Site Inventory Analysis: Income
Concentrations of FH Factors
There is a mix of above moderate-, moderate-, and lower-income households in all areas of the city, including in the more diverse and predominant Asian census tracts in the north and the higher resource areas in the south.
Household incomes in the predominantly Asian and White census tracts are similar, ranging between $125,000 and $143,000.
Two block groups, located in the southwest neighborhoods in the Pedro Point and Linda Mar areas (north of Linda Mar Boulevard), have a median household income between $150,000 and $188,000.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1466 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) D-26 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 Two block groups located along Coast Highway north of the Sharp Park Golf Course and towards the northern city border and alongside Manor Drive to the eastern city border have household incomes between the state median of $87,100 and $125,000.
Three block groups in the southern neighborhoods located south of Fassler Avenue between Peralta Road and Adobe Drive and the neighborhood located just west of San Pedro Valley County Park and east of Park Pacifica Avenue have household incomes between $87,100 and $125,00. One block group located south of Linda Mar Boulevard between the Linda Mar Shopping Center and Peralta Road has a median-income below the 2020 state median-income of $87,100. This area is in close proximity to some of the higher-income neighborhoods in Pacifica.
Regional Comparison
The household AMI in Pacifica is similar to the county. Countywide, 49 percent of households earn more than $125,000 of AMI compared to 48 percent of households in Pacifica and 13 percent of County Households earn less than 30 percent AMI compared to 12 percent of households in Pacifica. However, Pacifica’s neighbors to the north and east have lower household median incomes and higher poverty rates.
Figure D-4 shows that a majority of Pacifica’s census tracts have households earning above $125,000 AMI, which is higher than South San Francisco, San Bruno and Daly City where most census tracts have household incomes below $125,000 AMI and where there are more pockets of households earning less than the state median-income of $87,100. Daly City and South San Francisco also have multiple census tracts where more than 10 percent of households live below the poverty level while Pacifica has none.
Distribution of Site Inventory
Figure D-4 shows an even distribution of sites in census tracts where the median-income is below $125,000 and above $125,000. There are 16 sites located in census tracts where the median-income is greater than $125,000 and 20 sites located in a census tract where the median-income is lower than $125,000. The unit mix in these sites is also evenly distributed among lower and higher earning census tracts with 525 lower-income units located in higher earning census tracts and 582 lower-income units located in lower earning census tracts.
Disability Status
Many individuals with a disability live on a small, fixed income, limiting their ability to pay for housing. Some adults with developmental disabilities depend on monthly income of around $1,000 from the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, pricing them out of many of the limited number of affordable housing units in Pacifica. Those with employment tend to work part-time in the lowest paid jobs and also struggle to incomequalify for many of the affordable housing units now available for rent in Pacifica. Most adults with developmental disabilities also do not drive or own a car and many rely on public transit to access services in the community. Many people with disabilities experience severe rent burden, housing instability and displacement. Such disparities are attributable to the lack of housing affordable to extremely low-income (ELI) households (with incomes below 30 percent of AMI).
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1467 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) Figure D-4: Proposed RHNA Sites in Relation to
Median Income by Census Tract
< $55,000
< $55,000
< $125,000
Greater than $125,000
Affordable Sites (Lower and
Moderate Income)
Market Rate Housing Sites*
City/Town Boundaries
(R) Median Income (ACS, 2015-2019) -
Block Group
*Market Rate Housing Sites that have more than 8 units will include Below Market Rate Units including lower income units and moderate income units. 1 1
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1468 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) D-28 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 Geographic concentrations of people living with a disability occur for various reasons. Residents with disabilities may live in a family home with parents or family members who have the resources to care for them, there may be areas with easier access to services, amenities, and transportation that better serve disabled residents, or there may be concentrations of licensed care facilities and/or supportive services in certain neighborhoods.
Site Inventory Analysis: Disability Status
Concentrations of FH Factors
Four census tracts in Pacifica have between 10 percent to 20 percent of the population living with a disability— two in the northern part of the city and two in the south (Figure D-5). There is a concentration of senior housing projects in the southern part of town. Since seniors are more likely to have a disability, the concentration of senior housing may mean that there are more household members with disabilities in these areas. The four census tracts with a concentration of people living with disabilities are:
Census Tract 602700 in the northeast of the city has a predominant Asian population and include block groups with household incomes that are both higher (more than $125,000) and moderate (between $87,100 and $125,000). This census tract also has a concentration of renter households that are cost burdened (between 40% to 60% of renter households).
Census Tract 602900 in the northwest has a predominant White population with household incomes between $87,100 and $125,000. This census tract also has a concentration of cost burdened homeowners (40% to 60% of owner-occupied households).
Census tracts 603400 and 603300 located in the south of the city have a predominant White population and household incomes of more than $125,000. Census tract 603300 also has a concentration of households who are cost burdened; 40 percent to 60 percent of renter households are cost burdened in this census tract.
Distribution of Site Inventory
Pacifica’s sites inventory includes 16 sites located within the four census tracts that have a higher concentration of household members with a disability (602700, 602900, 603300, and 603400). These sites are expected to produce 596 lower-income units, 52 moderate-income units, and 251 above moderate-income units.
The City also projects that it will need to plan for at least 269 ELI units, or 50 percent of its Very Low Income RNHA allocation. ELI units are particularly important to people with developmental disabilities. Pacifica is committed to further fair housing for people with disabilities through policies that will increase the production of ELI units, as well as provide adequate staff capacity to implement and monitor the impact of these policies.
Multiple barriers including high land and construction costs and limited funding make it difficult for developers to produce ELI units that would help to reduce such disparities. Local zoning and other policies that promote increased production of ELI units, as well as City staff dedicated to implementing and overseeing those policies, will help further fair housing in Pacifica and decrease displacement and homelessness for the most at-risk residents, including people with developmental disabilities.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1469 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) Figure D-5: Proposed RHNA Sites in Relation to
Disability Status by Census Tract
< 10%
10% - 20%
Affordable Sites (Lower and Moderate Income)
Market Rate Housing Sites*
City/Town Boundaries
(R) Population with a Disability
*Market Rate Housing Sites that have more than 8 units will include Below Market Rate Units including lower income units and moderate income units. 1 1
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1470 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) D-30 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 Regional Comparison
The share of the population living with at least one disability is 9 percent in Pacifica compared to 8 percent in San Mateo County. Pacifica is home to 180 people with developmental disabilities (Table D-1). San Bruno is home to 326 people with developmental disabilities and South San Francisco is home to 967 people with developmental disabilities. As a share of the total number of people living with developmental disabilities in San Mateo County, 5 percent of the total live in Pacifica compared to 8 percent in San Bruno and 25 percent in South San Francisco.
TABLE D-1: PACIFICA AND SAN MATEO COUNTY POPULATION WITH
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
Age City of Pacifica
City of Pacifica
Percent of Total San Mateo County
San Mateo County
Percent of Total
Under Age 18 74 41% 1,169 30%
18 and Older 106 59% 2,764 70%
Total 180 100% 3,933 100%
Note: The Pacifica population with developmental disabilities is based on zip code level data published by the Department of Developmental Services for zip code 94044, which may overlap with other jurisdictional boundaries, as of September 2021. The San Mateo County population with developmental disabilities is based on county-level data published by the Department of Developmental Services as of June 2021.
Source: Department of Developmental Services.
The table above shows that Pacifica has a smaller share of adults with developmental disabilities than San Mateo County—only 59 percent of Pacifica residents with developmental disabilities are adults (18 and older) compared to 70 percent of all San Mateo County residents with developmental disabilities. A higher proportion of Pacifica’s residents with developmental disabilities are under 18 years old (41% in Pacifica vs 30% countywide).
A lack of affordable housing at ELI levels paired with supportive services could be one of the factors contributing to fewer adults with developmental disabilities being able to live in Pacifica. Assessing the housing needs of adults with developmental disabilities is particularly important because as they age adults will require a residential option outside the family home, whereas the family home is the preferred living option for children with developmental disabilities. In Pacifica a larger share of the adult population is living in the family home (71%) with aging parents than in the County overall (56%).
Table D-2 shows the living arrangements of adults with developmental disabilities in Pacifica compared to San Mateo County. Seventy one percent of adults with developmental disabilities live in the home of a parent, family, or guardian. Living in the family home puts adults at greater risk of displacement and homelessness.
Over-reliance on the family home as a living arrangement is likely due to the lack of housing affordable to ELI households available in Pacifica which is also contributing to fewer Pacifica adults transitioning into their own apartment with supportive services (7%) than in the County overall (11%). In addition, fewer Pacifica adults (17%) are transitioning into licensed facilities (including Community Care Facilities and Intermediate Care Facilities) than in the County overall (32%). However, opportunities for adults to live in a licensed facility are declining throughout the County. Seven percent of Pacifica adults with developmental disabilities live in other living arrangements, which can include but are not limited to homelessness or jail, as compared to only 1 percent of the County’s adult population overall.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1471 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT D-31
TABLE D-2: LIVING ARRANGEMENTS OF ADULTS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL
DISABILITIES IN PACIFICA COMPARED TO SAN MATEO COUNTY
Adult Living Arrangements Pacifica
Pacifica
Percent of Total San Mateo County
County
Percent of Total
Home of Parent/Family/Guardian 75 71% 1,556 56%
Own Apartment with Supportive Services 7 7% 294 11%
Licensed Facilities 18 17% 894 32%
Other (Including Homeless) 6 6% 20 1%
Total Adults 106 100% 2,764 100%
Note: The Pacifica population with developmental disabilities is based on zip code level data published by the Department of Developmental Services for zip code 94044, which may overlap with other jurisdictional boundaries, as of September 2021. The San Mateo County population with developmental disabilities is based on county-level data published by the Department of Developmental Services as of June 2021. These data assume that all people with developmental disabilities under age 18 live in the family home. The impact of this assumption, if incorrect, is to underestimate the number of adults living in the family home who may need other residential living options.
Source: Department of Developmental Services.
Decline in Licensed Care Facilities
The California Department of Developmental Services reports that between September 2015 and June 2021, San Mateo County lost 5 percent of its supply of licensed care facilities for people with developmental disabilities (including Community Care Facilities, Intermediate Care Facilities, and Skilled Nursing Facilities), even as the adult population in need of residential options outside the family home grew. This trend increases the need for affordable housing options coordinated with supportive services funded by the Golden Gate Regional Center. San Mateo County’s reduced supply of licensed care facilities increases the likelihood that Pacifica adults with developmental disabilities will be forced out of the county when their parents are no longer able to house them—unless there is a significant improvement in access to affordable housing.
Longer Lifespans
Between September 2015 and June 2021, the California Department of Developmental Services reports that the number of San Mateo County residents with developmental disabilities age 62 and older grew by 33 percent.
This is due not to migration of senior citizens with developmental disabilities into San Mateo County, but rather to well-documented gains in life span among people with developmental disabilities. With longer life expectancy, more adults with developmental disabilities will outlive their parents and family members who are the single largest source of housing for people with developmental disabilities in Pacifica. Longer life spans will also slow the pace of turnover in the county’s limited supply of licensed care facilities, which will reduce opportunities for Pacifica adults with developmental disabilities to secure a space in a licensed care facility elsewhere in the County.
Displacement
Notwithstanding 10 percent growth in San Mateo County’s total population of adults with developmental disabilities, DDS has documented a 12 percent decline in the age group 42 to 51 and a 10 percent decline in the age group 52 to 61 between September 2015 and June 2021. In light of gains in life expectancy, this loss can reasonably be attributed to displacement from the county because of the lack of residential living options (either licensed facilities or affordable housing) when an elderly parent caregiver passes away or becomes unable to house and care for the adult. Displacement takes a particular toll on adults with developmental disabilities REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1472 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) D-32 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 who depend on familiarity with transit routes and shopping and services, as well as support from communitybased services and informal networks.
Familial Status
Pacifica’s proportion of single-person households (21%) is similar to San Mateo County (22%). There is also a similar distribution of married-couple family households in the city (54%) and county (55%). Familial status can indicate specific housing needs and preferences. A larger number of nonfamily or single person households indicates a higher share of seniors living alone, young adults living alone or with roommates, and unmarried partners. Higher shares of nonfamily households indicate an increased need for one- and two-bedroom units.
Over 80 percent of married couple households and a majority of residents living alone live in owner occupied housing. The number of housing units available by number of bedrooms and tenure is generally consistent with the familial status of the city’s households. Compared to the county, Pacifica has the same proportion of family households and single person households—which is reflected in the number of bedrooms and tenure of the housing stock.
Site Inventory Analysis: Children in Female-Headed Households Concentrations of FH Factors
Households headed by one person are often at greater risk of housing insecurity, particularly female-headed households, who may be supporting children or a family with only one income. Female-headed households with children may face particular housing challenges, with gender inequality resulting in lower wages for women.
Moreover, the added need for childcare can make finding a home that is affordable more challenging. In Pacifica, 11.0 percent of female-headed households with children fall below the Federal Poverty Line, while
3.2 percent of female-headed households without children live in poverty. Pacifica has 625 single parent femaleheaded households, which can be the most vulnerable households.
As shown in Figure D-6, two census tracts (602800 in the north, which is predominantly Asian and 603400 southeast, which is predominantly White) have a concentration of children in female headed households of between 20 percent to 40 percent. Both census tracts have more households with a median household income above $125,000, which is higher than some of the other areas of the city.
Census tract 602800 in the north has:
Slightly lower environmental and educational outcome indicators than the rest of the city, although these indicators are positive when compared to the region overall. The lowest jobs proximity scores relative to the region. Similar economic opportunities and concentrations of overpayment, and lack of overcrowded areas as the rest of the city. This area is also a sensitive community according to the Urban Displacement Project.
Census tract 603400 in the south has:
Positive environmental, educational, and economic indicators, like the rest of the city, but lacks adequate access to transit, and has low access to jobs.
No overcrowded households, no large concentrations of cost burdened households for either renters or homeowners and has not been identified as being vulnerable to displacement. It is one of the four census tracts in the city that has a concentration of household members with a disability.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1473 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) Figure D-6: Proposed RHNA Sites in Relation to
Female-Headed Households with Children by Census Tract
≤ 20%
20% - 40%
Affordable Sites (Lower and Moderate Income)
Market Rate Housing Sites*
City/Town Boundaries
(R) Percent of Children in Female Householder,
No Spouse/Partner Present Households
*Market Rate Housing Sites that have more than 8 units will include Below Market Rate Units including lower income units and moderate income units. 1 1
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1474 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) D-34 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 Distribution of Site Inventory
Two of city’s proposed RHNA sites are located in census tract 602800 (north), and three sites are adjacent to this census tract (6022700) and will serve the same neighborhoods. The five sites have the potential to produce 287 housing units, of which 223 are designated for lower-income households.
Two of the city’s proposed RHNA sites are located in census tract 603400 (south) totaling 153 projected housing units. In addition, there are five sites in census tract 603300 that are adjacent to this census tract and will serve the same neighborhoods totaling 272 projected housing units. The seven sites (census tracts 603400 and 603300) have the potential of 425 housing units, of which 233 are designated for lower-income households.
Regional Comparison
Other jurisdictions in the region have at least one census tract with concentrations of female-headed households with children including South San Francisco, Daly City, and San Bruno. In South San Francisco, more than half of the city’s census tracts have a concentration of female-headed households with children. Other communities in the region such as Millbrae, Burlingame, Foster City, San Carlos and Belmont have none.
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence (R/ECAP or RCAA)
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) represent opposite ends of the segregation spectrum from racially or ethnically segregated areas with high poverty rates to affluent predominantly White neighborhoods. Historically, HUD has paid particular attention to R/ECAPs as a focus of policy and obligations to AFFH. Recent research out of the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs argues for the inclusion of RCAAs to acknowledge current and past policies that created and perpetuate these areas of high opportunity and exclusion.12 R/ECAP
HCD and HUD’s definition of a Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty is:
A census tract in an urban area that has a non-White population of 50 percent or more (majorityminority) AND a poverty rate of 40 percent or more; OR A census tract that has a non-white population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is three times the average census tract poverty rate for the County, whichever is lower.
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021.
It is important to note that R/ECAPs and RCAAs are not areas of focus because of racial and ethnic concentrations alone. This study recognizes that racial and ethnic clusters can be a part of fair housing choice 12 Goetz, E.G., A. Damiano, and R.A. Williams, 2019. Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation.
Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 21(1), 99–124.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1475 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT D-35
if they occur in a non-discriminatory market. Rather, R/ECAPs are meant to identify areas where residents may have historically faced discrimination and continue to be challenged by limited economic opportunity, and conversely, RCAAs are meant to identify areas of particular advantage and exclusion.
This study used a poverty measure of three times the average census tract poverty rate in the County (19%) as the R/ECAP threshold. The study also measured the threshold for edge or emerging R/ECAPS (two thirds of the HUD defined poverty rate), which is two times the average poverty rate in the county (13%).
In 2010, three census tracts qualified as R/ECAPs (19 % poverty rate) in the county and 11 qualified as edge R/ECAPs (13% poverty rate). None of the R/ECAPs were located in Pacifica. However, an edge R/ECAP was located just north of the Pacifica border in Daly City. In 2019, two census tracts qualified as R/ECAPs (19% poverty rate) in the county and 14 qualified as edge R/ECAPs (13% poverty rate). None of the R/ECAPs were located in Pacifica.
HCD’s definition of a Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence is “A census tract with a median income 1.25 times higher than in the region and a White population of 1.5 times higher than the region.” Of the eight census tracts in Pacifica, five are considered racially concentrated areas of affluence, as shown in Figure D-7.
Site Inventory Analysis: R/ECAP or RCAA
Concentrations of FH Factors
Five of the eight census tracts in Pacifica are considered racially concentrated areas of affluence. The three census tracts that are not in the RCAA have a lower proportion of White residents, and two are predominantly Asian and have more Hispanic and Black residents than the rest of the city. The predominantly White census tract that is not a RCAA has a diverse population; 49 percent White, 4 percent Black, 22 percent Asian, and 18 percent Hispanic.
Pacifica is a predominantly homeowner city with 71 percent of residents living in ownership housing and 29 percent in rental housing. The percentage of renter households is significantly lower than the county where 40 percent of households are renter households. Two of the three census tracts that are not in the RCAA have a larger proportion of renter households (35% and 47%), which is significantly more than the citywide rate. In addition, one of the three non-RCAA census tracts has a lower median income than the rest of the city.
Fair housing factors related to access to opportunity, including economic, educational, and environmental factors, tend to be more favorable within the five RCAA census tracts in the south. Although the three nonRCAA census tracts in the north are high resource areas, they tend to have less economic opportunity, lower educational outcomes, and more environmental constraints than the southern areas of the city.
While two of eight of Pacifica’s K-12 public schools are located outside of the RCAA, there is no discernable difference between better access to schools in the RCAA versus outside of the RCAA.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1476 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) 0 - Not a RCAA
1 - RCAA
Figure D-7: Proposed RHNA Sites in Relation to
RCAA’s by Census Tract
Affordable Sites (Lower and Moderate Income)
Market Rate Housing Sites*
City/Town Boundaries
(R) Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence “RCAA”
*Market Rate Housing Sites that have more than 8 units will include Below Market Rate Units including lower income units and moderate income units. 1 1
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1477 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT D-37
Although the job proximity index shows more favorable access to jobs in the south, the north has better access to the regional transportation network and less traffic congestion. Residents in the northern neighborhoods have better access to regional jobs in the San Francisco and Silicon Valley job centers.
