Half Moon Bay council keeps rent-stabilization and registry in place for another year, directs data collection

The Half Moon Bay City Council voted 3-2 on May 6 to continue the city’s rent-stabilization and rental-registry programs for one year while staff collects additional data on units lost or converted, landlords who stop renting, and program costs — and studies options for exemptions for affordable housing developers and targeted rental subsidies.

The council’s action followed a staff update and a long public-comment period that included landlords, property managers, housing advocates and resident renters. City staff said the programs were launched in 2024 and 2025 to limit excessive rent increases for qualifying units and to create a registry of rental properties in city limits.

City staffer Irma Acosta of the Economic and Community Vitality Division told the council the ordinance applies to residential rental properties of two units or more built before Feb. 1, 1995 and that the allowable annual rent increase for the 2024–25 rental year was set at 2.6 percent — the lesser of 3 percent or 80 percent of the change in the Consumer Price Index. “For the rental year 2024–25 that allowable rental increase was set at 2.6%,” Acosta said.

Acosta reported that staff identified 472 units subject to the local rent‑stabilization ordinance and that 377 of those units had been registered as of April 2025, an approximately 82 percent compliance rate. She provided an initial cost accounting: the city dedicated roughly 1.5 full‑time equivalent employees plus temporary help for implementation (about $117,500 in staff cost for the launch), contracted a data-management system (Ptolemy) at approximately $25,000 per year, and estimates combined launch-year program costs of about $220,000. The city had collected about $92,000 in registration and late fees as of April, Acosta said.

The staff memo presented three policy options: repeal both programs; keep the registry but eliminate local rent stabilization (leaving tenants to protections under state law — the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019, commonly cited in the discussion as “AB 1482”); or retain both programs unchanged. Council members asked about refund risk to landlords if the council later eliminates rent stabilization and requested more granular data on which units and landlords were affected.

More than a dozen residents and property owners addressed the council. Housing advocates and social‑service providers described rents that leave families doubling up or unable to afford local housing. Judith Guerrero, who identified herself as providing rental assistance for critical needs, said, “Rents are very unaffordable in our community. We have families that are doubling up or tripling up.” Landlords and real‑estate professionals urged repeal or scaling back of the local program, arguing it raised compliance costs and could reduce the local rental inventory; several said they or their clients had listed properties after the ordinance was adopted. “The total cost of initiating and administrating the programs for 2024 and ’25 is roughly $220,000,” said speaker Barbara LeVay during public comment, noting the city recovered only about 42 percent of those initial costs in fees.

After deliberation, Council Member Deborah Penrose moved to continue both programs for one year while staff gathers the requested data, explores alternatives for targeted rental subsidies and identifies whether exemptions or fee waivers should apply for deed‑restricted or subsidized affordable housing developments. The motion was seconded and passed on a roll call: Council Member Johnson — yes; Council Member Nagengast — no; Council Member Penrose — yes; Vice Mayor Redick — no; Mayor Brownstone — yes. The council also asked staff to return with interim findings and to explore options for funding targeted rental subsidies, including use of existing housing‑fund resources.

Council members said they want clearer evidence before making a permanent policy change and asked staff to report back with measurable metrics — including the number of rental units removed from the market or converted to condominiums, the number of landlords who stop renting, and any verified increases in operating costs faced by landlords (for example insurance or municipal fees) that could be tied to the ordinance. Staff told the council the registry’s second-year cycle was scheduled to reopen June 1; the council directed staff to hold the registry timing as needed while the data‑collection and analysis work proceeds.

Council discussion repeatedly referenced state law: speakers noted that AB 1482 offers tenant protections statewide but that enforcement and remedial access often fall to renters and nonprofit legal services rather than local government. Several council members said they favored continuing local protections while staff develops subsidy and outreach options that could be targeted at the most financially vulnerable households.

The council’s vote keeps the program in place for up to 12 months while staff compiles the data requested and returns with specific policy alternatives and costs, including draft exemption language for affordable housing developers and proposals for targeted rental assistance.