[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6235625,"mediaKeyId","3397067-489c03e797aed4d9920dd3b7ed16fc8d","parentId",3397067,"title","Dozens of speakers urge planning commission to preserve Sanchez Art Center as rezoning package moves forward","audioSeconds",2701,"startMs",3524000,"endMs",6225000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3397067-489c03e797aed4d9920dd3b7ed16fc8d&start=3524&end=6225","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3397067-489c03e797aed4d9920dd3b7ed16fc8d/thumbnail_3524000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6235625/Pacifica/San-Mateo-County/California/Dozens-of-speakers-urge-planning-commission-to-preserve-Sanchez-Art-Center-as-rezoning-package-moves-forward","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6235625-26bcd5c38586b25174aac697784611dc/orig.mp4?Expires=1770442615&Signature=Jtog8hjV6m1WrEH5IIKnMhGq7kAKyrQQ5HvsmfgUT6z~bxDt2feLcDFf19gT1X9DhZIT59Zepb4T4agVD2ys3BPXbbcopUqUwU9DGfKginIEW2IUlMyU~L6qOTFJCONf7Zue0zZQ5lwB2Fxwy0SZ70WWq-mZJzIrih9GlJJ-fKw2KgZhQKYQY~aO0eS4rR9lgwJ2zRLSkLrlLQ94HGmEsLFMrgtZ-L5cWsNRy3Y5cSwXEXzkmjoz00n3hRT-hIXaJ1O4-sSlw~tLxiy6mOtFeedsmga4FJxGwb4p7WQONcusOw0th4xF-6gIu1qb-par6ld5b1YXpq6TzdWqLr12HA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Pacifica CA","date","2025-05-20T08:43:51.21Z","article","Dozens of Pacifica residents, artists and small‑business owners used the public‑comment period May 19 to urge the Planning Commission to preserve the Sanchez Art Center, the Mildred Owen Concert Hall and associated campus spaces while the city’s housing‑element rezoning package is reviewed.

The most repeated request—raised by gallery volunteers, arts‑organization leaders and longtime residents—was that the city retain the center’s studio, gallery and performance functions as part of any future plan for the site (identified in the rezoning materials as Site 23). Speakers described the art center and concert hall as regional cultural assets that draw visitors, support small businesses and provide youth and senior programming.

“Preserve the Sanchez Art Center site as it is now, with the art studios, the galleries, and the concert hall,” said Julie Stock, who identified herself as a Pacifica homeowner and frequent art‑center patron. Several speakers echoed that appeal and described personal experiences: Renee Blanco said the center helped her husband engage socially through painting; Corinne Andreatta, a local art‑studio owner, told the commission the center “provides irreplaceable cultural education and economic benefits.”

“Arts equal visitation. Arts equal commerce,” said Steven Johnson, a long‑time studio tenant, who said his workshops had drawn significant visitors and revenue to the local economy.

Requests to protect the art center’s current uses were accompanied by protracted technical questions from residents about whether the rezoning package’s by‑right (ministerial) provisions could allow redevelopment without a public hearing. Several speakers including Dinah Verbi and Cindy Abbott (executive director of the Sanchez Art Center) asked commissioners to remove the site from a “by‑right” overlay or to add explicit protections so existing uses would not be lost.

Staff response and city‑owned site process

City staff responded during the hearing with clarification about public‑site process. Samantha Updegrave, the community development director, told the commission the Sanchez campus is city‑owned and “the city retains control over what happens on that site.” She said there are no current plans to demolish the art center and that any future redevelopment of a city‑owned site would require an extensive public process and City Council direction. “Any future potential development project on this site or any public site would need to undergo significant public planning process,” Updegrave said.

Public commenters pressed for stronger assurances and for explicit language in the planning or housing‑element record that would protect the building uses (galleries, studios, concert hall, dog park and playing fields). Cindy Abbott asked the commission to either remove Site 23 from the rezoning list or “modify it to ensure that every existing use at that property be maintained.” Several speakers noted letters and prior council direction memorializing the city’s intent for the campus.

By‑right (BIRATE) combining district and commissioner direction

Commissioners and city legal staff discussed the scope and limits of the by‑right combining district the staff proposed. Under state housing law certain sites that appear on multiple housing‑element cycles or otherwise satisfy statutory conditions may be eligible for ministerial (by‑right) approval if they meet statutory thresholds (for example, providing at least 20 percent lower‑income affordability and meeting minimum unit counts). Several commissioners said they believed the by‑right overlay, as drafted, covered too many sites; a number of commissioners asked the city attorney and staff to re‑check the legal requirements and limit BIRATE/ministerial designation to the specific sites the state law requires.

Public concern about infrastructure and hazards

Speakers also raised broader infrastructure and public‑safety concerns tied to large rezoning changes, including sewer capacity, traffic and evacuation routes on the coast side, and wildfire/tsunami evacuation constraints. One resident from the Fairmont HOA asked whether aging potable‑water and sewer systems would be upgraded before more housing is built; another questioned traffic capacity on Lindamar Boulevard if new units increase vehicle counts.