Regional Comparison
Pacifica is the only city in the northern part of San Mateo County to have census tracts designated as Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence. The RCAA census tracts have a greater proportion of higher-income White residents. The proportion of non-Hispanic White residents is 13 percentage points higher in Pacifica than the county. Historical local, state, and federal housing policies have contributed to these disparities as many policies excluded people of color from accessing the same opportunities as White residents.
Pacifica’s immediate neighbors to the east and north, including South San Francisco, San Bruno, Millbrae, and Daly City do not have any R/ECAPs or emerging R/ECAPs. However, racially concentrated areas of affluence exist south of Pacifica in Burlingame, Hillsborough, San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, Menlo Park, Woodside, Portola Valley and down the peninsula.
The RCAA neighborhoods are not unique to Pacifica but are a pattern throughout the peninsula. The census tracts west of I-280 tend to be larger, more rural and contain a significant amount of publicly protected land for parks and open space. According to Sustainable San Mateo County, protected open space is land restricted from new development and construction and generally kept available for wildlife habitat, scenic views, farming, or low-impact public access and comprise 42 percent of San Mateo County. The majority of the County’s protected land lies west of Highway 280.
There is one edge R/ECAP in nearby South San Francisco which has higher concentrations of households with disabilities, lower-income residents, and households that are overcrowded and cost burdened.
Distribution of Site Inventory
Pacifica’s site inventory identifies opportunity sites dispersed throughout the city that will accommodate a total of 2,164 housing units at all income levels with a focus on lower-income production. The potential new housing could include 1,107 lower-income units, 373 moderate-income units, and 684 above moderate-income units, which will expand housing options in a Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Area of Affluence and high resource area. In addition, 1,643 potential housing units (75% of opportunity sites) are projected within the RCAA, including 741 lower-income units and 348 moderate-income units. These lower and moderate-income units will provide new opportunities for housing for lower-income households within a regional RCAA. By producing more affordable housing, the city will improve housing choices for people of different incomes and races. If these projects are built in a way that affirmatively furthers fair housing, the city can facilitate more integrated living patterns, help transform areas of concentrated poverty into areas of opportunity and address the challenges of residents with disproportionate housing needs.
How this Housing Plan Addresses Pacifica’s RCAA
HCD’s definition of a RCAA is “A census tract with a median income 1.25 times higher than in the region and a White population of 1.5 times higher than the region.” Five out of the eight census tracts in Pacifica are REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1478 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) D-38 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 considered RCAAs. The three census tracts in Pacifica that are not in the RCAA have a lower proportion of White residents, and two are predominantly Asian and one is predominantly White.
The RCAA neighborhoods are not unique to Pacifica but are a pattern throughout the peninsula. While Pacifica has the only RCAA census tracts in North San Mateo County, RCAAs exist south of Pacifica in Burlingame, Hillsborough, San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, Menlo Park, Woodside, Portola Valley and down the peninsula.
A large portion of the lands contained in the RCAA are protected parkland and most of San Mateo County protected park land lies west of Highway 280. The census tracts west of I-280 tend to be larger, more rural and contain a significant amount of publicly protected land for parks and open space. The areas that are designated RCAAs in Pacifica are sparsely developed foothills communities. Typically, in these areas, there is limited opportunity for adding housing aside from ADUs and duplexes. However, the sites inventory in Pacifica’s housing plan has identified several significant sites in the RCAA as well as adjacent to or in close proximity to the designated RCAA.
Concentrations of racial segregation appear to be more pronounced in Pacifica when compared to some neighboring jurisdictions because in contrast, Daly City, South San Francisco and San Bruno residents experience higher levels of poverty, lower incomes, and are more racially and ethnically diverse communities.
Pacifica has a mix of moderate and higher incomes throughout the city in both White and Asian predominant census tracts. While not represented as a predominant group in any census tract in the city, Hispanic residents are a large minority population and are represented in all census tracts in the city.
Compared to its neighbors in the region, Pacifica has no lower resource areas, fewer households living in poverty, well above average scores in environmental, educational, and economic outcomes, no concentrations of overcrowding, and is less impacted by fair housing issues than those faced by its neighbors in Daly City, South San Francisco, and San Bruno. However, when comparing within Pacifica, especially between the north and the south, fair housing factors related to access to opportunity, including economic, educational, and environmental factors, tend to be more favorable within the five RCAA census tracts in the south when compared to the three northern census tracts (Figures D-7 to Figure D-12). Although the three non-RCAA census tracts in the north are high resource areas, they tend to have less economic opportunity, lower educational outcomes, and more environmental constraints than the southern areas of the city.
While Pacifica is not a major jobs center, Pacifica is in close proximity to major regional job centers. Within Pacifica, the largest employers are Pacifica School District, Jefferson Union High School District, Safeway, and the City of Pacifica, most of which are within the RCAA. However, a significant number of regional jobs are easier to access from the north because of better transit infrastructure, general proximity, and highway access.
The northern census tracts have significant more access to job centers in Daly City, South San Francisco, and other neighboring jurisdictions. Regional jobs are also more easily accessed in the northern part of town because of a more accessible transportation network. Transit access is more accessible outside of the RCAA in the north. Pacifica residents that live in the three census tracts outside of the RCAA still have access to opportunity because they have access to jobs, transportation, and services in the more densely populated area of the city.
While two of eight of Pacifica’s K-12 public schools are located outside of the RCAA, there is no discernable difference between better access to schools in the RCAA versus outside of the RCAA. Jefferson Union High School District, which includes the cities of Pacifica, Daly City, Colma and Brisbane is an open-enrollment district. This means that school placement is not based on neighborhood boundaries. As long as you live within the overall district boundaries, students are placed in a school based on parent choice, availability, and a lottery system. Since the City of Pacifica is in one zip code (94044), students throughout the city may be placed into REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1479 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT D-39
one of Pacifica's two high schools, Oceana High School or Terra Nova High School. Both Pacifica high schools are located within the RCAA and all Pacifica students, regardless of where they live within Pacifica, have the same access to these schools. Oceana High School is located within close proximity of non-RCAA neighborhoods. The Pacifica School District has six schools which include grades from TK through 8th grade.
The Pacifica School District is also an open enrollment school and does not place students based on neighborhood geography. The district has five schools in the RCAA and two schools outside the RCAA (Ocean Shore School K-8 and Sunset Ridge School TK-5). Ingrid B Lacy Middle School is within close proximity of non-RCAA neighborhoods right across from Oceana High School. Families living within the non-RCAA areas have access to schools within the RCAA and most students in middle school and high School go to school in the RCAA.
This housing element strives to meets one of HCD’s equity goals of reversing regional patterns of income and race segregation. Through its policies and programs and site inventory, the City will advocate for lower-income housing production in existing areas of opportunity. The proposed distribution of the sites identified for future housing development in Pacifica will help to open a higher resource area to a mix of housing types and will help to reverse existing patterns of regional segregation. The housing sites inventory in the housing plan was designed to include housing opportunities throughout all neighborhoods of a regional RCAA and encourage lower-income unit production, as well a production of a diverse mix of housing.
The housing sites inventory provides a significant buffer for lower-income unit capacity of 50 percent above the required lower-income RHNA. In addition, the housing element projects 741 lower-income units that are part of opportunity sites located within the RCAA. In addition to the 741 potential lower-income units within the RCAA, there is an additional potential for 348 moderate-income units within the RCAA. Furthermore, through programs in this housing plan (i.e., HE-I-9, HE-I-5, HE-I-6, HE-I-10) and additional sites that may be suitable for extremely low-income housing (i.e., Linda Mar Boulevard Park n Ride, Caltrans Right of Way on Skyline Boulevard, Public Works Corps Yard, Sanchez Art Center, Sanchez Library, and the Skyline Boulevard Water Tank Property), the city will also encourage the production of deeply affordable housing (affordable to households earning less than 30% AMI) to serve the needs of vulnerable residents. Through actions in program HE-I-9, the city will prioritize sites for development of lower-income housing in the RCAA as well as adjacent to the RCAA to increase access to opportunity for lower-income residents in higher-income areas.
The suite of programs in this housing element creates new opportunities for lower-income households to live in higher income areas. Future residents of the potential 1,089 lower-income and moderate-income units within the RCAA will have access to amenities, schools, and opportunities in the RCAA. The lower-income sites in Pacifica’s RCAA and surrounding areas were chosen specifically because of their relatively good access to local services and amenities (Appendix F Table F-8). As a result of new housing development in higher resource areas, combined with programs such as the affirmative marketing of lower-income units to residents outside of the RCAA (HE-I-12), residents who are not living in high opportunity areas today will have better access to higher-income areas.
9. ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
This section discusses disparities in access to opportunity among protected classes including access to quality education, employment, transportation, and environment. The section analyzes fair housing factors at a local and regional level. The section concludes with an analysis of the city’s site inventory that assesses how the REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1480 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) D-40 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 income distribution (lower-, moderate-, and above moderate-income units) overlaps with concentrations of fair housing factors, and whether the income distribution exacerbates existing patterns of segregation among protected classes or vulnerable populations.
Access to Opportunity
“Access to opportunity is a concept to approximate place-based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes. Access to opportunity oftentimes means both improving the quality of life for residents of low-income communities, as well as supporting mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods.
This encompasses education, employment, economic development, safe and decent housing, low rates of violent crime, transportation, and other opportunities, including recreation, food and healthy environment (air, water, safe neighborhood, safety from environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions).”
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 34.
The opportunity maps highlight areas of highest resource, high resource, moderate resource, low resource and high segregation and poverty. The opportunity maps also illustrate access to opportunity in quality education, employment, transportation, and environment. Opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one, the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes.
Site Inventory Analysis TCAC Resource Areas
All of Pacifica’s census tracts are designated as high resource areas according to TCAC opportunity maps (Figure D-8). High resource areas correspond with high environmental outcomes, positive educational outcomes and economic scores. However, a large portion of the city has limited access to public transportation, mostly in the south. The northern part of town is better connected by public transportation networks, has less traffic congestion, and is in closer proximity to San Francisco and Silicon Valley job centers. While the northern census tracts are closer to regional job centers, the area scores poorly on proximity to jobs because these census tracts are the furthest away from the city’s job centers. Regional jobs are more easily accessed from the north than from the south of the city.
Regional Comparison
Pacifica borders high or moderate resource areas in the cities of Daly City, San Bruno, South San Francisco, as well as the Santa Cruz mountains in the south. San Bruno and South San Francisco are the only two cities in North San Mateo County that have low resource areas which are located primarily East of El Camino Real.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1481 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) Figure D-8: Proposed RHNA Sites in Relation to
TCAC Resource Areas by Census Tract
≤ 20 (Furthest Proximity)
20 - 40
40 - 60
60 - 80
> 80 (Closest Proximity)
Affordable Sites (Lower and
Moderate Income)
Market Rate Housing Sites*
City/Town Boundaries
(A) Jobs Proximity Index
*Market Rate Housing Sites that have more than 8 units will include Below Market Rate Units including lower income units and moderate income units. 1 1
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1482 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) D-42 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 Distribution of Site Inventory
All of Pacifica’s sites are located in high resource areas. Pacifica anticipates that housing developed on the opportunity sites will be a mix of housing affordable to lower and moderate-income households, which will be an important step towards slowing regional segregation and opening higher resource areas to households of more diverse incomes.
Education
TCAC’s education score is based on math and reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and the student poverty rate. According to TCAC’s educational opportunity map, most of Pacifica’s census tracts score greater than 0.75—on a scale from zero to one, the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes (Figure D-9).
Pacifica is served by the Jefferson Union High School District and the Pacifica School District (PSD).13 Both Jefferson Union and PSD experienced decreases in enrollment by 5 percent from 2010 to 2020 and continued to lose students during the COVID pandemic.
The race and ethnicity of students in both districts is similar to the countywide distribution. However, Jefferson Union has a higher proportion of Filipino students (29% compared to 8% countywide) and a smaller proportion of Hispanic (31% compared to 38% countywide) and White students (14% compared to 26% countywide).
Conversely, PSD’s schools have a higher proportion of White students (39% compared to 26% countywide) and students who identify with two or more races (16% compared to 8% countywide) and a smaller proportion of Asian (8% to 17% countywide) and Hispanic students (26% compared to 38% countywide).
Jefferson Union has a higher share of English learners (36% compared to 20% countywide) and students who qualify for reduced cost lunches for children whose family fall within a lower income threshold (44% compared to 29% countywide) compared to the countywide proportion, while PSD has a smaller share (9% and 18%, respectively). Many high schoolers in the county met admission standards for a University of California (UC) or California State University (CSU) school. While Jefferson Union had one of the lower rates of graduates who met such admission standards (48%) in San Mateo County, the school has seen a significant increase in the percentage of students who meet these benchmarks over the last five years (21% in 2016-17). Black and Hispanic students in Jefferson Union High School District were less likely to meet the admission standards with rates of 23 percent and 32 percent, respectively.14 Among elementary school districts within the Jefferson Union boundaries, PSD has the lowest rate of chronic absenteeism (7%). While Jefferson Union has the lowest dropout rates in the county—just 3 percent of students—the highest dropout rates were still found among Black (7%) and Hispanic students (6%). 13 JUHSD also includes high schools in Daly City and Brisbane. Data from JUHSD may be skewed because of its inclusion of demographics from other jurisdictions that have a different racial and economic profile than Pacifica. 14 Root Policy Report: Disparate Access to Educational Opportunities. http://21elements.com/documents-mainmenu-3/housingelements/rhna-6-2022-2030/1366-disparate-access-educational-opportunities/file REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1483 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) Figure D-9: Proposed RHNA Sites in Relation to
TCAC Educational Outcome Score by Census Tract
< 0.25 (Less Positive
Economic Outcomes)
0.25 - 0.5
0.5 - 0.75
0.75 - 1 (More Positive
Economic Outcomes)
Affordable Sites (Lower and
Moderate Income)
Market Rate Housing Sites*
City/Town Boundaries
(R) COG Geography TCAC Opportunity
Map 2022 - Economic Score
*Market Rate Housing Sites that have more than 8 units will include Below Market Rate Units including lower income units and moderate income units. 1 1
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1484 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) D-44 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 Site Inventory Analysis: TCAC Educational Outcomes Score Concentrations of FH Factors
Pacifica’s northern census tracts have education scores between 0.5 and 0.75 in math and reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and the student poverty rate—meaning they have poorer educational outcomes compared to the rest of the city. This area has a greater share of minority households compared to the rest of the city.
One census tract in the city, located immediately north of Sharp Park, has both lower educational scores and lower economic scores. This census tract is predominantly White, has a higher proportion of overpayment by renters, and is vulnerable to displacement according to the Urban Displacement Project. The census tract is also within the RCAA and has a mix of moderate and higher incomes.
Two census tracts located north of Sharp Park Road and predominantly White and Asian have both lower educational scores and lower environmental outcomes.
Regional Comparison
According to TCAC, Pacifica has the most positive educational outcome index in North San Mateo County with most of the city scoring more than 0.75 and no census tracts scoring below 0.5. In contrast, no census tracts in Daly City, South San Francisco or San Bruno score over 0.75 and only a few score over 0.5. Large portions of Daly City, South San Francisco and San Bruno score below 0.5 on the educational outcomes index.
This indicates that there is a regional disparity to access to quality educational opportunities and educational outcomes in North San Mateo County.
Distribution of Site Inventory
Approximately 40 percent of site inventory units (874 units) are located north of Sharp Park Road where educational outcomes are lower and 60 percent of site inventory units (1,290 units) are located south of Sharp Park Road where educational outcomes are higher. The area north of Sharp Park Road will accommodate 386 lower-income units, 106 moderate-income units, and 382 above moderate-income units. The area south of Sharp Park Road will accommodate 721 lower-income units, 267 moderate-income units, and 302 above moderate-income units.
Employment
The top three industries by number of jobs in Pacifica are health and educational services, arts and recreation services, and retail. Pacifica has a much lower job to household ratio compared to the county at 0.35 and 1.59 respectively. The major employers in Pacifica are the Pacifica School District (383 employees), Safeway (262 employees), and the City of Pacifica (244 employees).15 HUD’s job proximity index shows the entire city of Pacifica is relatively far from jobs, with every block group in the city scoring below 40—on a scale from zero to 100 where 100 is the closest proximity to jobs. All block 15 City of Pacifica 2021 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1485 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT D-45
groups north of Sharp Park Road and Montecito Avenue have the furthest proximity from jobs (scores below 20).
Even though the job proximity index shows more favorable access to jobs in the south, regional jobs are more easily accessed in the northern part of town because this area is better connected to regional transportation networks, has less traffic congestion, and is closer to San Francisco and Silicon Valley job centers. Although the southern part of the city may be closer to local jobs, the northern area is geographically closer and more connected to regional job centers via transportation networks.
Site Inventory Analysis: Proximity to Jobs
Concentrations of FH Factors
HUD’s job proximity index indicates that the entire city of Pacifica is relatively far from jobs, with every block group scoring below 40—on a scale from zero to 100 where 100 is the closest proximity to jobs. All block groups north of Sharp Park Road and Montecito Avenue have the furthest proximity from jobs (scores below 20) (Figure D-10). However, the methodology used (straight line distance) does not take into account Pacifica's topography and transportation network that actually results in northern neighborhoods having better access to jobs than southern neighborhoods.
Regional Comparison
In the region, cities on the west side of the coastal mountain range along the Pacific coast have the least proximity to job centers while cities to the east including South San Francisco and San Bruno, Millbrae and Burlingame have the closest proximity to jobs. In San Bruno and South San Francisco, all tracts in the eastern portion of the city have scores above 60. San Bruno and South San Francisco have better access to employment opportunities than Pacifica.
Distribution of Site Inventory
Approximately 40 percent of Pacifica’s site inventory units (874 units) are located north of Sharp Park Road, which has the lowest proximity to jobs and 60 percent of the units (1,290 units) are located south of Sharp Park Road, which has slightly higher proximity to jobs. The north side of the city, however, has better access to jobs through a more accessible transportation network.
TCAC’s economic opportunity score is comprised of poverty, adult educational attainment, employment, job proximity, and median home value. Most of Pacifica scores well—between 0.5 and 0.75 (see Figure D-11).
Two Pacifica census tracts have lower economic opportunity scores (0.25-0.5). One is located in the southwest portion of the city (603200) and the second is just north of Sharp Park Road (603000). The northern census tract has one of the highest proportions of renters in the city and is also a vulnerable community according to the urban displacement project with a concentration of overpayment by renters of 40 percent to 60 percent.
