Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council approves Measure D phasing agreement to allocate 34 units to MidPen over two years

Half Moon Bay City Council · December 3, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After an extended public hearing with divided views on fairness, parking and wetlands, council adopted a resolution approving a two-year Measure D phasing agreement allocating 34 residential units to MidPen (17 in 2026 and 17 in 2027) with 8 additional units expected via density bonus exemptions; vote passed 4–1.

The Half Moon Bay City Council on Dec. 2 adopted a development-unit phasing agreement under Measure D that awards MidPen Housing 34 Measure D residential allocations over two years (17 in 2026 and 17 in 2027). The council’s roll-call vote passed 4–1 (Council member Nagenghast voted no).

Senior Planner Scott Phillips explained the Measure D framework and the applicant’s request: the site on the north side of Metzger between Highway 1 and Main Street is outside the Measure D downtown boundary and is identified in the city’s housing element as an opportunity site with a realistic yield of 41 units. Staff clarified the project totals as 52 units: 10 allocations already issued, 34 requested through the phasing agreement, and 8 expected via density bonus (density-bonus units are exempt from Measure D allocations under current code).

Public comment included a wide range of views. Supporters —including community members and housing advocates— urged the council to back affordable housing and to signal support to MidPen, which the speaker Kevin Griffith said needs allocations to pursue county and state funding. Opponents and concerned residents raised fairness and process questions: Sophia Whiting and others argued the decision could preassign two years of scarce allocations to one developer and harm other local applicants; speakers also raised concerns about parking, neighborhood impacts and potential wetlands or environmental constraints at the site.

In deliberations council members weighed the risk of creating a future allocation bottleneck against the need to support an affordable-housing developer that argued a two-year schedule is necessary to secure competitive financing. Several council members noted the transfer practice (September transfers) and staff reported that most applicants received requested allocations after the last transfer, leaving only a single outstanding applicant.

Council member Penrose moved and the council adopted the resolution approving the phasing agreement, as amended for city-attorney wording. The adopted agreement includes milestones, a "use it or lose it" permit deadline (noted in the agreement as Jan. 1, 2030), and conditions that the applicant achieve building-permit milestones by set dates or potentially forfeit allocations.

Staff said the phasing agreement is the first Measure D phasing agreement the city has approved and that council may revisit related Measure D policy items (ADU exemptions, carryovers) in future meetings.

Next steps: finalize the agreement language (approved as to form and content per municipal code review) and monitor progress toward permit milestones.