What the public asked the commission to do

The most common asks were: remove Site 23 from the rezoning list; add clear, enforceable language preserving gallery, studio and performance uses; require substantial public envisioning and a City Council–led RFP process before any disposal or redevelopment; and limit ministerial (by‑right) overlays to the sites specifically required by state statute.

Next steps

The Planning Commission did not remove Site 23 and did not adopt any language specifically protecting the art center during the May 19 meeting. Staff said it will incorporate public testimony into the project record and that council direction will be required for any public‑site redevelopment. Commissioners also asked staff and the city attorney to further analyze which sites must be subject to ministerial review under state law and to return with revised materials before the next hearing.

Speakers and roles (selection)

Speakers who addressed the Sanchez Art Center issue included Julie Stock (resident), Renee Blanco (resident and volunteer), Andrew Leone (community member and performer), Corinne Andreatta (small‑business owner, Start the Art), Cindy Abbott (executive director, Sanchez Art Center), Steven Johnson (studio tenant), Paul Snodgrass (resident), Michael Watkins (Fairmont HOA), Dinah Verbi (resident), and several other longtime community volunteers and organization representatives.

How to follow up

Staff noted public comments may also be submitted via the city’s standard public comment email (publiccomment@pacifica.gov) and that the commission will continue deliberations on the rezoning package at a later meeting. Members of the public seeking to monitor next steps should watch the Planning Commission meeting notices and the Community Development Department updates for the packet that will include staff’s responses and any revised zoning language.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","PPC 5/19/25 - Pacifica Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Dozens of Pacifica residents, artists and volunteers urged the Planning Commission May 19 to preserve the Sanchez Art Center’s studios, galleries and Mildred Owen Concert Hall while the city considers a housing‑element rezoning program; staff said the site is city‑owned and that redevelopment would require a City Council–led public process.","taxTitle","Pacifica, San Mateo County, California","taxId",54263,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6235630,"Pacifica planning commission advances housing-element rezoning package; EIR finds greenhouse-gas and transportation impacts remain significant",809,1666000,2475000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3397067-489c03e797aed4d9920dd3b7ed16fc8d&start=1666&end=2475","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3397067-489c03e797aed4d9920dd3b7ed16fc8d/thumbnail_1666000.jpg","/articles/6235630/Pacifica/San-Mateo-County/California/Pacifica-planning-commission-advances-housing-element-rezoning-package-EIR-finds-greenhouse-gas-and-transportation-impacts-remain-significant","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6235630-e0d44071c0348ebdc858f37b760f8cfe/orig.mp4?Expires=1770442615&Signature=INlqeDlZYXKiGkSrO48mP6NyPCntw5F0sGEnLAm4BIKnmQDX8BWzwM0A53wg-LBP3OrTsUXWnR49KJALHIzLXgnLKKn~vC3mdY1NyEgwvSviSdIUOkiDgJ1m2aKDNMIULOIIFd1AIqlP0D-b2UsAzAgkNso-jMq-sIoPJKv2z2JYgo~e251FubbM1Ge-ZSwicXQhG0eZ-B6Fs4nIf8eld2hC27amVPNGjkF2WX8Myt6~WatWMhQbcORtqVHLPLe0l9fm21tyXzDstj9vQ1dyZ60fKLLVYG8mxAhRyLlk6FYb1uODdud2tDeLKx1Z-aIqQJP8~Ej5CnrnUfYD~P5ZUA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Pacifica’s Planning Commission on May 19 heard a multi-hour staff presentation on a citywide rezoning program intended to implement the housing element and submitted the draft rezoning package to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for preliminary review. Staff told commissioners the package includes updated objective development standards (ODS), new zoning districts, a program-level environmental impact report (EIR) with an accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and zoning and general-plan map amendments needed to accommodate sites identified in the housing element.

The rezoning program is intended to provide zoning capacity for 2,042 housing units on 31 sites identified in the housing element, staff said. Samantha Updegrave, the city’s community development director, described the effort as “a result of three years of complex, challenging, and diligent work by the community in Pacifica, the city council, the planning commission, and staff.” She told the commission the housing element must be supported by the rezoning program for HCD to certify the city’s housing element and restore greater local control.

Why this matters: the zoning and ODS under review will determine allowable heights, setbacks, parking, open-space and ground-floor requirements for dozens of sites across Pacifica. Those standards affect neighborhood character, project feasibility for developers, and what projects will look like if built. The EIR’s findings will also shape what mitigation the city must adopt and monitor if the council later certifies the program.

Staff presentation and test fits

Deputy Director Brianne Harquisha summarized the ODS drafting process and noted the planning commission’s prior study-session input shaped the standards. The package organizes ODS by typology (residential-only districts and mixed-use districts) and creates two combining districts: one for polygon-designated areas and one to allow by-right (“ministerial”) approval on sites that meet state law criteria.

