoning changes that increase density um that are before you tonight can be found in the local coastal land use plan in appendix A. There are also a number of policies pertaining to the workforce housing element and how it applies on um different underlying zonings. Umly, the zoning changes that provide by right processing were added into the housing element by HCD during their first review of the city council approved housing element. So they have been there for a long time. Um we should all be aware of them. They shouldn't be a surprise. However, I certainly recognize that um because they've been there for a long time, it's easy to forget that they were there. Um, we have been preparing for by right processing and SB35 by right processing um by adopting um objective design standards. The city council approved interim objective design standards in December 2024. Um and this planning commission uh pushed hard to get the objective design standards approved so that the city would have the tools that it needs to uh review um by right proposals. The objective design standards address setbacks, height limits, design features like massing distribution and building articulation. And then the city also has um other objective standards in our zoning code and other plans. Um I'm gonna hand this over to Asher now, and he will take you through some of the details of these specific zoning amendments. Thank you, Leslie, and good evening, members of the planning commission. Uh my name is Asher Cohn. I'm a principal planner with M Group. I've been working with Hapman Bay on projects since 2020. That includes this housing element for the past several years. Tonight, as Leslie said, I'll be going to a bit more detail about uh uh rezonings before the commission, and I'll of course be available to answer any questions. Next slide, please. So first uh thought it'd be useful to clarify what the proposed ordinance means by by right development. Um it goes hand in hand with the objective design standards that Leslie was just speaking to. So review of a by-right proposal uh may include design review, but the ultimate approval of such a project must remain ministerial. The project review may not require a conditional use permit, a plan development permit for any other local or any other discretionary local government review. For the rezonings tonight, uh the proposed chapter 18.44 includes by-right approval. This means that the director reviews such an application, and that the proposed um the application must be consistent with objective standards. This includes the city's interim objective design standards that Leslie was speaking to, as well as the general plan, the development code, uh, the local coastal program and land use plan, as well as other objective city goals policies and standards. In the director's review, uh they may impose conditions of approval on an application. So now I'm going to go over the proposed amendments in detail. There are four code amendments before the commission, zoning map amendments, revisions to the existing chapter 18.20 regarding local coastal development permits, and then two new chapters, chapter 18.43, higher density workforce housing, and 18.44 by right affordable housing development. Um first the zoning map amendments. There's 10 sites that are to be rezoned from R2 to R3. This is to provide sufficient capacity for the proposed chapter 1844 regarding by right affordable housing development. State law requires that such sites allow at least 20 dwelling units per acre, um, with DUAC is how we shorten it on this presentation. And R2 allows a maximum of 17.42 dwelling units per acre, whereas R3 allows up to 29.04 dwelling units per acre. So this rezoning allows that by right process to work. This slide uh shows the 10 sites and their APNs.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com