The census tract is predominantly White but also has 2 percent Black, 10 percent Asian, 19 percent Hispanic, and 6 percent Other residents.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1486 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) Figure D-10: Proposed RHNA Sites in Relation to
Proximity to Jobs by Census Tract
< 0.25 (Less Positive
Education Outcomes)
0.25 - 0.5
0.5 - 0.75
0.75 - 1 (More Positive
Education Outcomes)
Affordable Sites (Lower and
Moderate Income)
Market Rate Housing Sites*
City/Town Boundaries
(R) COG Geography TCAC Opportunity
Map 2022 - Education Score
*Market Rate Housing Sites that have more than 8 units will include Below Market Rate Units including lower income units and moderate income units. 1 1
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1487 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) Figure D-11: Proposed RHNA Sites in Relation to
TCAC Economic Opportunity Score by Census Tract
< 0.25 (Less Positive
Environmental Outcomes)
0.25 - 0.5
0.5 - 0.75
0.75 - 1 (More Positive
Environmental Outcomes)
Affordable Sites (Lower and
Moderate Income)
Market Rate Housing Sites*
City/Town Boundaries
(R) COG Geography TCAC Opportunity
Map 2022 - Environmental Score
*Market Rate Housing Sites that have more than 8 units will include Below Market Rate Units including lower income units and moderate income units. 1 1
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1488 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) D-48 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 Regional Comparison
TCAC’s economic opportunity score among jurisdictions in the county shows less variation than any of the other fair housing factors. TCAC’s economic outcomes index is relatively similar across North San Mateo County, with the majority of census tracts in Daly City, South San Francisco, San Bruno and Millbrae scoring between 0.5 and 0.75. This pattern may be due to the inclusion of job proximity and employment in the index in addition to poverty and income.
Distribution of Site Inventory
Census tract 603000 north of Sharp Park Road has relatively lower economic outcomes, lower educational outcomes, vulnerability to displacement, and a concentration of cost burdened renters. This census tract has six sites in the site inventory with the potential to produce 344 housing units including 20 lower-income units, 81 moderate-income units, and 243 above moderate-income units.
Transportation
This section provides a summary of the transportation system that serves Pacifica and the broader region including emerging trends and data relevant to transportation access throughout the county. The San Mateo County Transit District acts as the administrative body for transit and transportation programs in the county including SamTrans and the Caltrain commuter rail. SamTrans provides bus services in San Mateo County, including Redi-Wheels paratransit service.
In 2018, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which covers the entire Bay Area, adopted a coordinated public transit and human services transportation plan. While developing the coordinated plan, the MTC conducted extensive community outreach about transportation within the area. That plan—which was developed by assessing the effectiveness of how well seniors, persons with disabilities, veterans, and people with low incomes are served—was reviewed to determine gaps in services in Pacifica and the county overall.16 Since there are no direct trips from Pacifica to the San Francisco VA Medical Center, transit improvements recommended for Pacifica included that information should be provided to clients about temporary paratransit certification.
A partnership between the World Institute on Disability and the MTC created the research and community engagement project TRACS (Transportation Resilience, Accessibility & Climate Sustainability). The project’s overall goal is to, “stimulate connection and communication between the community of seniors and people with disabilities together with the transportation system– the agencies in the region local to the San Francisco Bay, served by MTC.”17
16 https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/MTC_Coordinated_Plan.pdf 17 https://wid.org/transportation-accessibility/
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1489 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT D-49
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1490 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) D-50 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 The San Mateo County Transit District updated their Mobility Plan for Older Adults and People with Disabilities in 2018. According to the district, the county’s senior population is expected to grow more than 70 percent over the next 20 years and the district is experiencing unprecedented increases in paratransit ridership. The plan is targeted at developing effective mobility programs for residents with disabilities and older adults including viable alternatives to paratransit, partnerships, and leveraging funding sources.18 MTC also launched Clipper START—an 18-month pilot project—in 2020 which provides fare discounts on single transit rides for riders whose household income is no more than double the federal poverty level.19 Specific to Pacifica, SamTrans serves the city with lines 110, 112, 117, and 121. School-oriented lines include 10, 12, 14, 19, 40, and 49. Free transportation is also provided to and from the city’s senior centers and seniors’ homes. Low-cost transportation services for shopping trips are also provided for senior residents. The City also operates a free on-call taxi service for seniors. Additionally, there are two BART stations in Colma and Daly City which are accessible from Pacifica bus lines.
While transit service has reasonable geographic reach in Pacifica, there is a general lack of regular transit access in the city, with many routes only running at one-hour or less frequency, which contributes to a lack of access to employment opportunities around the region. Regional jobs are more easily accessed in the northern part of town because of a more accessible transportation network. However, relative to the region, Pacifica has the fewest transportation options and lowest access to jobs. In addition, in order to access employment centers in a reasonable timeframe from the southern and eastern parts of the city, a personal vehicle may be required.
This produces a cost burden for lower-income households living there. Transit access is significantly more accessible outside of the RCAA in the north. Most adults with developmental disabilities also do not drive or own a vehicle and many rely on public transit to travel in the larger community.
Environment
TCAC’s opportunity areas environmental scores are based on the CalEnviroScreen 3.0 indicators, which identify areas disproportionately vulnerable to pollution sources such as ozone, PM2.5, diesel PM, pesticides, toxic release, traffic, cleanup sites, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, impaired water bodies, and solid waste sites.
Generally, Pacifica scores well on environmental outcomes, with most tracts scoring between 0.75 and 1. Aside from one census tract with no data, two census tracts in the northeast area of the city have the lowest scores (0.5 to 0.75) in the city. Unlike any other city in San Mateo County, the entire city scores in the highest category on the California Healthy Places Index (HPI) developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California (PHASC). The HPI includes 25 community characteristics in eight categories including economic, social, education, transportation, neighborhood, housing, clean environment, and healthcare.20 18 https://www.samtrans.com/Planning/Planning_and_Research/Mobility_Plan_for_Older_Adults_and_People_with_ Disabilities.html
19 https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equity-mobility/clipperr-startsm 20 https://healthyplacesindex.org/about/
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1491 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT D-51
Site Inventory Analysis: TCAC Environmental Score
Concentrations of FH Factors
Two census tracts in the northeast of the city score slightly lower on the environmental outcomes index (Figure D-12, census tracts 602800 and 602900). These tracts coincide with slightly lower educational outcomes in other areas north of Sharp Park Road. One census tract is predominantly White and the other predominantly Asian, and both have a mix of block groups with higher and moderate median household incomes. The predominantly White census tract also overlaps with a concentration of households with a disability.
Regional Comparison
Pacifica stands out among other North San Mateo jurisdictions as having the most positive environmental outcome score in contrast to South San Francisco and San Bruno which have the lowest environmental outcomes.
Distribution of Site Inventory
Census Tracts 602800 and 602900 include eight sites, three of which are located along the Coast Highway.
When developed, these sites have the potential to include 146 lower-income units, 25 moderate-income units, and 128 above moderate-income units.
Disparities in Access to Opportunity
TCAC’s composite opportunity score for Pacifica indicates the city is a high resource area. The CDC Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), which ranks census tracts based on their ability to respond to a disaster, taking into account socioeconomic status, household composition, race or ethnicity, and housing and transportation, identifies the northwest area along the Pacific coast as most vulnerable.
Pacifica does not have any disadvantaged communities as defined under SB 535, which include “the top 25 percent scoring areas from CalEnviroScreen along with other areas with high amounts of pollution and low populations.”21
Disparities Specific to the Population Living with a Disability Nine percent of Pacifica’s population is living with at least one disability, compared to 8 percent in the county.
Residents living with a disability are concentrated in both the northern and southern portions of the city.
Disability types include hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty. The most common disabilities in the city are ambulatory (5%), independent living (3%), and cognitive (3%). People 65 and over are more likely to have an ambulatory or independent living difficulty. Since the population of San Mateo County is rapidly aging, the number of seniors with a disability is likely to increase.
21 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1492 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) Figure D-12: Proposed RHNA Sites in Relation to
TCAC Environmental Score by Census Tract
Highest Resource
High Resource
Moderate Resource
Low Resource
Missing/Insufficient Data
Affordable Sites (Lower and
Moderate Income)
Market Rate Housing Sites*
City/Town Boundaries
(R) COG Geography TCAC Opportunity
Map 2022 - Composite Score
*Market Rate Housing Sites that have more than 8 units will include Below Market Rate Units including lower income units and moderate income units. 1 1
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1493 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT D-53
Unemployment is disproportionately high among residents living with a disability in Pacifica where 10 percent of people with a disability are unemployed compared with 3 percent for residents without a disability.
Countywide, the unemployment rate for residents with a disability is 4 percent, compared to 3 percent for residents without a disability. However, other jurisdictions in San Mateo County also have much higher unemployment rates for residents living with a disability (Table D-3). In South San Francisco, San Mateo, Redwood City, Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Hillsborough and Millbrae the rate is three times higher than the county rate. Three communities have rates that are almost twice the county rate (Foster City, Burlingame and Atherton). High unemployment rates among this population points to a need for increased services and resources to connect this population with employment opportunities.
TABLE D-3: SAN MATEO COUNTY JURISDICTIONS AND
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
Jurisdiction
Unemployment Rate of
People with Disabilities
Unemployment Rate of
People without Disabilities
Pacifica 10% 3%
San Mateo County 4% 3%
South San Francisco 13% 3%
San Bruno 1% 4%
Redwood City 9% 3%
Menlo Park 18% 3%
Foster City 6% 3%
San Mateo 12% 3%
Burlingame 7% 4%
East Palo Alto 18% 4%
Millbrae 11% 3%
Hillsborough 14% 3%
Halfmoon Bay 0% 4%
Colma 0% 1%
Brisbane 0% 3%
Atherton 11% 5%
Portola Valley 10% 8%
Woodside 0% 4%
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1494 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) D-54 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1495 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT D-55
10. DISPARATE HOUSING NEEDS
This section discusses disparate housing needs for protected classes including cost burden, overcrowding, substandard housing conditions, homelessness, displacement, and other considerations. The section analyzes fair housing factors at a local and regional level. It concludes with an analysis of how the income distribution of the site inventory units overlaps with concentrations of fair housing factors, and whether it would exacerbate existing patterns of segregation among protected classes or vulnerable populations.
Disproportionate Housing Needs
“Disproportionate housing needs generally refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. For purposes of this definition, categories of housing need are based on such factors as cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions.” Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 39.
Housing Needs
Population growth in Pacifica has lagged behind the county over the last 30 years. Pacifica experienced significant population declines in 2000 and during the Great Recession. While the population slowly increased after the recession, it has declined since 2016.
From 2015 to 2021, the housing permitted to accommodate growth has largely been priced for above moderateincome households with 129 units permitted for above moderate-income households and 8 permitted for moderate-income households compared to only 22 permits for low-income households. No permits were issued for very low-income households. The Housing Needs Data Report for Pacifica indicates new construction has not kept pace with demand throughout the Bay Area, “resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness.”22 The housing types available in the city in 2020 are predominantly single-family (78%) and medium to large scale multi-family (15%). From 2010 to 2020, the single-family inventory increased more than multi-family, and the city has a greater share of detached single-family housing compared to other communities in the region.”23 Over 80 percent of the housing inventory in Pacifica was constructed between 1940 and 1980. Thus, the city’s housing stock is older, lacks energy efficiency, could be costly to adapt for disability accessibility, and may have deferred maintenance.
22 Housing Needs Data Report: Pacifica, ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning, 2021. 23 Ibid.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1496 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) D-56 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1497 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT D-57
Pacifica’s owner-occupied housing sales have the same share of units priced between $1 and $1.5 million as the county—23 percent of units in the city and county fall within this price range. However, nearly half of the city’s owner-occupied housing stock is valued between $750,000 and $1 million (45%)—22 percentage points higher than the county (23%). Only 4 percent of the city’s housing stock is valued below $500,000. According to the Zillow home value index, home prices have experienced remarkable growth in the city and county.
Rents have increased at a slower pace compared to for-sale housing prices—however, they have been consistently higher than both the county and Bay Area median rents. While rents increased more rapidly from 2016 to 2019, rent increases have likely been dampened by the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to the county, Pacifica has nearly the same proportion of luxury rental units—21 percent of units rent for more than $3,000 in the city compared to 22 percent in the county.
Cost Burden and Severe Cost Burden
Approximately 40 percent of renter households in Pacifica are cost burdened, spending more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing costs, and one in five are extremely cost burdened, spending more than 50 percent of their gross income on housing costs. Cost burdened households have less money to spend on other essentials like groceries, transportation, education, healthcare, and childcare. Extremely cost burdened households are considered at risk for homelessness. Lower-income households are more likely to experience housing cost burden. In Pacifica, over 70 percent of households earning less than 30 percent AMI—considered extremely low-income households—are severely cost burdened, compared to less than 1 percent of households earning more than 100 percent of AMI. Figure D-14 shows concentrations of renter households that are cost burdened (housing costs as a percentage of household income). There are concentrations of cost burdened renters in all areas of the city, including the north and south. Pacifica renters are not as cost burdened as many of its neighboring jurisdictions.
There are disparities in housing cost burden in Pacifica by race and ethnicity and family size. Black or African American (64%), American Indian or Alaska Native (60%) and Hispanic households (42%) experience the highest rates of cost burden in the city. Other/Multiple race (30% cost burdened), non-Hispanic White (31%), and Asian households (33%) experience the lowest cost burden. Large family households—considered households with five or more persons—experience cost burden at a rate of 38 percent compared to all other households at 32 percent.
Site Inventory Analysis: Overpayment
Concentrations of FH Factors
Two census tracts, 603100 (Sharp Park) and 602900 (northwest), have a concentration of cost burdened homeowners (40% to 60%). Census tract 602900 (northwest) also has a concentration of households with a disability.
Three census tracts, 603300 (far south), 603000 (just north of Sharp Park) and 602700 (northeast), have a concentration of cost burdened renters of at least 40 percent. These three census tracts also overlap with other fair housing factors: 603000 is predominantly White, is vulnerable to displacement, has lower educational outcomes and lower economic opportunity score; 602700 is predominantly Asian, has lower educational outcomes, and has a concentration of households with a disability; 603300 is predominantly White and has concentrations of households with a disability.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1498 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) D-58 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 Regional Comparison
Overall, Pacifica has fewer cost burdened households (32%) than San Mateo County (37%). Pacifica has lower concentrations of cost burdened renters compared with neighboring jurisdictions, including a census tract where less than 20 percent of renter households experience cost burden. Daly City, San Bruno, and South San Francisco have the highest concentrations (between 60%-80% of renter households) of cost burdened renters (Figure D-13). There is less variation in cost burdened homeowners among jurisdictions. While most census tracts in Daly City have higher concentrations of cost burdened homeowners (between 40%-60%), all census tracts in South San Francisco have concentrations of owner cost burden between 20 percent to 40 percent.
Both San Bruno and Pacifica have two census tracts with relatively higher concentrations of cost burdened homeowners (between 40-60%).
Distribution of Site Inventory
The site inventory includes development sites in the five census tracts with a concentration of cost burdened renter and owner households.
Census tract 603000 north of Sharp Park includes six sites with the potential to produce 20 lower-income units, 81 moderate-income units, and 243 above moderate-income units. Census tract 602700 in the northeast includes three sites with the potential to produce 220 lower-income units and 11 above moderate-income units.
Census tract 603300 in the south includes five sites which have the potential to produce 199 lower-income units, 36 moderate-income units and 37 above moderate-income units. Census tract 603100 (Sharp Park) includes seven sites with the potential to produce 421 lower-income units and 101 moderate income units.
Census tract 602900 (northwest) includes six sites with the potential to produce 143 lower-income units, seven moderate-income units and 93 above moderate-income units.
Overcrowded Households
Concentrations of FH Factors
Overcrowding is defined as more than one occupant per room. The vast majority of households (95%) in Pacifica are not overcrowded. However, renter households are more likely to be overcrowded with 9 percent of households with more than one occupant per room compared to 3 percent of owner households.
Racial and ethnic minorities are more likely than non-Hispanic White households to experience overcrowding:
Asian (12% of households), Hispanic (7%), and Other/Multiple race households (5%) experience the highest rates of overcrowding. Households making between 80 percent and 100 percent AMI are also more likely to be overcrowded.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1499 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) Figure D-13: Proposed RHNA Sites in Relation to
Renter Households by Census Tract
≤ 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
60% - 80%
> 80%
Affordable Sites (Lower and Moderate Income)
Market Rate Housing Sites*
City/Town Boundaries
(R) Percent of households in renter-occupied
housing units
*Market Rate Housing Sites that have more than 8 units will include Below Market Rate Units including lower income units and moderate income units. 1 1
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1500 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) Figure D-14: Proposed RHNA Sites in Relation to
Overpayment by Renter Households by Census Tract
< 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
60% - 80%
Affordable Sites (Lower and Moderate Income)
Market Rate Housing Sites*
City/Town Boundaries
(R) Overpayment by Renters
*Market Rate Housing Sites that have more than 8 units will include Below Market Rate Units including lower income units and moderate income units. 1 1
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1501 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT D-61
Regional Comparison
Pacifica has a lower rate of overcrowding (5%) than both San Mateo County (8%) and the Bay Area (7%). In the northern part of San Mateo County, Daly City has the greatest concentration of overcrowded households (Figure D-15). South San Francisco and San Bruno each have a handful of census tracts with overcrowded households. Both Pacifica and Brisbane have no concentrations of overcrowded households.
Displacement
Owner-occupied households generally enjoy greater housing stability compared to renter-occupied households which tend to move more frequently. Two census tracts in the city, the Sharp Park area and the northernmost tract, are vulnerable to displacement (Figure D-16). Additionally, areas along the waterfront and adjacent to Sharp Park Golf Course, the Vallemar neighborhood, Rockaway Beach, and the Linda Mar Shopping Center are in Special Flood Hazard Areas, determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as having a 1 percent chance of flooding annually.
Displacement Sensitive Communities
“According to the Urban Displacement Project, communities were designated sensitive if they met the following criteria:
They currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. Vulnerability is defined as:
Share of very low-income residents is above 20 percent, 2017.
AND
The tract meets two of the following criteria:
Share of renters is above 40 percent, 2017.
Share of people of color is above 50 percent, 2017.
Share of very low-income households (50% AMI or below) that are severely rent burdened households is above the county median, 2017.
They or areas in close proximity have been experiencing displacement pressures.
Displacement pressure is defined as:
Percent change in rent above county median for rent increases, 2012-2017.
OR
Difference between tract median rent and median rent for surrounding tracts above median for all tracts in county (rent gap), 2017.”
Access to Mortgage Loans
Disparities by race and ethnicity are also prevalent for home mortgage applications, particularly in denial rates.
In the City of Pacifica, American Indian or Alaska Native (60% denial rate), Black or African American (27%), and Hispanic households (22%) had the highest denial rates for mortgage loan applications in 2018 and 2019.
Conversely, non-Hispanic White households (18%) have the lowest denial rates during the same time.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1502 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) Figure D-15: Proposed RHNA Sites in Relation to
Overcrowded Households by Census Tract
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
Affordable Sites (Lower and Moderate Income)
Market Rate Housing Sites*
City/Town Boundaries
(R) Overpayment by Home Owners
*Market Rate Housing Sites that have more than 8 units will include Below Market Rate Units including lower income units and moderate income units. 1 1
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1503 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) Figure D-16: Proposed RHNA Sites in Relation to Sensitive Communities – Urban Displacement Project 6
≤ 8.2% (Statewide Average)
8.3% - 12%
12.01% - 15%
15.01% - 20%
> 20%
Affordable Sites (Lower and
Moderate Income)
Market Rate Housing Sites*
City/Town Boundaries
(R) Overcrowded Households
*Market Rate Housing Sites that have more than 8 units will include Below Market Rate Units including lower income units and moderate income units. 1 1
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1504 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) D-64 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 Site Inventory Analysis: Displacement
Concentrations of FH Factors
Two census tracts in the northern part of the city are vulnerable to displacement (Figure D-17). Census tract 602700 is predominantly Asian, has lower educational outcomes, and a concentration of households with a disability. Census tract 603000 is predominantly White, has lower educational outcomes and lower economic score. Both have a concentration of cost burdened renter households of more than 40 percent as well as areas with both moderate-income (between $87,500 and 125,0000) and higher-income (above $125,000) households.