Architects from Van Meter Williams Pollock presented conceptual “test fits” for representative sites to validate ODS and feasibility assumptions. Karen Murray, the firm’s project principal, described the test-fit approach: “The test fit evaluates development feasibility on a site, and to do that, we look at zoning, economic and implementation factors.” Murray and consultants showed examples in which podium parking, garage levels and floor‑to‑floor heights affected whether a scheme fit inside the proposed height limits. “In summary, this was a five‑story test fit,” she said of one design that achieved unit yield and open-space goals but exceeded a strict height line without rooftop allowances.

Refinements staff proposed after feasibility analysis

Staff presented several refinements to the ODS based on the test fits and financial feasibility work: 1) a rooftop projection allowance (mechanical rooms/elevator penthouses) rather than an unrestricted extra five feet of height; 2) modest increases in the maximum heights for two mixed‑use districts (to 45 and 55 feet) to accommodate viable commercial floor‑to‑floor heights where ground‑floor commercial is provided; 3) reduced open-space requirement from 220 to 200 square feet per unit, with flexibility in how the space is provided; and 4) reduced parking requirements for multifamily from the commission’s earlier draft — the staff proposal calls for 1.5 spaces per unit for two‑bedroom-plus units and one guest space per five units (staff presented that as a future zoning‑code refinement). Deputy Director Harquisha said those changes were intended to “ensure they are practical, equitable and aligned with state law” and to improve development feasibility.

Environmental review and HCD process

Staff said the rezoning program was evaluated in a programmatic EIR. The final EIR and responses to comments were published on the city website; the EIR concludes most impacts can be reduced to less‑than‑significant levels with mitigation, but greenhouse-gas emissions and vehicle‑travel‑demand (VMT) impacts remain significant and unavoidable even after mitigation. Staff told the commission a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared and must be adopted alongside any certification action to ensure the city tracks compliance.

“As part of this rezoning program, this was evaluated through a programmatic environmental impact report,” staff said. The staff recommendation presented to the commission was that the commission adopt a resolution recommending the City Council certify the EIR, adopt findings of fact and statements of overriding consideration, adopt the MMRP required by CEQA, and approve the associated general-plan and zoning amendments needed to implement the housing element.

Discussion, public comment and schedule

The commission kept its public‑comment period for the rezoning item tight because of the large number of speakers, and commissioners reserved substantive questions until after public comment. After the public comment period — which was dominated by speakers on a single site (see separate article on the Sanchez Art Center) — commissioners asked detailed questions about the ODS, the rationale for changes, and the implications of rooftop allowances, stepbacks, parking and minimum densities. Several commissioners emphasized the need to preserve the intent of earlier study sessions while recognizing feasibility constraints raised by the test fits and by HCD’s expectations.

The commission did take one discrete zoning action while chair Hauser recused herself on an unrelated site: it voted to adopt Zoning Map A1 (the rezoning map limited to Site 19 on Hickey Boulevard). That vote passed 4–0 with one recusal. The commission did not take a final vote on the full rezoning package; commissioners voted to continue deliberations to a date certain and asked staff to return revised materials reflecting direction from the commission. The item was continued for further review and will appear on a future agenda for final recommendation to the City Council.

What comes next

Staff told commissioners it had submitted the rezoning package to HCD for preliminary review and expected written feedback in the coming weeks. If the commission later recommends certification and the City Council acts, the city would then finalize its housing‑element resubmittal to HCD for review and potential certification. Commissioners said they wanted revised packet materials that reflect the discussion on minimum densities, permitted uses in the mixed‑use institutional categories, parking and rooftop/mechanical allowances before the next deliberation.

Actions recorded

- Planning commissioners unanimously approved the city’s annual report to the city council (motion passed).
- The commission voted to adopt Zoning Map A1 for Site 19 (533 Hickey Boulevard) as provided by staff; outcome: approved 4 in favor, 0 opposed, 1 recusal.
- The commission continued deliberations on the overall rezoning package to a future date certain and directed staff to return with revised materials.

Staff and consultants who spoke at the hearing included community development director Samantha Updegrave, deputy director Brianne Harquisha, associate planner Caitlin (Katie) Snodgrass, architect Karen Murray (Van Meter Williams Pollock) and Asher Cohn (mGroup).","Pacifica’s Planning Commission heard a staff presentation May 19 on a citywide rezoning program and program‑level environmental review intended to implement the city’s housing element; staff told commissioners the rezoning would create zoning capacity for 2,042 units on 31 sites and that the draft EIR finds greenhouse‑gas and vehicle‑travel (VMT) impacts remain significant and unavoidable.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Dozens of speakers urge planning commission to preserve Sanchez Art Center as rezoning package moves forward

Pacifica planning commission advances housing-element rezoning package; EIR finds greenhouse-gas and transportation impacts remain significant