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

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).