Regional Comparison
While Pacifica has only two census tracts identified as vulnerable to displacement, many communities have a higher vulnerability to displacement in the region. All of the city of Brisbane is vulnerable to displacement as well as almost all of South San Francisco, about half of the census tracts in the cities of San Bruno, Millbrae, Daly City, Burlingame, San Mateo, Redwood City and East Palo Alto.
Distribution of Site Inventory
The two census tracts that are vulnerable to displacement have a total of eight development sites in the site inventory:
Census tract 603000 north of Sharp Park has six sites with the potential to produce 20 lower-income units, 81 moderate-income units, and 243 above moderate-income units. Census tract 602800 in the northeast has three sites with the potential to produce 3 lower-income units, 18 moderate-income units, and 35 above moderate-income units.
Substandard Housing
Concentrations of FH Factors
Data on housing condition are very limited, with the most consistent data available across jurisdictions found in the American Community Survey (ACS)—which captures units in substandard condition as self-reported in Census surveys. In Pacifica, owner households are more likely to have substandard kitchen and plumbing facilities compared to renter households. Generally, a low share of households have inadequate kitchen or plumbing facilities. Among owners, 0.4 percent have inadequate kitchen facilities while 0.3 percent have inadequate plumbing. Less than 1 percent of renters have inadequate kitchen facilities and none have inadequate or lacking plumbing facilities.
Regional Comparison
Figure D-18 illustrates the percent of all households in the city with any of the four severe housing problems (lacks complete kitchen, lacks complete plumbing, severely overcrowded, severely cost-burdened). Pacifica has one of the lowest percentage of households with any of the four severe housing problems in North San Mateo County and is similar to Hillsborough, Colma, and Brisbane. In contrast, Daly City, South San Francisco, San Bruno, Millbrae and Burlingame and San Mateo have at least 20 percent of households with any of the four severe housing problems.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1505 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) Figure D-17: Proposed RHNA Sites in Relation to Overall Displacement– Urban Displacement Project
Vulnerable
Other
Affordable Sites (Lower and Moderate Income)
Market Rate Housing Sites*
City/Town Boundaries
(R) Sensitive Communities
*Market Rate Housing Sites that have more than 8 units will include Below Market Rate Units including lower income units and moderate income units. 1 1
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1506 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) Figure D-18: Percent of All Households with
Any of the 4 Severe Housing Problems
> 80%
60% - 80%
40% - 60%
20% - 40%
< 20%
Affordable Sites (Lower and Moderate Income)
Market Rate Housing Sites*
City/Town Boundaries
Percent of all households with any of the 4 severe
housing problems (lacks complete kitchen, lacks complete plumbing, severely overcrowded, severely cost-burdened) *Market Rate Housing Sites that have more than 8 units will include Below Market Rate Units including lower income units and moderate income units. 1 1
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1507 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT D-67
11. SITE INVENTORY ANALYSIS IMPACT ON FAIR HOUSING
AB 686 requires an analysis of sites identified to meet RHNA obligations for their ability to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH). This section provides an analysis of the city’s site inventory and findings that evaluate Pacifica’s RHNA sites impact on fair housing. The analysis evaluates whether the development of the sites in the inventory will exacerbate or help reverse patterns of segregation and/or concentrations of protected classes and/or vulnerable populations. It also reviews concentrations of fair housing factors (segregation and integration, access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing need) relative to the distribution of sites in the city and the expected income levels of future housing.
Pacifica’s Site Inventory Impact on Regional Equity
Compared to its neighbors Daly City, South San Francisco, and San Bruno, Pacifica has no lower resource areas, fewer households living in poverty, well above average scores in environmental, educational, and economic outcomes, has no concentrations of overcrowded households, and is less impacted by some of the pronounced concentrations of fair housing issues. The proposed distribution of Pacifica’s site inventory helps to open a higher resource area to a mix of housing types and will help to reverse existing patterns of regional segregation.
By facilitating housing development in a regional RCAA and encouraging lower-income housing production and a mix of housing types, this housing element strives to meet one of HCD’s equity goals of reversing regional patterns of income and race segregation. Through its policies and programs and site inventory, the City will advocate for lower-income production in areas of opportunity.
This housing element contributes to a regional solution to help reverse regional patterns of income and race segregation by facilitating the production of lower-income units in key sites in the city and includes 2,164 potential units in opportunity sites, including 1,107 lower-income units and 373 moderate-income units, which along with projected ADUs and pipeline projects, provides a 36 percent buffer over the assigned RHNA and a 50 percent buffer over the assigned lower-income RHNA. The City’s goal and projected need for ELI units is 269 units or 50 percent of its Very Low Income RNHA allocation.
Pacifica’s Site Inventory Impact on Local Housing Conditions Pacifica’s site inventory is evenly distributed throughout available land in the city. A substantial portion of the city, approximately 40 percent, is protected parkland (Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Sharp Park, San Pedro Valley County Park, and other public open space areas), unavailable for development. The distribution of sites is focused along the city’s major transportation corridors with access to services (Coast Highway, Linda Mar Boulevard, Terra Nova Boulevard, Fassler Avenue, Manor Drive and Hickey Boulevard) both in the north and south. The site inventory was designed to include all potential opportunities for development across the city.
Pacifica’s Site Inventory Impact on Lower and Higher Resource Areas The city’s northern census tracts (not in the RCAA) are more diverse and tend to have residents with the most housing needs. Twenty-five percent of units (within 11 sites) in the inventory are in these areas, comprising 530 units and including 366 lower-income units and 25 moderate-income units, which will provide more housing options for those neighborhoods.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1508 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) D-68 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 Many of the lower-income units in the site inventory are located within theRCAA and in areas designated as higher resource areas. The city’s southern and central census tracts (south of Edgemar Avenue) are considered to have better access to opportunities and are less diverse. The five census tracts are designated a RCAA and higher resource areas include 25 sites and 1,634 units, including 741 lower-income units and 348 moderateincome units. Facilitating development of a mix of housing types including lower- and moderate-income sites, will provide new housing opportunities for lower-income households to live in higher resource areas and within a regional RCAA.
Pacifica’s Site Inventory Impact on Existing Patterns of Segregation Because no pronounced existing patterns of segregation have been identified in Pacifica, the site inventory is evenly distributed across the city. The distribution of the site inventory housing units will not exacerbate existing patterns of segregation among protected classes or vulnerable populations at the local level.
Pacifica exhibits lower concentrations of race and income segregation compared to other jurisdictions in the region including fewer residents that are segregated by race and income, have disproportionate housing needs, and lack of access to opportunities. Pacifica’s site inventory will not exacerbate existing patterns of regional segregation because it will accommodate a mix of incomes across the city and provide housing opportunities at lower and moderate incomes in a higher resource area.
The site inventory is dispersed across the city and does not concentrate units in any one area. Pacifica is predominantly White with one area that is predominantly Asian, reflecting the regional pattern of racial segregation. In contrast, communities to the east are more racially and ethnically diverse but have higher levels of poverty and lower incomes. Both the White and Asian predominant census tracts have moderate and higher incomes, and most of the city is a Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence. Pacifica’s site inventory will help to open this higher resource area and reverse existing patterns of regional segregation. It will also benefit female headed households which are predominantly White.
Table D-4, summary of segregation and integration fair housing factors, illustrates regional concentrations of race, residents with disabilities, female-headed households with children, and median household income.
Table D-5, summary of access to opportunity fair housing factors, illustrates regional concentrations of areas with access to economic, educational, and environmental opportunities. The entire city of Pacifica is a high resource area according to TCAC, and most of the city has one of the highest scores for environmental outcomes. The city also has high educational outcome scores with slightly poorer outcomes in the northern area. Pacifica has much higher outcomes than its neighbors. Pacifica is similar to its neighbors in one TCAC indicator, the economic score, although the city scores poorly in its proximity to jobs. The site inventory was designed to be evenly distributed across the city, which will improve access to opportunity across the city.
Table D-6, disproportionate housing needs fair housing factors, illustrates that Pacifica has no significant concentrations of overcrowded households. The map in Figure D-18 shows that Pacifica has fewer severe housing issues compared to its neighbors. Pacifica has households overpaying for rent or mortgages in all areas of the city. Two census tracts have residents that are vulnerable to displacement.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1509 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT D-69
TABLE D-4: PACIFICA SITE INVENTORY UNITS BY INCOME AND SUMMARY OF
SEGREGATION AND INTEGRATION FAIR HOUSING FACTORS
Census
Tract
Fair Housing Factors for Integration and Segregation Pacifica Site Inventory Predominant
Race
Concentration
of Disability
Concentration
of Female
Headed HH
w/Child
Median
Income RCAA
LowerIncome
Units
ModerateIncome
Units
Above
ModerateIncome
Units
602700 Asian 14% 11% 7% 122,400 No 220 0 11
602800 Asian 13% 9% 21% 125,600 No 3 18 35
602900 White - 37% 11% 18% 108,900 No 143 7 93
603000 White - 48% 7% 20% 110,300 Yes 20 81 243
603100 White - 56% 5% 4% 140,000 Yes 421 101 0
603200 White - 56% 8% 4% 126,800 Yes 67 121 155
603300 White - 55% 10% 8% 121,700 Yes 199 36 37
603400 White - 49% 11% 25% 115,900 Yes 34 9 110
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer.
TABLE D-5: PACIFICA SITE INVENTORY UNITS BY INCOME AND ACCESS TO
OPPORTUNITY FAIR HOUSING FACTORS
Census
Tract
Fair Housing Factors for Access to Opportunity Pacifica Site Inventory Proximity
to Jobs
Economic
Opportunity
Educational
Outcomes
Environmental
Outcomes
Composite
Opportunity
Score
LowerIncome
Units
ModerateIncome
Units
Above
ModerateIncome
Units
602700 8 0.66 0.55 0.84 High
Resource 220 11
602800 9 0.62 0.54 0.70 High
Resource 3 18 35
602900 8 0.60 0.54 0.73 High
Resource 143 7 93
603000 18 0.49 0.71 0.90 High
Resource 20 81 243
603100 26 0.53 0.83 0.80 High
Resource 421 101 0
603200 30 0.47 0.83 0.88 High
Resource 67 121 155
603300 27 0.53 0.82 0.95 High
Resource 199 36 37
603400 33 0.54 0.82 0.94 High
Resource 34 9 110
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1510 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) D-70 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 TABLE D-6: PACIFICA SITE INVENTORY UNITS BY INCOME AND DISPROPORTIONATE
HOUSING NEED FAIR HOUSING FACTORS
Census
Tract
Fair Housing Factors for Disproportionate Housing Need Pacifica Site Inventory Overpayment
Renters
Overpayment
Owners
Overcrowded
Households
Displacement
Risk
LowerIncome
Units
ModerateIncome
Units
Above
ModerateIncome Units
602700 43% 37% 4% Lower 220 11
602800 36% 39% 2% Lower 3 18 35
602900 38% 44% 2% Lower 143 7 93
603000 47% 24% 0% Lower 20 81 243
603100 35% 41% 4% Lower 421 101 0
603200 20% 31% 1% Lower 67 121 155
603300 47% 37% 5% Lower 199 36 37
603400 33% 22% 0% Lower 34 9 110
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer.
12. OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS: LOCAL CONTEXT
Residents Living in RVs
In recent years, the City of Pacifica has experienced an increase in the number of residents living in RVs or vehicles. The issue has generated safety concerns in the public right of way. City residents, voicing safety considerations, have argued that these vehicles should not be allowed to park on certain streets. The City created a Temporary Safe Parking Program (TSPP) that permits 13 parking spots inside and outside the coastal zone.
The TSPP is a pilot program that is providing an option to people suffering housing insecurity and is tied to a resource component with the Pacifica Resource Center to assist with the transition from RV housing to permanent housing. Pacifica Resource Center issues the RV parking permits. Enforcement of the TSPP includes tickets and towing, and the program has been strictly enforced. RVs are allowed to park for up to 29 days providing that they receive services from the Pacifica Resource Center and apply for and receive a permit.
All 13 RV parking spots are on public streets or in designated locations in the public right-of-way. Five of the 13 RV parking spots located within the Coastal Zone have been appealed to the California Coastal Commission.
Discrimination in Housing
There are few documented examples of race and income discrimination when it comes to housing development in Pacifica. Pacifica Resource Center, Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, and the Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto serve Pacifica residents experiencing housing issues. The Pacifica Resource Center has reported housing discrimination and certain just cause eviction issues when a landlord seeks to evict tenants.
The City has reported examples of discrimination against people living in RVs including complaints by persons participating in the city’s TSPP.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1511 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT D-71
Opposition to Housing Projects
Some housing projects that received local approval in Pacifica have been appealed and referred to state agencies or have undergone litigation and subsequently been delayed. While most housing projects in Pacifica are approved based on their alignment with local and state codes and regulations, some project approvals were overturned. One example includes the Vista Mar project, an 8-unit project that was the subject of litigation including a challenge to the city’s CEQA determination based on geological, hydrological, and other issues. The Court determined that the City’s approval was invalid because an environmental impact report (EIR) should have been prepared.
Similarly, a coastal zone appeal process administered by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) has been unfavorable to two projects in the last few years. 1567 Beach Boulevard was a 7–unit project which was denied by the CCC because of hazards related to sea level rise, coastal erosion, and site access. The criteria used to deny the project makes it hard for any project to be developed in this location in the future. 505 San Pedro Avenue is a two-unit rental apartment project as part of a larger mixed-use project of which half was in city jurisdiction and half in CCC jurisdiction, and the CCC denied the project primarily due to concerns about biological resources (rendering the City’s approval ineffective). The surrounding neighborhood is opposed to development there for various reasons including sea level rise concerns and claimed impacts to the California red-legged frog.
Some formal opposition to housing development has emerged recently. Citizens for the Preparation of an Updated Plan (CPUP) organized out of an existing environmental group and filed a lawsuit over the aforementioned Vista Mar project. Protect San Pedro Mountain opposes a project proposed in the southern part of town. While an incomplete application has been submitted to the City, confirmed details of the project are not known but it is estimated that the developer will propose at least a 125-lot subdivision, comprised of a mix of 1-4 unit buildings. There is a neighborhood group, the Pedro Point Neighborhood Association, that organizes around projects proposed in the Pedro Point neighborhood.
Displacement
There has been at least one example of displacement pressure documented in Pacifica due to natural disasters.
Along the 300-block of Esplanade Avenue, there were 52 apartment units in three buildings demolished between 2016 and 2017. The units had been red-tagged for several years due to bluff erosion threatening the buildings and property owners failed to take adequate measures to protect the buildings. In addition, there were two single-family residences demolished at 528 and 532 Esplanade also due to bluff erosion.
Recent state laws related to rent control and just cause eviction have helped reduce displacement in the city.
However, the growing popularity of the short-term rental market contributes to displacement pressure in Pacifica. The City is working on options for additional regulations, such as putting a cap on the number of short-term rentals, and further study of other regulations on short-term rentals. Documentation of displacement in Pacifica is not available on a widescale.
Appendix D Attachments
Attachment D-1: San Mateo County Fair Housing Survey Findings Attachment D-2: Housing Needs Data Packet (additional data not included in appendices) Attachments D-1 and D-2 are included after Appendix G.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1512 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) D-72 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 This page intentionally left blank
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1513 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT E-1
Photo: Stock photo of construction site
APPENDIX E: HOUSING RESOURCES
February 6, 2025
The housing resources available to the City of Pacifica can be summarized as a combination of financial resources, a network of providers of housing and related services, existing affordable housing and an inventory of sites that have the capacity to develop to address the projected housing needs. This appendix summarizes housing resources except for the inventory of sites which is described in Appendix F. This appendix lists financial resources such as federal, state and local programs, foundations and lender consortiums that can provide means of financial assistance to build housing, and community service organizations that provide housing services, manage housing programs and provide services directly to residents experiencing housing insecurity. Lastly, this section also includes housing options for residents with special housing needs including options affordable to lower-incomes and assisted living facilities.
1. FINANCIAL RESOURCES
This section describes existing and potential resources for the development of affordable housing in the city.
Activities that these resources may be used for include but are not limited to the following: predevelopment, acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, conversion, and preservation.
Federal Programs
Low-Income Housing Tax Credits
Created by the 1986 Tax Reform Act, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) program has been used in combination with other resources to encourage the construction and rehabilitation of rental housing for lower-income households. The program provides investors an annual tax credit over a 10-year period, provided that the housing meets certain affordability requirements. The tax credit is typically sold to large investors at a REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1514 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) E-2 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 syndication value which provides substantial equity to help finance extremely low-, very low- and lower-income units. The State of California administers the LIHTC allocation process each year.
Community Development Block Grant and Home Investment Partnership The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnership (HOME) are federal grant programs directly allocated to jurisdictions based on population and certain demographic criteria. Pacifica does not meet the threshold criteria, but the County of San Mateo receives these funding resources on behalf of the whole county except Daly City, Redwood City, and South San Francisco, which are entitlement jurisdictions that receive their own allocations. These resources can be obtained to provide housing and related services in Pacifica through the County’s annual Notice of Funding Availability process.
San Mateo County Housing Authority
The Housing Authority of the County of San Mateo provides administration of a number of federal rental assistance programs to low-income households. The primary programs include Housing Choice Vouchers, Project-Based Vouchers, and Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) vouchers in cooperation with Department of Veterans Affairs.
The following is a summary of available funding sources that can support affordable housing projects:
Federal Funding Summary
Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC).
Community Development Block Grant (available via County Annual Notice of Funding AvailabilityNOFA). HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program (available via County Annual NOFA). Housing Choice Vouchers (administered by San Mateo County Housing Authority). Project‐Based Vouchers (Section 8) (administered by San Mateo County Housing Authority). Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) Vouchers (administered by San Mateo County Housing Authority).
Community Reinvestment Act-requirement that private lenders provide funding to improve the local community.
State of California Programs
The State of California has several financial programs that creates rental and homeownership opportunities for Californians from all walks of life including veterans, seniors, young families starting out, people with disabilities, farmworkers, and individuals and families who are experiencing homelessness. Also included is funding that is used for housing related activities, which provide services to residents of low-income housing. Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) Single and Multi-Family Program CalHome Program
Project Homekey
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1515 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT E-3
Housing-Related Parks Grant
Infill Infrastructure Grant (IIG)
Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF)
Multi-Family Housing Program (MHP)
No Place Like Home
Section 811 Project Rental Assistance
Golden State Acquisition Fund (GSAF)
Housing for a Healthy California (HHC)
National Housing Trust Fund (Federal funds allocated to the State) Predevelopment Loan Program (PDLP)
Permanent Location Housing Allocation (PLHA)
State Low Income Tax Credits
The State also provides planning grants to support the development of housing through the Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) and Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) programs which support regional and local agency planning and policies to support development of housing.
Local Programs
Bay Area Housing Finance Agency
The Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA), administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the first regional housing finance authority in California. BAHFA has the potential to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to help address affordable housing and housing stability in the Bay Area.
The BAHFA will have the ability to issue municipal bonds to generate funds for use to finance 100 percent affordable housing construction along with other housing stabilization tools.
