Planning Commission Minutes
April 18, 2022
2. TA-121-22 File No. 2022-008 – Text Amendment TA-121-32, initiated by the City of Pacifica, to extend the Growth Management Ordinance codified in Chapter 5 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, which has a current termination date of June 30, 2022. The Text Amendment to be considered would affect property citywide in the A (Agricultural) zoning district and the HPD (Hillside Preservation District) overlay zoning district. The Planning Commission will consider the Text Amendment and make a recommendation to the City Council
Recommended CEQA Action: Exempt pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
Dep. Planning Director Murdock presented the staff report.
Commissioner Domurat stated that the big picture in his mind was that they extend it for five years, and they have a master plan they are working on, and he asked if they are being synced together and the five years doesn’t lock them in if they want to make changes to the master plan.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock thought there were two parts to the answer. He stated that the first part of his question is related to whether they are in sync and could they revisit this as a city if a five year extension doesn’t make sense in the future and yes, the ordinance is being enacted by City Council and can be amended by the Council but he stated that it would be unconventional and he wasn’t aware of any example where that has occurred since the initial and subsequent extensions. He stated that the second part of his question was about to what extent this ordinance affects the capacity of the city to comply with its regional housing needs allocation or RHNA for the nearly 1,900 units the city is obligated to plan for over the next eight years and the simple answer was that this ordinance and the HPD overlay do not regulate uses of land per se or limit density and this is governing the voter approval requirements to remove that zoning overlay such as the Hillside Preservation District. He stated that the General Plan and zoning that combines with this overlay is what regulates the density and allowable uses of land which is still subject to Council’s discretion.
Commissioner Godwin noticed that a number of the documents, such as financial statements, etc., were quite a ways in the past and he thought they should insert some statement in subsequent to that, so they indicate that they are aware of more recent documents and this ordinance is compatible with all the budgets from then until the present.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock thought it was staff’s opinion, in perspective, that this ordinance and the prior extension ordinances are simply reauthorizing the prior ordinance that was enacted by the voters and they thought it would be advisable to remain consistent with those prior extensions to add a five-year term but not seek to go back and change various components such as the finding section.
Commissioner Godwin reiterated that much more modern documents are available and they haven’t done anything to update the findings.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock thought a recital in the Planning Commission’s resolution, if they take action to recommend this, might be a place to reflect his opinion and judgment on that and that would not require amending those findings and he and Asst. City Attorney Sharma can Planning Commission Minutes
April 18, 2022
discuss further as a potential option if they understood more about specific elements that he thinks need to be validated or addressed in that statement.
Acting Chair Hauser had some questions that she appreciated staff answering in advance of the meeting, but she has one to ask on the record. She wanted to understand the thought process behind the five years versus 20 years or 10 years.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that in the original growth management ordinance, the voters provided for a five-year initial term to the GMO and each extension since then has been a five-year extension and, in this instance, staff prepared the ordinance consistent with the original GMO as well as the multiple extensions and staff’s opinion was that a five-year term is an adequate balance of certainty and protection combined with the ability and requirement in the ordinance to revisit it after a three-year period to determine whether it should remain in place at the end of the five-year term. Consistency with the original enactment and subsequent extensions is their justification for recommending a five-year term.
Acting Chair Hauser opened the Public Hearing.
Sue Digre, Pacifica, stated that she was in favor of a mask but it is hard to hear and she couldn’t hear about three-quarters of what he said. She appreciated Dep. Planning Director Murdock’s support of the public vote, and expressed her thoughts on that position.
Asst. Planner Mosler introduced the call-in speaker.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, thanked Dep. Planning Director Murdock for bringing this ordinance to the Commission’s attention and shared her thoughts on the process of that ordinance, and appreciated keeping the will of the people at the forefront and encouraged reinstating it again.
Acting Chair Hauser closed the Public Hearing.
Acting Char Hauser referred to a point brought up in public comment, and stated staff wrote up very nicely the residential development allocation (RDA) process and explained it in the context of the Housing Accountability Act. She wondered if they could get more insight into how that works and understand when the voters would have the rights again, based on the Housing Accountability Act, to implement the RDA process.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that, among the many provisions in the Housing Accountability Act that was first enacted in SB330, one is express language in the statute that prohibits cities from implementing and administering any numerical cap on the number of housing units that can be permitted or constructed and that is the language staff is responding to in drafting this report and making recommendations on the ordinance. He stated that, as far as the point at which the voters will have their authority returned to them and allow the application and administration of this process that is in Pacifica’s Municipal Code, the current sunset date is January 1, 2034 but the Legislature could modify that and make it sooner or later. He stated that there was no guarantee that the sunset will occur at that point in time, but under current law that is the date.
Acting Chair Hauser stated that, if there are no items on which Commissioners wish to speak, she would ask for a motion. She then acknowledged Commissioner Ferguson.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 18, 2022
Commissioner Ferguson stated that she asked the question he was going to ask.
Acting Chair Hauser then asked if he would like to make the motion.
Commissioner Ferguson moved that the Planning Commission FINDS the proposed ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; ADOPTS the resolution included as Attachment A to the staff report to initiate Text Amendment TA-121-22 and recommend approval to the City Council; and incorporates all maps and testimony into the record by reference.
Acting Chair Hauser stated that, as Commissioner Ferguson was reading the motion, she recalled that Commissioner Godwin may want to add a finding into the resolution. She asked him if he was interested in adding that.
Commissioner Godwin was interested in seeing some reaction to it if the other commissioners thought that was a reasonable approach, given some of the documents mentioned are in excess of 40 years, etc.
Acting Chair Hauser asked Asst. City Attorney Sharma if she had a response to that.
Asst. City Attorney Sharma stated that their office generally recommends that consistency with the prior approach of merely extending the dates in the ordinance and the findings remain as is, but if the Commission wishes to entertain any additions or proposals, they can consider the exact precise language. She can’t think of a way to incorporate a footnote to revise it in a way that doesn’t touch or reopen the findings.
Acting Chait Hauser stated that they have the motion from Commissioner Ferguson, and asked for a second.
Commissioner Domurat seconded the motion.
The motion carried 5-0.
Ayes: Commissioners Domurat, Ferguson, Godwin,
Wright and Acting Chair Hauser
Noes: None