The city of Pacifica made its draft Housing Element available for public review on Friday. The milestone is one marker on the way toward plotting ambitious residential development in the city over the next eight years.
The housing element is a state-mandated plan to provide for housing across all income levels. The city is required by virtue of the Regional Housing Needs Determination to plan for an additional 1,892 housing units between 2023 and 2031. That is more than four times as much in this, the sixth iteration of the plan, as was required in the period ending in 2023.
Friday marked the beginning of a 30-day public review period. Citizens can comment on the plan by viewing it on the city’s update webpage or in writing to the Planning Department, 540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, 94044. Residents may email their thoughts to firstname.lastname@example.org.
The city plans a joint City Council-Planning Commission study session on the draft at 6 p.m. on March 21 at the council chambers, 2212 Beach Blvd. Afterward, the housing element may be revised based on comments received. It ultimately heads to the state Department of Housing and Community Development for review.
The draft notes that current housing in Pacifica mirrors development in suburban locations across the country in the wake of World War II. New housing tracts spread rapidly through the 1970s. Eighty-five percent of the city’s current housing stock was built before 1980. There have been fewer than 400 units built since the turn of the century, which highlights the difficulties in reaching the new target of 1,892 in just eight years.
The draft acknowledges the need for more affordable housing.
“The impact of housing inaffordability can be felt throughout Pacifica and the community dialogue related to housing has shifted from decades past,” it says in the introduction.
The document contemplates a number of zoning changes authors think will be necessary to meet the target. For instance, it envisions the possibility of housing on school land, Caltrans right-of-way and the Sanchez Art Center, among other places.
Writing yet another letter to the Planning Commission. There are so many problems with this plan, I wonder how it can be implemented. Mark has a point - nowhere does the plan specify the range of what the state considers "affordable". Also, why do "religious institutions" get a pass? Don't they already benefit by tax breaks? So, they pay no taxes to pay for the extra units in town, but they still get the benefit? How is this just or fair for those of us who pay taxes here? Just a few of my questions regarding this plan.
The plan's explanation for religious institutions getting a break applies if that institution allows the construction of these units on church property. O.k., answered my own question (never mind).
Am interested in seeing a government agency publishing an officially useable definition of “affordable” in the real estate market.
Welcome to the discussion.
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.