San Mateo County
The San Mateo County Affordable Housing Fund (AFH) was established in 2013 and is comprised of Measure K funds and other local and state housing funding sources. The County Department of Housing administers these funds and also works with the County’s Human Services Agency (HSA) to coordinate homelessness response through the HSA’s Center on Homelessness.
Housing Endowment and Regional Trust of San Mateo County The Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART) of San Mateo County is a regional trust fund for affordable housing in San Mateo County. It has a revolving loan fund to provide financing for affordable housing developments usually in the form of short-term gap or predevelopment financing and provides down payment assistance for first time homeowners countywide.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1516 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) E-4 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 Pacifica Housing Trust Fund
There is no local housing authority operating within Pacifica. The City has limited financial resources that in some instances may support housing programs. The primary source of funding for affordable housing development or preservation in the future is expected to be the city’s housing trust fund, which is funded by in-lieu housing payments as described below. The City adopted a Below Market Rate (inclusionary) program ordinance in April 2007. The ordinance includes an alternative allowing developers to make a payment “in lieu” of constructing an affordable unit. The in-lieu payment for each Below Market Rate unit (BMR) is required to reflect the estimated cost to provide the BMR unit.
Private For-Profit and Nonprofit Sources
Community Reinvestment Act
Several opportunities exist for partnership with local lenders via the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).
Some lenders have assisted new construction projects in the form of construction loans and permanent financing.
Private Developers
For-profit developers also provide affordable units in larger-scale projects through the city’s Inclusionary Zoning requirements that requires at least 15 percent of units in market rate projects containing at least 8 units to be affordable to persons with lower incomes.
Nonprofit Housing Developers
The San Francisco Bay Area has a number of well qualified and experienced nonprofit housing developers, including Bridge Housing, Mercy Housing, and MidPen Housing who have built or operate affordable housing properties in Pacifica. There are several partnership opportunities with nonprofit developers that produce affordable units. Historically, affordable units have been sponsored by nonprofit developers and this trend will most likely continue since federal programs strongly encourage the use of nonprofit agencies for affordable housing production. The nonprofit housing corporations Listed below are agencies that have the ability to assist in preserving the Casa Pacifica project.
Mercy Housing California | 1256 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 | 415-355-7100 | mercyhousing.org
Bridge Housing Corporation | 600 California Street #900, San Francisco, CA 94108 | 415-989-1111 | bridgehousing.com
EAH Housing | 22 Pelican Way, San Rafael, CA 94901 | 415-258-1800 | eahhousing.org MidPen Housing Corporation | 303 Vintage Park Drive #250, Foster City, CA 94404 | 650-356-2900 | midpenhousing.org
Eden Housing Inc. | 22645 Grand Street, Hayward, CA 94541 | 510-582-1460 | edenhousing.org REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1517 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT E-5
Resources for Preservation of At-Risk Units
In addition to the resources already mentioned, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has listed qualified entities that may be interested in participating in California's First Right of Refusal Program to preserve affordable units at-risk of conversion to market-rate. If an owner decides to terminate a subsidy contract or prepay the mortgage or sell or otherwise dispose of the assisted housing development, or if the owner has an assisted housing development in which there will be the expiration of rental restrictions, the owner must first give notice of the opportunity to offer to purchase to a list of qualified entities provided to the owner.
HCD has identified entities that may be interested in participating in California's First Right of Refusal Program in San Mateo County:
ROEM Development Corporation
Northern California Land Trust, Inc.
Housing Corporation of America
Mid‐Peninsula Housing Coalition
Affordable Housing Foundation
Alta Housing (previously Palo Alto Housing Corp)
2. HOUSING PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
Community Service Providers
Local service providers provide housing related support for residents who are seniors, low-income, at risk of homelessness, have disabilities or other special needs. Pacifica Resource Center (County Core Service Agency, emergency and homeless assistance). Puente De La Costa Sur (emergency rent/utilizes assistance). HIP Housing: Human Investment Project (home sharing and self-sufficiency programs). Mental Health Association of San Mateo County (housing and services provider). Project Sentinel (housing discrimination investigations. Housing Choices (developmental disabilities service provider). Abilities United (developmental and physical disabilities service provider). The Arc (developmental disabilities service and advocacy provider). Community Gatepath of Northern California (developmental disabilities service provider). Golden Gate Regional Center (GGRC) and Health Plan of San Mateo (HPSM). West Bay Housing Corporation: (supportive housing for individuals with special housing needs). San Mateo County Continuum of Care Steering Committee (CoC). San Mateo County Human Services Agency (Working Together to End Homelessness:
SMCEndingHomelessness.org).
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1518 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) E-6 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 Samaritan House (homeless services).
Safe Harbor ( 24-hour homeless shelter approximately 12 miles from Pacifica). LifeMoves (24-hour number for the on-call caseworker serving the unhoused in San Mateo County). Puente Clinic: Provides mental health services for developmentally disabled clients by bridging resources from San Mateo County Behavioral Health & Recovery Services (BHRS), Golden Gate Regional Center (GGRC) and Health Plan of San Mateo (HPSM).
West Bay Housing Corporation: Provides affordable, community-based supportive housing for individuals with developmental disabilities and other people with special housing needs.
Pacifica Temporary Safe Parking Program
The Pacifica Temporary Safe Parking Program (TSPP) began on June 29, 2022. This program provides a permit for a period of 29 days to any unhoused person living in an eligible oversized vehicle (OSV) who enrolls in a program of services with the Pacifica Resource Center to transition to permanent housing. Permits are only assigned for the 13 dedicated TSPP spots and are required to be renewed on the day of expiration. The goal of TSPP is to develop a plan and support participants towards returning to permanent housing.
3. FAIR HOUSING ORGANIZATIONS
Project Sentinel (housing discrimination and landlord/tenant support). Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County (housing related legal support). Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto (housing related legal support).
4. EXISTING HOUSING FOR LOWER INCOMES OR SPECIAL NEEDS
The following affordable housing properties are located in Pacifica:
Pacifica Oaks Apartments – 750 Oddstad Boulevard (104 Senior Units). Constructed and managed by BRIDGE Housing, affordability restrictions are in place until 2068. Casa Pacifica – 1060 Terra Nova Boulevard (101 Senior Units). Constructed and managed by Casa Pacifica Associates, rental subsidies through Section 8 which are typically renewed every five years. Ocean View Senior Apartments – 555 Crespi Drive (100 Senior Units). BRIDGE Housing purchased and renovated this property from National Church Residences in 2015. Affordability restrictions in place until 2069.
Oceana Terrace Senior Housing – 901 Oceana Boulevard (42 Senior Units). Developed and operated by Mercy Housing in partnership with the Good Shepherd Catholic Church. Affordability restrictions are in place until 2036.
Lakeside Apartments, AKA Pacific Pines – 2590 Francisco Boulevard (10 Family Units). these units have affordability restrictions in place through 2058.
Villages at Pacifica – 435 Gateway Drive (168 units). Income-restricted based on housing regulatory agreement.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1519 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT E-7
168 Pacific Avenue (9-Unit Apartment Complex). MidPen acquired the property in 2016 in order help preserve naturally occurring affordable rents in Pacifica. A portion of the funding for this property comes from the San Mateo County Department of Housing’s Demonstration Program for Multi-Family Acquisition and Rehabilitation.
Senior Housing and Assisted Living Facilities
The following are senior and assisted living facilities located in the City of Pacifica:
Pacifica Oaks Senior Apartments (104 Senior Units)
Casa Pacifica (101 Senior Units)
Ocean View Senior Apartments (100 Senior Units)
Oceana Terrace Senior Housing (42 Senior Units)
Pacifica Nursing and Rehab Center (Assisted Living) (68 Beds) Linda Mar Rehabilitation (Assisted Living) (55 Beds)
Marinol Senior Care I (Assisted Living) (6 Beds)
Marinol Senior Care II (Assisted Living) (5 Beds)
TLC Pacifica (Assisted Living) 16 Beds
Cedar Lane Residential Care Home (Assisted Living) (17 Beds – serves Pacifica but located in Montara) REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1520 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) E-8 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 This page intentionally left blank
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1521 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT F-1
Photo: Stock photo of wood framing
APPENDIX F: HOUSING SITES
February 6, 2025
A key component of the Housing Element is a projection of a jurisdiction’s housing supply. Government Code Section 65583.2 requires an inventory of land suitable for residential development that can be feasibly developed during the 2023-2031 period and is sufficient to provide for the regional housing need for all income levels.
The Housing Element is required to include an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment, including analysis of the development capacity that can realistically be achieved for each site. The site inventory evaluates whether there are enough sites with appropriate zoning to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goal. The analysis does not include the economic feasibility of specific sites, nor does it take into consideration the owner’s intended use of the land now or in the future. It does not dictate where residential development will actually occur, and the decision whether to develop any particular site always remains with the owner of the property, not the City.
1. STATE REQUIREMENTS
Assembly Bill (AB) 1397 includes specific criteria for assessing suitability of parcels to be included on the Sites List. The City adhered to this law and other applicable laws in the development of the Sites List.
This inventory is summarized in the Affordable Housing Inventory form (Sites List). The City of Pacifica’s RHNA for the eight-year period from 2023 to 2031 is 1,892 units. This allocation is further distributed by income levels based on the Area Median Income (AMI):
Very low-income (less than 50 percent of AMI)
Low-income (50-80 percent of AMI)
Moderate-income (80-120 percent of AMI)
Above-moderate income (more than 120 percent of the AMI) REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1522 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) F-2 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 The assigned RHNA does not project Extremely Low-Income (ELI) units (30% AMI), but State Law requires that the City project its ELI needs. Pacifica has used the State approved methodology of using half the VeryLow-Income (VLI) RHNA for its projected ELI needs. Table F-1 shows the City’s RHNA by income category.
TABLE F-1: CITY OF PACIFICA REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION Extremely
LowIncome
Very
LowIncome LowerIncome ModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncome Total
New Housing Units 269 269 310 291 753 1,892
Note that in the Sites List, the extremely low-, very-low-, and lower-income groups are combined and represented as “lower-income” as a group.
Source: City of Pacifica,
Sites Used in Former Housing Elements
State Government Code section 65583.2. (c) requires special handling of sites that were used in previous Housing Elements and identified as suitable for Low- and Very Low-Income in Sites List for 6th RHNA cycle.
A program to rezone these sites to allow residential development “by right” is required in the following circumstances:
Vacant sites identified in two or more consecutive past planning periods (4th and 5th RHNA cycles), and Non-vacant sites identified in the prior period (5th RHNA cycle).
Pacifica has seven housing sites that were included in prior Housing Elements, of which only three are listed as lower income. One site is vacant but was not listed in both 4th and 5th cycles. Two non-vacant sites were listed in the 5th Cycle and therefore subject to the provisions of this law. They are the Sanchez Library at 1111 Terra Nova Boulevard and the retail parcels at Pacific Manor Shopping Center (excluding parking lots).
Residential developments on these sites that include at least 20% of the units affordable to lower-income households shall be allowed “By Right” which means the City shall not require a conditional use permit, a planned unit development permit, or other discretionary review as long as the project complies with zoning requirements, including objective design standards. If the site does not include at least 20% lower-income units, the “By Right” streamlined processing would not apply.
A program to rezone these sites must occur no later than three years from the start of the 6th RHNA planning period (2026) and is included in the program HE-I-1.
Replacement Housing
Sites that have or have had residential units, but where the units were vacated or demolished within the last five years, do not qualify as sites available to accommodate the RHNA unless replacement housing has been developed and the units are or were:
Subject to recorded covenants restricting rents to lower income households; Subject to rent control; or
Occupied by very low- or low-income households,
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1523 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT F-3
Replacement housing requirements must meet the same requirements as those in Density Bonus Law (§ 65915(c)(3), which apply to developers seeking a density bonus, incentives or concession after vacating or demolishing affordable or rent controlled units. No properties on the Sites List had residential units that were vacated or demolished within the last five years.
2. INFRASTRUCTURE
All sites identified for housing development are already served by utilities and infrastructure and infrastructure does not pose a constraint on development for the majority of the sites listed in the inventory. The North Coast County Water District (NCCWD) provides potable water within its district boundaries which are nearly identical to the Pacifica city limits. A 20-year master plan1 was prepared by NCCWD in February 2016 which included a water assessment for buildout of the 2040 General Plan based on Land Use Element assumptions. This assessment has determined that adequate water supplies exist to accommodate Pacifica’s water needs for the approximately 1,000 units assumed for the General Plan buildout at that time. Solid waste, recycling, and organics collection are managed through an agreement with Recology of the Coast and gas and electricity are provided by Pacific Gas and Electric (Peninsula Clean Energy, a community choice aggregation program, also provides electricity through PG&E’s distribution lines).
Wastewater conveyance and treatment is provided by the City of Pacifica. In August 2021, the City completed an update to the Collection System Master Plan.2
The Master Plan included modeling to identify capacity
deficiencies in the gravity sewer system. Four areas of deficiencies were found; however, none of the identified housing sites are affected.
Rainfall dependent infiltration/inflow (RDI&I) is a chronic issue that impacts the capacity of Pacifica’s sewer pump stations. Old sewer laterals play a significant role in RDI&I, and the City has a program to provide incentives for homeowners to replace substandard pipe. Since 2016, 367 grants have been made to homeowners to assist with the costs to replace sewer laterals to help mitigate this issue. According to the Pacifica Public Works Department, wet weather events in recent years have caused the capacity of the Rockaway Pump Station to be exceeded. However, it is anticipated that two rehabilitation and replacement (R&R) projects in the Vallemar and Rockaway Beach communities which have been included in the City’s adopted 2023-2028 Capital Improvement Plan will address this issue. The City commissioned an analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of these planned rehabilitation and replacement projects, and it concluded that sufficient capacity will be restored such that up to 200 additional multi-family units can be accommodated. A more detailed discussion of the analysis can be found in Appendix G: Constraints.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
The eastern borders of the city consist of hilly regions, much of which are preserved as open space and dedicated parklands that are not available for development (approximately 40% of the city’s land area). The city is also bounded by the Pacific Ocean. All areas west of Coast Highway and a small area east of the Coast Highway are included in the California Coastal Zone. Many of these areas are vulnerable to erosion, flooding, 1 North Coast County Water District, 20-Year Long-Term Water Master Plan, Stetson Engineers Inc., February 2016. https://www.nccwd.com/projects/20-year-master-plan.html 2 City of Pacifica. Collection System Master Plan Update, August 2021. Woodward and Curran.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1524 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) F-4 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 and sea level rise. In the past, Pacifica experienced landslides and significant coastal bluff retreat in some locations. Therefore, the City has recognized that geologic hazard mitigation will be required in many areas of Pacifica. Only three housing sites within the Coastal Zone are included in the Sites List; these are all outside of the vulnerable areas. Further details are provided in the specific site descriptions.
4. PLANNED AND APPROVED PROJECTS
A number of housing units have been approved by the City of Pacifica that are under construction or soon to be constructed. Government Code Section 65588(f)(2) allows projects that have been approved, permitted, or received a certificate of occupancy from June 30, 2022, through December 15, 2030, to be credited toward meeting the RHNA allocation based on the actual affordability and unit count of the development. There are also a number of residential planning applications that have been submitted, pending approvals that are highly likely to be approved. While the City is not obligated to approve a project on a housing site, proposed projects demonstrate the City’s capacity to accommodate new housing. Table F-2 shows both the planned and approved housing units in Pacifica. After further review of the projects listed in Table F-2, the City reevaluated each individual project and documented the rationale that justifies the likelihood for these projects to be developed.
As the City reviewed each project timeline, some projects were removed as they were not found to be the strongest of candidates.
Ten Thirty-two units have been completed since June 30, 2022, as indicated by “BP Finaled” in Table F-2 below.the table. The 12 projects, totaling 68 dwelling units, that show a building permit number are either in building permit plan review, under construction, or or will be completed shortlyin the final stages of inspections before receiving a Building Permit Final. All projects with building permits issued, in building permit plan review, or inspection phase are assumed to be completedconstructed or under construction early in the Housing Element planning period since they are active projects. Ten single family/duplex units show expired building permits. Most of the expirations occurred during the Covid 19 slowdown in 2020 and 2021. Based on historical experience, expired permits are routinely reinstated based on owner requests and updated submittals, so they are considered likely to be completed.
FiveNine projects consisting of 75107 dwelling units have obtained planning approvals and are in the process of submitting building permits. The time between planning entitlements and obtaining building permits can take many months as working drawings are drafted and subsequent plan checks are performed. These projects are assumed to commence construction during the early part of the Housing Element planning period. Upon further analysis and recent contact with the applicants, the data supports that these projects will be constructed.
The data collected for each project that received planning entitlements and in the process of submitting for building permits are further explained in the “Additional Details” column of Table F-2 below.
There are sixfive planning applications for 3221 dwelling units that have been submitted and are not yet approved.and are in the planning entitlement review phase. Preliminary review of the projects indicates that they substantially comply with City requirements but are still in process of finalizing submittals or in the CEQA preparation process. Applications that have been submitted but do not conform with City General Plan or zoning requirements are not listed.
These total 21723 dwelling units, of which 52 will be affordable to lower-income, eight affordable to moderateincome, and the rest will be market rate. The affordable units are governed by Affordability Agreements.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1525 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT F-5
TABLE F-2: PLANNED AND APPROVED HOUSING UNITS
Address
Assessor
Parcel
Number Site Status
LowerIncomeModerateIncome
Above
Moderat
eIncomeTotal
Units
Additional
Details
1693 Higgins
Way 023-341-080 Active Planning App 4 4
Active
Application
501 Santa Cruz
Terrace
022-052-
170,180,190,25
0 Active Planning App 1 1
Active
Application
TBD Athenian
Way 023-021-080 Active Planning App 1 1
Active
Application
TBD Olympian 023-037-030 Active Planning App 2 2
Active
Application
410 Farallon 009-111-230 Active Planning App 1 1
Active
Application
2251 Oceana
Blvd 016-242-090 Active Planning App 4 4
Active
Application
570 Crespi Dr 022-162-310
Approved Planning
Project - Appealed, now
CEQA underway
2 1 16 19 Preparing CEQA,
5/21/2024
327 Beaumont
Blvd 009-037-470
Approved Planning
Project, Pending BP
Submittal
1 1
PC approved
4/29/2024
505 San Pedro
Ave 023-072-010
Approved Planning
Project; Pending BP
Submittal
2 2
Owner
expressed
interest during
pursueit of
litigation
930 Oddstad
Blvd 023-672-600
Approved Planning
Project; Pending BP
Submittal
6 5 59 70
Final steps of
Development
Agreement
1343 Livingston
Ave 023-017-230
Approved Planning
Project; Pending BP
Submittal
1 1
Pending BP
Submittals
TBD Talbot
Ave 016-270-110
Approved Planning
Project; Pending BP
Submittal
1 1
Applicant
interested in
pursuing
extension
request
131 Brighton Rd 016-301-060 BP 2023-00761 BP Permit
Ready To Be Issued 1 1
Offered
assistance to
proceed with BP
issuance
243 Sterling Ave 023-019-320 BP 2022-00122 BP Permit
Ready to Be Issued 1 1
Awaiting
payment of fees
710 Prairie
Creek Dr 022-370-220 BP 2020-01190 BP Permit Issued 1 1 Staff receives
periodic updates
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1526 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) F-6 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 TABLE F-2: PLANNED AND APPROVED HOUSING UNITS
Address
Assessor
Parcel
Number Site Status
LowerIncomeModerateIncome
Above
Moderat
eIncomeTotal
Units
Additional
Details
from applicant
on progress
1335 Adobe Dr 023-222-080 B2022-00516 BP Plan
Review 7 7
Continued
progress on BP
requirements
and CC&R
Review
TBD Clarendon
Rd 016-355-200 B2024-00195 BP Plan Review 1 1
Under Plan
Review
2105 Beach
Blvd 016-182-010 BP 2017-00383 BP Plan Review 2 2
Under Plan
Review
Lots 4-12
Oddstad Way 022-056-080 BP 2021-00160 BP Plan Review 1 1 Under
Construction
801 Fassler Ave 022-083-060,
022-083-040
BP 53814-21 BP
Inspection 2 2 20 24 Under Construction
435-463
Gateway Dr
009-540-160,
009-540-170
BP 55174-22 BP
Inspection 22 22 Under Construction
1300 Danmann
Ave 023-013-010 BP 55652-22 BP Inspection 6 6
Under
Construction
5 Ohlone Dr 022-150-470;
016-0182-390
BP 57370-22 BP
Inspection 1 1
Under
Construction
389 Buckingham
Way 016-304-140 BP 53530-21 BP Inspection 1 1
Under
Construction
924 Corona Dr 022-222-090 BP 47660-17 BP Finaled 1 1 Complete 300 Coral Ridge
Dr 009-037-430 BP 49113-18 BP Finaled 1 1 Complete
510 San Pedro
Ave 023-073-200 BP 49802-18 BP Finaled 1 1 Complete
170 Winona
Ave 018-053-050 BP 51704-19 BP Finaled 1 1 Complete
21 Ohlone Ct 022-150-030 BP 51891-19 BP Finaled 1 1 Complete 1016 Escalero
Ave 022-244-060 BP 52754-20 BP Finaled 1 1 Complete
277 Kent Rd 023-013-030 BP 53875-21 BP Finaled 1 1 Complete 44 Salada Ave 016-050-400 BP 53875-21 BP Finaled 1 1 Complete 1667 Higgins
Way 023-341-210 BP 54253-21 BP Finaled 1 1 Complete
884 Montezuma
Dr 023-123-100 BP 54425-21 BP Finaled 1 1 Complete
407-443
Gateway Dr
009-540-110,
120, 130, 140 BP 54579-21 BP Finaled 20 20 Complete
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1527 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT F-7
TABLE F-2: PLANNED AND APPROVED HOUSING UNITS
Address
Assessor
Parcel
Number Site Status
LowerIncomeModerateIncome
Above
Moderat
eIncomeTotal
Units
Additional
Details
110 Paradise Dr 009-605-010 BP 54692-21 BP Finaled 1 1 Complete 430 Monterey
Rd 009-124-200 BP 54762-21 BP Finaled 1 1 Complete
110 Blackburn
Terrace 023-032-210 BP Expired 1 1
Awaiting
reinstatement
333 Brighton Rd 016-351-030 BP Expired 1 1
Awaiting
reinstatement
1120 Sheila
Way 023-640-020 BP Expired 1 1
Awaiting
reinstatement
211 Olympian 023-038-350 BP Expired 2 2
Awaiting
reinstatement
1512 Valdez
Way 023-422-170 BP Expired 1 1
Awaiting
reinstatement
1165 Manzanita
Dr 023-461-210 BP Expired 1 1
Awaiting
reinstatement
1416 Flores Dr 023-064-010 BP Expired 1 1
Awaiting
reinstatement
255 Reichling
Ave 018-074-060 BP Expired 1 1
Awaiting
reinstatement
120 Birch Ln 016-294-530 BP Expired 1 1
Awaiting
reinstatement
Approved
Project Total 52 8 157 217
Note: BP =Building Permit
Source: City of Pacifica
TABLE F-2: PLANNED AND APPROVED HOUSING UNITS
Address
Assessor
Parcel Number Site Status
LowerIncomeModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncomeTotal
Units
407-443 Gateway Dr 009-540-110,
120, 130, 140 BP 54579-21 20 20
435-463 Gateway Dr 009-540-160,
009-540-170
BP 55174-22 22 22
801 Fassler Ave 022-083-060,
022-083-040
BP 53814-21 2 2 20 24
1300 Danmann Ave 023-013-010 BP 55652-22 6 6
1335 Adobe Dr 023-222-080 Approved Planning
Project 7 7
2105 Beach Blvd 016-182-010 BP 2017-00383 Review 2 2
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1528 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) F-8 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 TABLE F-2: PLANNED AND APPROVED HOUSING UNITS
Address
Assessor
Parcel Number Site Status
LowerIncomeModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncomeTotal
Units
327 Beaumont Blvd 009-037-470 BP 2020-00950 Review 1 1
TBD Farallon Ave 009-085-430 BP 2022-00418 1 1
2100 Palmetto Ave 016-182-370 Approved Planning
Project 3 3
389 Buckingham Way 016-304-140 BP 53530-21 1 1
44 Salada Ave 016-050-400 BP 53929-21 Finaled 1 1
1693 Higgins Way 023-341-080 BP 2020-00292 On Hold 1 1
170 Winona Ave 018-053-050 BP 51704-19 Finaled 1 1
1120 Sheila Way 023-640-020 BP 51378-19 Expired 1 1
21 Ohlone Ct 022-150-030 BP 51891-19 1 1
1165 Manzanita Dr 023-461-210 BP 51330-19 Expired 1 1
505 San Pedro Ave 023-072-010 Approved Planning
Project 2 2
510 San Pedro Ave 023-073-200 BP 49802-18 Finaled 1 1
300 Coral Ridge Dr 009-037-430 BP 49113-18 Finaled 1 1
1512 Valdez Way 023-422-170 BP 50120-18 Expired 1 1
277 Kent Rd 023-013-030 BP 53875-21 Finaled 1 1
Lots 4-12 Oddstad Way 022-056-080 BP 2021-00160 Plan
Review 1 1
1416 Flores Dr 023-064-010 BP 52437-20 Expired 1 1
322 Channing Way 009-114-150 BP 52586-20 Finaled 1 1
710 Prairie Creek Dr 022-370-220 BP 2020-01190 Plan
Review 1 1
924 Corona Dr 022-222-090 BP 47660-17 Finaled 1 1
255 Reichling Ave 018-074-060 BP 52605-20 Expired 1 1
333 Brighton Rd 016-351-030 BP 52645-20 Expired 1 1
1016 Escalero Ave 022-244-060 BP 52754-20 Expired 1 1
120 Birch Ln 016-294-530 BP 52765-20 Expired 1 1
1667 Higgins Way 023-341-210 BP 54253-21 Finaled 1 1
1683 Toledo Ct 023-301-030 BP 54005-21 1 1
110 Paradise Dr 009-605-010 BP 54692-21 Finaled 1 1
430 Monterey Rd 009-124-200 BP 54762-21 Finaled 1 1
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1529 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT F-9
TABLE F-2: PLANNED AND APPROVED HOUSING UNITS
Address
Assessor
Parcel Number Site Status
LowerIncomeModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncomeTotal
Units
884 Montezuma Dr 023-123-100 BP 54425-21 Finaled 1 1
TBD Talbot Ave 016-270-110 Approved Planning
Project 1 1
340 Waterford St 009-058-040 Approved Planning
Project 5 5
327 Beaumont Blvd 009-037-470 Active Planning App 1 1
2100 Palmetto Ave 016-182 and
016-0182-390
Approved Planning
Project 3 3
131 Brighton Rd 016-301-060 BP 2023-00761 1 1
5 Ohlone Dr 022-150-470 BP 57370-22 1 1
570 Crespi Dr 022-162-310
Approved Planning
Project - Appealed, now
CEQA underway
2 1 16 19
930 Oddstad Blvd 023-672-600 Approved Planning
Project 6 5 59 70
1343 Livingston 023-017-230 Approved Planning
Project 1 1
243 Sterling Ave 023-019-320 BP 2022-00122 1 1
TBD Athenian Way 023-021-080 Active Planning App 1 1
110 Blackburn Tce 023-032-210 BP 2020-00531 Expired 1 1 TBD Olympian 023-037-030 Active Planning App 2 2
211 Olympian 023-038-350 BP 2019-01587 Expired 2 2
410 Farallon 009-111-230 Active Planning App 1 1
2251 Oceana Blvd 016-242-090 Active Planning App 4 4
Approved Project Total 52 8 167 227
Note: BP =Building Permit
Source: City of Pacifica
431.5. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are a housing type that can meet the needs of middle- and lower-income individuals and households. Based on increased documentation and State guidance, jurisdictions are allowed to count projected development of ADUs based on prior year production averages. As outlined in Table F-3, the City has issued an average of 23.4 building permits for ADUs annually since 2018 up through September 2022.
Consistent with this five-year average, the Sites List includes a projection of 23.4 new ADUs annually, resulting in 187 new ADUs over the eight-year cycle. The City believes this is conservative since legislative changes to facilitate construction occurred in 2017, and the trend has been increasing each year as other revisions have been enacted to eliminate barriers to construct ADU’s (the three-year average from 2020 through 2022 was
32.7 ADUs per year, a roughly 40% increase). This trend is further supported by Pacifica’s proactive efforts to REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1530 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) F-10 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 assist the creation of ADU’s. In 2020, Pacifica joined the “Bright in Your Own Backyard” program administered by Hello Housing, a local nonprofit, which provides a One Stop Shop providing information and advice to homeowners who are interested in adding ADU’s to their homes. “Symbium Build,” an online tool that provides owners with ADU feasibility information such as site-specific zoning, was launched to further assist owners to evaluate the suitability of their property for ADU construction.
TABLE F-3: PACIFICA ANNUAL ADU PERMIT DATA
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
5-Year
Average
Permitted ADUs 8 11 25 37 32 22.6
Source: City of Pacifica.
A study conducted by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in September 2021 found that ADUs are rented at a variety of rates and often meet lower-income affordability requirements based on the incomes of the occupants and/or their rental rates. Based on these findings, local jurisdictions are justified in using certain percentages to meet their affordable housing allocations. The study’s recommended affordability breakdown by income group that a Bay Area jurisdiction can use for ADUs, which is noted as being conservative, is 30 percent very-low-, 30 percent low-, 30 percent moderate- and 10 percent above moderateincome. Thus, the Sites List uses the affordability mix of 60 percent very-low- and low- combined, 30 percent moderate-, and 10 percent above moderate-income to estimate ADU affordability in Pacifica. 432.6. LAND CAPACITY IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
The City of Pacifica consists primarily of residential homes, 72 percent of the dwelling units in the city are single-family homes. The eastern borders of the city consist of hilly regions, much of which are preserved as open space and dedicated parklands that are not available for development. Approximately 40 percent of the City’s land area is publicly owned open space area. The city is also bounded by the Pacific Ocean and many sections of the coastline are considered vulnerable to erosion, flooding, and sea level rising and therefore also not appropriate for dense new housing development.
Zoned Versus Realistic Capacity
When establishing the realistic unit capacity for parcels on the Sites List, the jurisdiction must consider current development trends of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction, as well as the cumulative impact of standards such as maximum lot coverage, height, open space, parking, and floor area ratios (FARs). Table F-4 shows the multi-family developments (five units or more) approved by the City from 2015-2022. The average density of Dwelling Units per Acre (DU/A) as a percent of the maximum allowed by the zoning code is 81 percent. Therefore, this percentage will be used to estimate the realistic density for future multi-family development on sites in Pacifica.
Existing Residential Capacity
In order to identify appropriate sites for inclusion on the RHNA Sites List, parcels that currently allow residential were first evaluated based on the City’s 2040 General Plan adopted in July 2022. The City’s residential REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1531 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT F-11
zones include a range of densities from Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) at 2 DU/A to High Density Residential Density (HDR) at 21 DU/A. Sites that are greater than 0.5 acres in HDR are allowed to be built at 30 DU/A. In addition, Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MUN) and Mixed-Use Center (MUC) land use designations allow residential at 30 DU/A (for sites 0.5 acre or larger) and 50 DU/A, respectively.
TABLE F-4: ACTUAL APPROVED DENSITIES 2015-2022
Year
Project
Address
Comme
rcial
Space
GP
Designa
tion
Site
Size in
Acres
Max
DU/A
Density
Allowed
No.
Units
Approv
ed
DU/A
Density
Approv
ed
Percent
of
Allowab
le Max
Density
Afforda
ble
Units* Notes
2018 801 Fassler Ave N/A
Open
Space/
LDR
11.21 9 24 2.14 24% L-2
M-2
Hilly site in SF
neighborhood
2020 Monterey Rd &
Hickey Blvd N/A LDR 1.22 9 8 6.57 73% N/A Hilly site in SF neighborhood 2015 15 & 29
Montecito Ave N/A HDR .26 21 5 19.4 92% N/A
2 small lots
located in SF
(Coastal
Zone)
2019 1335 Adobe Dr N/A HDR .43 21 7 16.26 77% N/A
Infill site in SF
neighborhood
(Coastal
Zone)
2019 1567 Beach Blvd N/A HDR .45 21 7 15.66 75% N/A Infill site in SF neighborhood
2015 Monterey Rd &
Waterford St 1,613 sf MixedUse .22 22 5 22.7 103% N/A
Owner
maximized
small lot
2020 340 Waterford
St 1,324 sf MixedUse .22 22 5 22.75 103% N/A
Owner
maximized
small lot
2020 1300 Danmann
Ave 3,050 sf Commercial .33 22 6 17.96 82% N/A
Infill site in SF
neighborhood
(Coastal
Zone)
2022
570 Crespi Dr,
portion of
540 Crespi Dr
3,165 sf Commer
cial .84 22 19 22.68 103% N/A Owner maximized lot
Average 81%
*L=Low Income, M= Moderate Income
Source: City of Pacifica
Single-Family (1-4 Units). A City survey of vacant residential sites was conducted. Vacant parcels in singlefamily subdivisions zoned VLDR and LDR are scattered citywide and generally sized 2,000 to 5,000 square feet (less than 0.10 acre). The passage of Senate Bill (SB) 9 and SB 10 which became effective in January 2022, allows certain lot splits and the construction of 1-4 units by right in single-family neighborhoods. There have been six SB 9 applications to request approval of two-residential unit projects and/or urban lot splits on singleREVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1532 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) F-12 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 family parcels, indicating interest in utilizing these laws to increase capacity in single-family zoning districts.
However, due to the newness of the legislation, it is difficult to project how many units can be built during the Housing Element planning period. Therefore, to be conservative, these small single-family parcels are not included in the Sites List.
Multi-Family or Mixed-Use (5+ Units). A number of sites in Pacifica that are zoned or have a land use designation that allows multi-family or mixed-use development were evaluated. For each site, the maximum density was calculated based on its land use designation and size of the parcel. Then each site was adjusted to its realistic capacity using 81 percent, based on historical averages as described above in Table F-4. Downward adjustments were further made to address physical constraints.
The following sites are summarized in Table F-5.
Talbot Avenue/Goodman Road (Sites Map Site #6). A single owner owns ten adjacent parcels for a total of 0.9 acres zoned HDR in the Sharp Park Specific Plan, which is surrounded by existing multi-family units. The sites have ocean and open space views which are desirable for market rate housing. An adjacent City-owned parcel and easement for an unbuilt road could add an estimated extra 0.33 acres to this site. A conservative estimate of 21 above-moderate units is used based on existing density and merger of the owner’s parcels..
Santa Maria Avenue/Palmetto Avenue (Sites Map Site #3). This is a small vacant parcel zoned MixedUse Neighborhood in the Sharp Park Specific Plan, which allows 26 DU/A. It is identified as an Opportunity Site in the Sharp Park Specific Plan and has good walkability to services and beaches. Due to its size, it can accommodate eight above moderate units in a mixed-use development. Crespi Mini Storage, 610 Crespi Drive (Sites Map Site #15). The existing use of this flat 1.37 acres is one-story storage buildings and surface parking. There are several self-storage facilities in Pacifica and this one is older and has an inefficient site layout for storage. It is designated MUC in the General Plan which anticipated residential being provided here at 50 DU/A. The MUC designation can accommodate 55 moderate income units, and requires redevelopment of the site to be mixed-use (see HE-I-1, HE-I-2). US Bank, 1655 Oceana Boulevard (Sites Map Site #33).This 0.35-acre site has the land use designation MUC and is included as an opportunity site in the Sharp Park Specific plan that anticipates redevelopment of this underutilized site. The one-story building is over 40 years old and covers less than half the site, which are indicators of underutilization that may incentivize redevelopment. This site. which is located near local retail, services, and Sam Trans routes. could accommodate 14 above market units.
St. Peter Catholic Church, 700 Oddstad Boulevard (Sites Map Site #37). This is a large site consisting of a church and related buildings, surface parking and open space totaling 8.1 acres. There is sufficient open space to allow the addition of residential on 1 acre and leave the remaining church uses in place. The A (Agriculture) zoning of the site supports this as a farmworker housing site. In addition, the site’s Open Space/Agriculture/Residential (OSAR) land use designation in the General Plan exempts farmworker housing from maximum density limits. While there is little demonstrated need for farmworker housing in Pacifica due to limited active agricultural activity, farmworker housing is in high need in nearby Half Moon Bay and elsewhere along the coastside in unincorporated San Mateo County. The Good Shepherd Catholic Church in Pacifica built affordable senior housing on its site in 1995, so there is a history of housing REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1533 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT F-13
development by the archdiocese that controls land uses of church sites. The site is well located close to neighborhood grocery and retail, parks and open space, community library and along a Sam Trans route.
It is served by high performing schools.
TABLE F-5: EXISTING RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY
Site #
on
Sites
Map
Address/
Intersection APN
Gener
al Plan
Land
Use
Maxim
um
Densit
y
(DU/A)
Parcel
Size
(Acres
)
Allowe
d
Maxim
um
Realist
ic
Capaci
ty
(81%)
Lower
-
Incom
e
Moder
ateIncom
e
Above
Moder
ateIncom
e
Total
Capaci
ty
3 Santa Maria
Ave/
Palmetto Ave
016-032-310 MUN 26 0.36 9 8 0 0 8 8
6 Talbot Ave/
Goodman Rd
016-232-080,
016-232-090,
016-232-100,
016-232-110,
016-232-120,
016-232-140,
016-252-140,
016-252-150,
016-252-160,
016-252-170
HDR 30 0.9 27 22 0 21 0 21
15 610 Crespi 022-162-350,
380 MUC 50 1.37 69 56 0 55 0 55
33 1655 Oceana
Blvd 016-220-150 MUC 50 0.35 18 15 0 0 14 14
37 700 Oddstad 023-450-100 AG N/A 8.12 N/A N/A 24 0 0 24 Multi-Family Vacant
Residential Subtotal 24 76 22 122
Source: City of Pacifica
433.7. LAND CAPACITY FOR SITES THAT NEED REZONING
Pacifica has a number of housing opportunities on underutilized sites, most of which require rezoning in order to encourage residential development. The following discussion assumes that programs and policies to revise current zoning requirements are adopted to allow residential and or increase density for housing, simplify the development process, utilize publicly owned lands, and comply with new State laws. These actions are included in the following Housing Element Programs:
HE-I-1. General Plan and Zoning Amendments to Achieve RHNA HE-I-2. Zoning Modernization and Streamlining
HE-I-3. Public Land Master Planning and Implementation HE-I-9. Housing for Extremely Low-Income, Special, and Disproportionate Needs HE-I-14. State and Federal Law Conformance
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1534 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) F-14 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 In all cases the proposed new base density is adjusted by 81 percent to calculate a realistic potential based on historical development patterns as shown in Table F-4.
Vacant Sites
In addition to the residential zoned sites described above, a number of vacant sites will be rezoned to increase density or allow residential development on parcels currently zoned for commercial or mixed uses. These sites will provide significant capacity to meet the RHNA Lower Income target. Government Code 65583.2(g)(2) requires cities to evaluate the capacity of vacant sites to accommodate the Lower Income RHNA to determine if more than 50 percent of the Lower Income RHNA is on
non-vacant sites. The total number of Lower Income units on vacant sites is shown in Table F-6. To evaluate this requirement, the total of Lower-Income units expected
from ADU’s is added to the Lower-Income units on
vacant sites. Pacifica can accommodate 84 percent of its Lower-Income RHNA on vacant sites and ADU
projections, leaving 16 percent of Lower-Income RHNA
accommodated on non-vacant sites. Individual site details are shown in Tables F-11 and F-12 at the end of this
section.
751 Oceana Boulevard (Sites Map Site #2). The owner initially proposed two hotels on two vacant parcels totaling 4.98 acres directly adjacent to Coast Highway. The owner is now proposing a mixed use of hotel and 80 units of market rate housing at the rear portion of the site which includes six lower-income units and six moderate-income units to meet the City’s inclusionary requirement. The current maximum density on the residential parcel (2.5 acres) is 75 units, so this site will be included on the Sites List that need to be rezoned (see Table F-11) A formal planning application has been submitted and is currently under review .
Coast Highway, northside of former lumber yard (Sites Map Site #11). This site consists of two parcels owned by the same person and is located just north of the existing lumberyard located at 4275 Coast Highway. Owner has previously expressed to staff a general interest in increasing the development potential of the land. This 1.43-acre site is mostly flat, has good transportation access and is prime for development of housing targeted to lower income. One of the parcels is less than 0.5-acre, (0.31-acre), but the adjacency to the main parcel and the same ownership allow this to be considered one site for RHNA purposes. A lot merger during the planning process will be required, which is not considered to be a barrier to redevelopment. This site will be able to accommodate 69 lower income units upon rezoning to 60 DU/A), and is close to high performing schools, grocery shopping, beach access and open space, and is located on a major SamTrans route.
Coast Highway, between 4300-4400 Coast Highway (Sites Map Site #12). This site was recently transferred from Caltrans to a private owner. It measures 3.5 acres and is slightly sloped throughout. During the General Plan update process, the owner submitted a letter requesting to change the zoning of this site to MUN to accommodate residential uses, indicating their interest in residential development at this location. This site is recommended to be rezoned to accommodate 60 DU/A. This site will have capacity TABLE F-6: LOWER INCOME UNITS
Lower Income RHNA 848
Lower ADU Projections 112
Lower Vacant Sites 598
Total 710
Total as % of RHNA 84%
Source: City of Pacifica.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1535 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT F-15
to accommodate 169 lower-income units, is close to high performing schools, grocery shopping, beach access and open space, and is located on a major SamTrans route. Park Mall Vacant Site (Sites Map Site # 16A). This is a former gas station which is currently vacant.
The site was remediated and achieved site cleanup clearance in 2002, so it is available for development and the owner has approached the City with the desire to build residential. It is 0.41 acres so with upzoning it can accommodate 17 moderate units. It is included in the Sites List as a stand-alone project but has the potential to be combined with adjacent underutilized parcels at the Park Mall retail/parking lot for a larger mixed income residential project.
Coast Highway, northside of Lutheran Church (Sites Map Site #38). The owner of two parcels measuring 1.26 acres has provided City with written requests to include this land on the Sites List for residential development. One parcel, only measures 0.06 acres, encompasses the corner tip of the main parcel, so this is considered one site for planning purposes. During the planning process, a lot merger will be required, which is not considered a constraint for approvals. The proposed rezoning to accommodate 60 DU/A will make the site suitable for 61 lower-income units since it is close to high performing schools, grocery shopping, beach access and open space, and is located on a major SamTrans route. Rear of Site 38 (Sites Map #I). This vacant site is located to the rear of Site #38 and controlled by the same owner that has expressed interest in residential development.. Although it has hilly sections, the amenities are the same. These sites could be developed together or separately. For Sites List purposes this site, which measures 1.5 acres, is listed separately and has the capacity for 73 low income units upon rezoning to accommodate 60 DU/A.
340 Waterford (Sites Map #D). This small site measures 0.2 acres and can accommodate six above moderate units. There is owner interest in developing this site since a planning application was approved in the past for a mixed use project. It is located in an established neighborhood, close to neighborhood retail, high preforming schools, Sam Trans routes and beach and open space access.
Public and Semi-Public Sites
Several sites owned by public agencies and religious organizations in Pacifica have potential to accommodate housing.
City-Owned Sites
City-owned housing sites provide unique opportunities to maximize the affordability of new housing. This is especially important when considering how to accomplish development of housing for ELI individuals and families. Development of ELI housing is challenging given the lower financial return to developers. Without appropriate incentives, developers typically target affordable units to very-low- or low-income categories.
When it owns a development site, the City may offer additional incentives if a development proposal satisfies a special housing need or a special affordable housing need. The City’s leverage may include an appropriate array of development incentives, contributions from the housing trust fund, fee waivers, or other incentives.
In order to utilize City owned sites for housing, the City must comply with the provisions of the Surplus Lands Act (SLA), which encourages the development of affordable housing on surplus public lands. The City’s intent to follow the provisions of SLA is identified in Program HE-I-1 REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1536 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) F-16 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 Public Works Corporation Yard, 155 Milagra Drive (Sites Map Site #20). Discussions are underway with the Pacifica School District to collaborate on a property swap between the existing school district administration site at 375 Reina Del Mar and the City’s Corporation Yard. The Corporation Yard site is located along Coast Highway, providing a better location for the School District offices that can be developed as a mixed-use project including residential units over offices space. The site is about 0.8 acres and is flat; however, a major storm drain line runs through the site and will need to be addressed in the site design phase. Pacifica City Council approved a preliminary concept that the Corporation Yard site could be suitable for a 100 percent affordable residential development and directed staff to continue working with the School District on feasibility. The School District Board has agreed to pursue a “Fit Study” as the next step of due diligence. The site is targeted to Lower Income and consists of three parcels, two of which are less than .5 acre. However, this site is not considered a “small” site since the parcels are contiguous and the total area will be redeveloped in the future by public agencies. The site is located near grocery shopping, beach access, and major SamTrans bus routes (see HE-I -1, HE I-3, HE I-9, HE I-14). Sanchez Art Center, 1220 Linda Mar Boulevard (Sites Map Site #23). This 8.8-acre site consists of a former school that houses the Sanchez Art Center, a theater, and ball fields. Keeping the playing fields in place, preserving the creek setback area, and redeveloping the existing buildings on 4 acres could accommodate mixed-use development incorporating the Art Center and adding 130 lower-income residential units. It is located along a Sam Trans bus route and is close to parkland, a community center and served by high performing schools. It is zoned for agricultural land use, so is suitable for public sponsored farmworker housing, which is an allowed use in this zone (see HE-I-1, HE-I-3, HE I-9, HEI-14). Sanchez Library, 1111 Terra Nova Boulevard (Sites Map Site #24). This site is 2.86 acres and houses the neighborhood serving library, surface parking and open space. Keeping the library and creek setbacks in place results in 1.61.5 acres available to add 6552 lower-income residential units to create a mixed-use site. A City evaluation report has determined that an expansion of the library footprint is not needed at this location although the City is in the process of adding a library vending machine to expand services.
Therefore, the existing footprint can be sufficient to keep current library services intact to the neighborhood and allow additional development for residential on this site. It was listed as a site in the prior RHNA 5th Cycle Housing Element so will be eligible for by-right streamline approvals with a minimum of 20 percent Lower-Income units. It is located close to grocery shopping and neighborhood retail, community library, Sam Trans bus route and served by high performing schools (see HE-I-1, HE-I -3, HE I-9, HE-I -14).
School District Sites
Both the Pacifica School District (PSD) and Jefferson Union High School District (JUHSD), which operates high schools in Pacifica and Daly City, have experience in developing vacant district owned property for residential uses. The City has a strong track record allowing residential on property owned by School Districts.
In the past, both Crespi and Westview elementary schools were closed and redeveloped as housing, and vacant land at the Oddstad Elementary school has received approvals through the entitlement process for 70 units.
Although there are no current public discussions of further school district site development, these agencies own large parcels in key locations in Pacifica. AB 2295, passed in 2022, will allow school districts to develop housing on their properties regardless of local zoning designations if certain criteria are met from January 2024 to January 2033 (see HE-I-1, HE-I-2, HE-I-3, HE I-14).
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1537 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT F-17
Terra Nova High School, 1450 Terra Nova Boulevard (Sites Map Site #22). The Terra Nova High School campus is over 43 acres and consists of school buildings, playing fields and parking lots, with a total lot coverage ratio of 8%. A vacant parcel that measures over 5 acres is just west of the developed campus property which could be used for 129 mixed income housing units leaving existing uses intact. Due to its hilliness at the rear and one side of the parcel, about 4 acres are flat and prime for development. The site is located close to retail and community amenities and served by Sam Trans bus route and high performing schools.
Oceana High School, 401 Paloma Avenue (Sites Map Site #21). The Oceana High School campus consists of 51 acres including school buildings, playing fields, parking lots, and undeveloped open space nestled against hills with sweeping views of the Pacific Ocean with a total lot coverage ratio of 8%. About
5.5 acres of undeveloped, relatively flat land exists along Paloma Avenue, that can accommodate 178 mixed income housing units, leaving the existing campus intact. The site is served by neighborhood retail, access to open space, and Sam Trans bus routes.
State Owned Sites
Three vacant sites in Pacifica are owned by Caltrans and the State of California which have not been declared surplus by the State but are suitable for affordable housing. These sites will be rezoned to accommodate 40-60 DU/A to accommodate lower-income households in 2024, see program HE-I-1. Staff at Caltrans provided information on the process to “decertify” sites, which allows a public agency to acquire the land to be used for a public purpose, such as affordable housing. First, an initial deposit of funds is provided to Caltrans to conduct a site review. If the site is cleared for decertification, an excess land parcel will be created and appraised. The City of Pacifica will need to pass a resolution stating that the excess land parcel will be used for the public purpose (and the deed may be restricted for such a public purpose). The parties then enter into a purchase agreement which needs to be approved by the California Transportation Commission. The process typically takes 18 to 24 months. The City will seek decertification of the following sites. This commitment will also include identification of alternative sites after the third year if these required actions do not occur as intended (see HE-I-1, HE-I-2, HE-I-3, HE I-9, HE I-14).
Caltrans Right-of-Way (ROW), Skyline Boulevard (Sites Map Site #25). Caltrans owns a ROW strip of approximately 20 acres along Skyline Boulevard from Hickey Boulevard to Glencourt Way. The northern 5-acre portion of this site is adjacent to an existing affordable housing project. A residential developer has contacted staff, indicating interest in starting the decertification process with Caltrans to construct affordable housing in this location. It has capacity to accommodate 165 lower-income units and is served by Sam Trans, local retail including grocery stores, neighborhood park, and high performing schools.
Caltrans ROW, Coast Highway/Linda Mar Boulevard (Sites Map Site #18)). This site is currently a Park and Ride surface parking lot. Assuming that half the site is retained for parking, the other half has the capacity for 53 lower-income units and is across the street from neighborhood grocery and retail, close to beach access and open space, and served by high performing schools and several Sam Trans bus routes. Skyline Water Tank (Site# G). This site is 4.46 acres of vacant land surrounding a water tank on State owned land along Skyline Boulevard. It is assumed that the water tank remains, and that about one-third of the site is developed into 55 lower-income units. The site is relatively flat, adjacent to Sam Trans bus routes, near a neighborhood park and served by high performing schools. Neighborhood retail and a grocery store is under a mile away.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1538 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) F-18 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 Places of Public Assembly with Adjoining Parking
Feedback from community input has included interest in working with faith-based organizations to construct housing on properties that have low floor-area-ratios on their sites. Pacifica has prior experience with this model with Oceana Terrace, which was developed in a partnership with The Good Shepherd Catholic Church and Mercy Housing to develop 42 affordable senior apartments in 1995. The following sites have the best potential for adding housing to existing uses (see HE-I-1, HE-I-2, HE1-14). 7th Day Adventist, 533 Hickey Boulevard (Sites Map Site #19). This site is 1.65 acres and includes a church building and extensive surface parking and open space. The building only covers 6.5 percent of the site, so the majority of the site is vacant. It is flat and surrounded by residential and is zoned MDR. If the church building and surface parking stay intact, about 0.6 acre at the rear of the property is available to add 15 moderate residential units when rezoned to 30 units to the acre. Latter Day Saints, 730 Sharp Park Rd (Site A). The Latter Day Saints site consists of a house of worship, surface parking and landscaping on 4.39 acres with a lot coverage of only 14 percent. The Sites List assumes that 52 moderate residential units can be accommodated on 1.67 acres of the underutilized part of the site when upzoned to 40 units to the acre.
Our Savior Lutheran Church, 4400 Coast Hwy. (Site J). This 2.77-acre site consists of the church, surface parking, and open space to the rear with a lot coverage ratio of 14%. The rear of the site is undeveloped and has some hilliness, but 1 acre is assumed suitable for 49 lower-income units, leaving the church and most of its parking in place. It is close to high performing schools, grocery shopping, beach access and open space, and is located on a major Sams Trans route.
Other Commercial Opportunity Sites
Pacifica has little prior history of commercial sites converting to residential since residential is not currently allowed in commercial zones except for the MUN and MUC designations. Therefore, it is difficult to predict the likelihood that commercial sites will indeed redevelop into residential uses. That said, a number of sites designated as retail and various commercial designations are attractive as residential uses, primarily those in the flatter areas along the Coast Highway corridor. The City analyzed several sites along the Coast Highway that could be eligible for AB 2011 which allows residential in commercial zones along commercial corridors. Since the law is new and its attractiveness to developers is unknown, the City will match the density provisions of the law and rezone sites that would be eligible for AB 2011 based on their location, to allow 60 DU/A. In other areas of town, the City plans to allow residential uses in certain retail and commercial zones and will allow densities that range from 30-60 DU/A. Developers in San Mateo County, who were interviewed and participated in a countywide workshop, have identified a number of useful criteria when evaluating the financial feasibility of converting an existing commercial use to residential:
1. The site is greater than 1 acre.
2. Current built-out FAR is less than 60 percent.
3. Existing use was built at least 30 years ago and not recently remodeled, upgraded.
4. Existing vacancies.
5. Existing retail uses do not include national chains.
6. Allowable density 30-50 DU/A.
7. No demolition required.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1539 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT F-19
Ownership patterns for site consolidation is another factor. Site consolidation, or merging of parcels for one redevelopment project, is only assumed on Pacifica’s Site List when the same owner owns all the parcels. See “Consolidated Sites” column on Sites List.
Non-vacant parcels are included on the Sites List as potential residential development opportunities based on characteristics listed below, coupled with rezoning to allow more density in the range of 30-60 DU/A. These factors were gathered from approved projects in Pacifica and some of its surrounding neighbors, Daly City, San Bruno, and South San Francisco. For each individual factor, specific detail is provided below to explain why the available evidence points to the likelihood of redevelopment within the planning period. Site characteristics are summarized in Table F-7. Although there is no guarantee that these factors will result in actual development, if a non- vacant site meets four or more of the following five criteria, it was placed on the Sites List. It is realistic to expect that these sites could redevelop within the planning period given the presence of four or more criteria, along with the proposed rezoning and other implementation actions. TheseThis criteria werewas not applied to City-owned sites since these economic factors do not apply as motivation to redevelop property for the City.
A. Age of Structure. The age of a structure may help determine the likelihood of redevelopment during the planning period. New construction on the site may indicate that it is unlikely that a property owner would invest in additional improvements or redevelop the site. A structure that was built 30 years ago or more has a higher likelihood of needing rehabilitation and therefore more likely consideration of demolition.
Structures on non-vacant sites in the sites inventory range from the mid-1950s through the late 1980s, which is generally consistent with trends observed on sites in Table F-7.
B. Lot Coverage. Lot coverage is calculated using building footprint information. As shown in Table F-7, among the approved projects, lot coverage averages about 29%, but ranges from 3 percent and as high as 75 percent on non-vacant sites. To be conservative, the Sites List includes parcels with lot coverage up to 50 percent, which indicates underutilized parcels with outdated site designs that leave large areas as surface parking or landscaping.
C. Single-Story Building. As demonstrated in Table F-7 recently approved projects generally involve the demolition of single-story buildings. The only exception is an older, simply constructed warehouse. A single-story building can indicate underutilization of the site, which can contribute to owner interest to increase the site’s value by redeveloping.
D. No Demolition. Sites that do not require any demolition of existing buildings are easier to redevelop since it eliminates negotiating with existing leaseholders, relocating of existing occupants, and general disruption of business. There are also some savings on clearance costs to prepare the land. The projects in Table F-7 shows that no demolition is a factor for about 41 percent of the sites. This demonstrates that demolition does not necessarily limit redevelopment. However, to be conservative, sites that do not require demolition are more highly rated for potential redevelopment. This particularly applies to 41 percent of the non-vacant sites in Pacifica’s Sites List, where the assumption is to leave existing uses in place and add residential to vacant or surface parking portions of the existing sites. Examples include schools, places of worship, and existing shopping centers.
E. Site Size Greater Than 1 Acre. The greater the size of the developable area of the site, the more attractive it is for a change in use. According to input from San Mateo County developers small sites less than 0.5-acre can be difficult to redevelop. Sites that are 1 acre or more have more flexibility for redevelopment, especially for potential mixed use sites. Note that there are several small sites that have redeveloped into small residential projects in Pacifica by local property owners. However, to attract developers for larger residential REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1540 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) F-20 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 projects, a conservative minimum site size of 1 acre is used as a contributing factor for redevelopment potential.
F. Improvement to Land Value Ratio: This can also indicate properties that are potentially underutilized.
Non-vacant sites in Table F-7 have Improvement-to-Land Value (ILV) ratios between 0.01 and 0.23; however, data was unavailable for several sites. A ratio of less than 0.5 indicates that the real estate market values the land itself more highly than the structures built on that land. A low improvement to land ratio is also often a result of lack of significant improvements in recent years that would trigger a reinvestment.
These underutilized parcels present opportunities for property owners and developers to invest in improvements that increase the overall value of the property. This factor is noted for several of the nonvacant commercial sites to further support the attractiveness of redevelopment.
The above factors are described in the individual site descriptions below and summarized in Table F-11 and 12 at the end of this section.
Shopping Centers
Pacifica has several neighborhood shopping centers anchored by grocery stores that range in physical condition and economic vitality. According to developer input in San Mateo County, shopping center redevelopment primarily depends on status of the leases, noting that national chains are especially difficult to negotiate with.
Centers with vacancies, local businesses, alternative locations for businesses to relocate to, and declining physical condition have a better likelihood of redevelopment. All of Pacifica’s shopping centers listed below are serving neighborhood needs and are not likely to discontinue current uses. However, in general, portions of the sites have redevelopment potential for residential development to be added, resulting in mixed-use properties.
Linda Mar Shopping Center, 500 Linda Mar Blvd (Sites Map Site #29). This is the largest shopping center in Pacifica built in 1983 consisting of several major tenants including Safeway, Rite Aid, Ross, Pet Food Express and several national food chains located in one- story buildings. In addition, about half of the spaces are leased by local-based retail businesses. The center is experiencing about a 17 percent vacancy rate scattered throughout. The site measures 12.5 acres with retail spaces ringing a central parking lot. The lot coverage is 289% indicating that most of the site is undeveloped and its ILV is 0.40. Although a large portion of the shopping center is thriving and not likely to change its uses, at the rear of the site is a littleused surface parking area. A portion of the rear or side retail spaces could be removed, and tenants relocated to other spaces within the more active part of the shopping center, freeing up adjacent land. It is estimated that approximately 4.5 acres could be redeveloped with housing leaving 8 acres of retail in place. This scenario is based on utilizing 3 of the 4 parcels within the shopping center. The two rear parking parcels measure 0.19 and 0.25 acres which is less than the small site criteria of 0.5-acre, but the parking lots are adjacent to the main parcel and all are under the same ownership and therefore considered one site. A lot line merger will be required for future redevelopment, which is a standard procedure during the plan approval process and not considered a constraint (see HE-I-1, HE-I-2, HE I-14).
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1541 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT F-21
TABLE F-7: HISTORICAL NON--VACANT REDEVELOPMENT SUMMARY Project Address
Site Area
(Acres)
No. Units
Approved/
Proposed
Age of
Structure
(If Applic.)
Lot
Coverage
Single
Story
Demolition
Required
Improvement
to Land Value
(ILV) Ratio Prior Use
City of Pacifica
801 Fassler Ave 11.21 24 N/A 0 N/A No 0 Quarry
Monterey Rd and Hickey Blvd 1.22 8 N/A 0 N/A No 0 Vacant 570 Crespi Dr and
Portion of 540 Crespi Dr 1.68 19 ~1950s 3% Yes Yes 0.014 SFR Demolished in 2016 930 Oddstad Blvd 7.48 70 ~1960s 8% Yes Yes No Data Elementary School and Parking Lot
1300 Danman Ave 0.33 6 ~1960s 3% Yes Yes 0.23 Livestock Buildings 15 and 29 Montecito Ave 0.26 5 ~1930s No Data Yes Yes No Data Single-Family Homes 505 San Pedro 0.92 4 N/A 0 N/A No 0 Vacant – Outparcel of Shopping Center
2251 Oceana Blvd 0.26 4 No Data No Data Yes Yes No Data Service Station 1335 Adobe Drive 0.43 7 N/A 0 N/A No 0 Vacant
1567 Beach Blvd 0.45 7 N/A 0 N/A No 0 Vacant
Monterey Rd and Waterford St 0.22 5 N/A 0 N/A No 0 Vacant 340 Waterford St 0.22 5 N/A 0 N/A No 0 Vacant
City of South San Francisco
988 El Camino Real 1.67 172 No Data No Data X Yes 0.022 Carwash 200-214 Airport Blvd 0.55 94 1950 ~75% Yes Yes No Data Furniture and Trophy Stores 40 Airport Blvd 1.63 292 ~1960s ~50% No No 0.004 Warehouse REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1542 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing F-22 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 TABLE F-7: HISTORICAL NON--VACANT REDEVELOPMENT SUMMARY Project Address
Site Area
(Acres)
No. Units
Approved/
Proposed
Age of
Structure
(If Applic.)
Lot
Coverage
Single
Story
Demolition
Required
Improvement
to Land Value
(ILV) Ratio Prior Use
City of San Bruno
170 San Bruno Ave West 0.29 42 <1980 4% X Yes No Data Former Gas Station 2880-2890 San Bruno Ave W, 850-
860 Glenview Drive 3.28 29
1960 –
Church
1989 – SFR
21% X Yes 0.067 Church, Former Gas Station
400 and 406 San Mateo Ave 0.95 83 1930 47% Yes Yes No Data Theater and Commercial City of Daly City
6800-6834 Mission St and
317-331 Miriam St 0.77 52 ~1960s ~50% X Yes 0.009 Auto Dealership, Office,Service Commercial Source: City of Daly City, City of Pacifica, City of San Bruno, and City of South San Francisco.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1543 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT F-23
Park Mall, (Sites Map Site # 16B). This is a neighborhood shopping center with no national retail chain tenants. The single-story buildings were built about 50 years ago and show no noticeable recent physical improvements, resulting in a ILV of 0.25, which indicates the land is worth more than the improvements.
The site consists of three parcels. The retailers are primarily local businesses and provide services to the neighborhood that will likely continue. That said, the retail and/or parking area has potential to add residential, while maintaining a retail core. The entire site is 5.6 acres, 1.109 of which could add residential leaving 4.5 for neighborhood services and retail. The lot coverage for the 1.09 acres is 27%. This site is currently zoned MUN which allows residential without any rezoning at 30 DU/A, however 5060 DU/A is assumed due to rezoning (see HE-I-1, HE-I-2, HE I-14).
Fairmont Shopping Center, 777 Hickey Blvd (Sites Map Site #28). This 7.4-acre shopping center built in the 1970s is well maintained, has several national chains, and serves the northeastern hilly neighborhoods in Pacifica which are removed from the Coast Highway core of the city. It currently has 4 out of 28 retail spaces that are vacant. The lot coverage of the site is 28 percent and the improvements to land ratio is 0.40 indicating potential underdevelopment where the land is worth more than the one- story retail improvements. There is potential for adding residential on 1 acre of the site through minor reconfiguring of current uses, leaving it mostly a retail use at essentially the same levels. This owner has been open to exploring residential development opportunities once rezoning is completed, most likely at the end of this planning period. The redevelopment proposal assumes that one parcel (0.26 acre) and portions of another (5.24 acres) will be merged to provide a 1 acre site for housing, The parcels are adjacent and owned by the same entity. A lot merger would be required at the time of planning application but is not considered to be a barrier in utilizing the smaller parcel (see HE-I-1, HE-I-2, HE I-14). Pacific Manor Shopping Center, 440 Manor Pl (Sites Map Site #27 A and B ). This small neighborhood shopping strip was built in the mid-1950s, is aging and located directly on the transit corridor served by Coast Highway. Although Safeway is the anchor tenant, the remaining retail spaces are small local independent merchants. The total site is 4.5 acres, of which 2.35 acres is underutilized surface parking. If the site retains Safeway and the local merchants, it is estimated that 1.9 acres of the surface parking lot could accommodate residential in a mixed-use development without demolition of existing uses structures.
The parking lot comprises two parcels owned by separate owners. Parcel 27 A has an ILV of 0.04,One parcel measures 0.76 acres and can accommodate 37 mixed-income residential units. The other parcel assumes Parcel 27 B has an ILV of 0.13, and assumes that 1.1 acres could be redeveloped to include 53 mixed-income residential units. If the retail portion of site is redeveloped to include residential units on the existing retail parcels, and at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households, the application is eligible for by-right streamline approvals since these parcels were listed in the prior RHNA 5th Cycle Housing Element (see HE-I-1, HE-I-2, HE-I-14). This site’s location in the Coastal Zone could complicate the City’s ability to implement this by-right approval requirement because of the Coastal Act mandate that all new development obtain a Coastal Development Permit (a discretionary permit, and subject to CEQA).
Coastal Sites
All areas west of Coast Highway and a small area east of Coast Highway are included in the California Coastal Zone. Development in this zone must comply with the Coastal Act and Pacifica’s certified Local Coastal Program to ensure new development is environmentally sound. The first several blocks bordering the beaches and coastline are considered vulnerable to erosion, flooding, and sea level rise in many areas. These areas are mapped in Appendix B in Pacifica’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update which is pending certification by the REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1544 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) F-24 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 California Coastal Commission. Areas within the Vulnerability Zones are not included in the Sites List. There are three locations outside of the Vulnerability Zones that have redevelopment potential for housing that are located along the Coast Highway corridor and are essentially flat. These sites are also ideal in furthering the goal of distributing housing citywide. Residential development will be encouraged through the following programs: HE-I-1, HE-I-2, HE I-14.
Builders Exchange, 520 San Pedro Avenue (Sites Map Site #30). The site is 0.96 acres, flat, located near Coast Highway, and is adjacent to existing residential and neighborhood serving retail uses. Existing use is onestory warehouse built in the 1960’s with spaces for six construction-related companies. The site is underutilized in that existing buildings cover about one-quarter of the site; and the balance of the site is parking. The improvement to land ratio for this site is 0.33 indicating the land is worth more than the improvements. This site can accommodate 23 moderate income dwelling units.
Ace Hardware, 560 San Pedro Avenue (Sites Map Site #31). This site is flat, close to existing residential, and easy access to Coast Highway. It consists of two parcels totaling 1.24 acres that are underutilized. The single-story building, constructed in the 1970’s, shows signs of its age. Its improvement to land value is 0.40 which indicates the land is worth more than the improvements. The lot coverage is 0.28 consisting of the retail space and outdoor garden/building supplies areas and surplus unused surface parking. It can accommodate 30 moderate income units.
Other Sites
A number of large sites along the Coast Highway corridor are prime residential sites since they are close to transit, adjacent to existing single-family neighborhoods, and largely consist of existing retail in older buildings. Brentwood Shopping Center, Oceana/Manor (Sites Map Site #32). This site includes three parcels that total 3.1 acres and are owned by one entity. Existing uses include a cluster of 1-story buildings constructed in the 1960s and 1970s including 24 Hour Fitness, plus smaller local retail uses including a taqueria, insurance company and Starbucks. The total lot coverage is 29 percent since most of the site is flat surface parking. The central building on the site that contains 24 Hour Fitness and Andersen’s Swim & Dive School is in the best condition and least likely to redevelop in the planning period. Other portions of the site consisting of surface parking area and buildings in poorer condition are assumed for redevelopment. This is an excellent location close to services, school, transportation, and a drug store. The site is assumed to be suitable for lower income due to its size and proximity to services. Two of the three parcels are less than 0.5-acre, but they are contiguous to the main parcel and under the same ownership, so they are considered one consolidated parcel measuring 2 acres for residential use. A lot merger will be required for future redevelopment during the planning approval process, but it is not considered to be a barrier to the approval process. (see HE-I-1, HE-I-2, HE I-14). 4275 Coast Highway (Sites Map Site #10). This 1.95acre site has been identified for future mixed-use in the General Plan with its MUN designation. It is the location of a former lumber yard and is currently used for material/equipment storage. The existing sinlge-story warehouse was built in the 1960s and only covers 10 percent of the lot, and is surrounded by surface parking and outdoor storage. It has an improvement to land value of 0.01 indicating the structure has little value in comparison with the land. The hillside at the rear of the property prohibits construction, but it is assumed that 1 acre is suitable for a mixed-use development including 49 moderate-income units (see HE-I-1, HE-I-2, HE I-14).
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1545 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT F-25
Ramallah Plaza, 2480 Skyline (Site B). This 0.46-acre site consists of one story retail built in 1988 with dated exteriors, that have not been recently renovated. The building covers 42 percent of the site; the rest of the site is surface parking. Upon redevelopment it can accommodate 11 above moderate units (see HEI-1, HE-I-2, HE I-14. 340 Waterford (Sites E). A car wash that was constructed sometime between the 1960s and 1970s occupies this 0.33-acre site. Five 1-story automobile bays with Do It Yourself hoses cover about 20 percent of the site. The improvement to land ratio of these low value structures is 0.11 indicating that the land is worth more than the improvements. The site is located in an established neighborhood and could accommodate 11 above moderate-income units (see HE-I-1, HE-I-2, HE I-14). Oddstad Boulevard (Site F). This 2.33-acre site contains an single- story accessory structure built in the 1920s and is largely vacant, with a lot coverage ratio of 0.05 and an ILV of 0.5. It is mostly flat but San Pedro creek runs along the side and rear border of the site. Assuming that sections of the site along the creek banks are not developable, there remains about 0.5-acre that can accommodate 16 moderate income units. The site is well located to access community and retail amenities, schools, as well as Sam Trans bus routes (see HE-I-1, HE-I-2, HE I-14).
Pavilion of Flowers, 801 Oceana Boulevard (Site H). This 1.29-acre site consists of two 1-story retail structures built in the 1950s-60s. The underutilized site is largely vacant with the structures covering 13 percent of the site. The improvement to land ratio is 0.05 indicating that the dated structures are worth less than the land. The site can accommodate 42 moderate-income units and is served by neighboring retail, access to open space and Sam Trans routes (see HE-I-1, HE-I-2, HE I-14).
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1546 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) F-26 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 This figure shows the parcels on which housing is intended to be developed on all or a portion of the parcel. Where the entire parcel is not intended to be developed with housing, the specific areas of the parcel intended for housing development are depicted in Appendix F, Figures F-2 through F-10 “Areas assumed for housing (in blue shading).” The areas of the parcels that are not shown as “Areas assumed for housing (in blue shading)” are not included in the Housing Element site inventory. (Source: City of Pacifica.) Figure F-1: Pacifica Opportunity Sites (“Sites Inventory” or “Sites List”) REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1547 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT F-27
Site-Specific Diagrams
The varying nature of housing opportunity sites identified in the Housing Element requires more particular diagrams for certain sites to clearly indicate where housing is appropriate. For most sites mapped in Figures 1 through 5 and Figure F-1, the housing opportunity site is the entire Assessor Parcel. For the sites included in Figures F-2 through F-10, below, only those areas specifically designated are considered parts of the Housing Element site inventory.
Figure F-2: Site 21 – Oceana High School
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1548 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) F-28 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 Figure F-3: Site 22 – Terra Nova High School
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1549 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT F-29
Figure F-4: Site 23 – Sanchez Art Center
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1550 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) F-30 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 Figure F-5: Site 24 – Sanchez Library
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1551 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT F-31
Figure F-6: Site 28 – Fairmont Shopping Center
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1552 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) F-32 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 Figure F-7: Site 29 – Linda Mar Shopping Center
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1553 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT F-33
Figure F-8: Site 32 – Brentwood Shopping Center
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1554 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) F-34 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 Figure F-9: Site F – Oddstad Boulevard
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1555 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT F-35
Figure F-10: Site G – Skyline Water Tank
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1556 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) F-36 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 434.8. INCOME ASSUMPTIONS ON RHNA SITES LIST
Sites that are listed on the Sites List are sorted as to suitability for the various income categories of lowerincome, moderate-income and above moderate-income based on a variety of assumptions as described below.
Lower-Income
Sites are assumed to have the capacity for lower-income units if they are at least 1 acre in size and have a minimum base zoning of 30 DU/A or more. This is generally the minimum size needed to realistically compete for various affordable housing funding programs. Sites that generate at least 50 units are assumed to be 100 percent affordable to lower-income households based on this suitability criteria.
Jurisdictions must provide an analysis of sites identified to accommodate Lower Income RHNA that are less than 0.5-acre or larger than 10 acres in order to establish they are adequate to accommodate the development of affordable units. However, the City of Pacifica does not have any lower income units included as a part of its RHNA that are on small or large sites. There are some sites that consist of consolidated parcels where one of the parcels is less than 0.5-acre, but these are only included when the adjacent sites are under the same ownership. For Pacifica these properties would undergo a lot line merger as necessary during the planning process, which is a routine process and not considered a barrier to redevelopment.
The State indicates that jurisdictions also consider the following factors when determining the best locations for affordable housing.
Proximity to Transit: All sites that are listed as Lower Income are located on, or within 0.25 miles of SamTrans bus lines.
Locational Scoring Criteria for Low-Income Housing Tax Credit by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) Program Funding: There are no low resource locations in Pacifica.
All housing sites are either moderate or high resource areas as noted. Proximity to Available Infrastructure and Utilities: All sites listed as lower income have existing infrastructure in place.
Sites that do not Require Environmental Mitigation. Sites that require special environmental attention are noted.
Access to High Performing Schools: TCAC Opportunity Area Education score 50 or higher. Amenities noted for each site.
Access to Amenities, such as Parks and Services: Amenities noted for each site. Access to Grocery Stores: Amenities noted for each site. Access to High Performing Jobs. HCD AFFH Job Proximity Index 40 or higher (none in Pacifica) Access to Health Care Facilities. No Hospital or General Health care clinics in Pacifica (specialty offices only)
There are a total of 11sites that have the capacity to accommodate 50 or more units in good locations identified in the site list and in Table F-8 below. Six of these sites, representing 46 percent of the prospective units, are public sites, owned by the City or Caltrans, whose properties have the potential to be declared surplus and then REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1557 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT F-37
made available for a public purpose such as affordable housing. The public control of these opportunity sites greatly increases the probability that affordable housing could be built on these sites.
TABLE F-8 LOWER-INCOME SITE AMENITIES
Site # on
Sites Map Site No. of Units Public
Access to
Amenitiesa
11 Coast Hwy 69 1, 2, 3, 4
12 Coast Hwy, between 4300-4400 Coast Hwy 130 1, 2, 3, 4 18 Caltrans ROW, Coast Hwy/Linda Mar Blvd 53 53 1, 2, 3, 4 23 Sanchez Art Center, 1220 Linda Mar Blvd 130 130 1, 2, 4 24 Sanchez Library, 1111 Terra Nova Blvd 52 52 1, 2, 3, 4 25 Caltrans ROW, Skyline Blvd 165 165 1, 2, 3, 4
32 Brentwood Shopping Center, Oceana /Manor 97 2, 3, 4
38 Cost Hwy/San Marlo Eastside 61 1, 2, 3, 4
I Coast Hwy 73 1, 2, 3, 4
J Lutheran Church, 4400 Coast Hwy 49 1, 2, 3, 4
G Skyline Water Tank 55 55 1, 2, 4
Total Lower-Income Units 882 403
a
1. High Performing Schools, 2. Parks and Community Services, 3. Grocery Stores; 4. Transit.
Source: City of Pacifica, TCAC Educational Opportunity Score Moderate Income
All sites that result in 15 to 50 units that do not fit lower-income criteria described above are assumed suitable for moderate-income housing. Except as noted below, these sites are assumed to be 100 percent affordable to moderate-income based on this suitability criteria.
Above Moderate-Income
All other sites that do not qualify for lower- or moderate-income suitability criteria are in the above moderateincome category. This largely includes small sites and those with physical constraints.
School District Sites
The past history of the PSD and JUHSD (in other cities) is to construct mixed income developments, so 8 percent low-income, 7 percent moderate-income, and 85 percent above moderate-income is used which reflects Pacifica’s basic inclusionary requirements.
Mixed-Use Shopping Centers
Since all the shopping centers assume retention of the majority of retail combined with the addition of residential, it is assumed that these will attract mixed income developments. Therefore, the City’s inclusionary REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1558 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) F-38 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 requirements of 8 percent lower-income, 7 percent moderate-income, and 85 percent above moderate-income are used.
No Net Loss
The assumed income categories in the Sites List may or may not result in the actual income levels of housing built in the future. The income categories reflect the ability for housing for those income groups based on zoning and economic factors. For example, 100 percent affordable developments rely on various subsidies that may or may not be available, so a site designated Lower Income may be built out in the future with the minimum affordability required by the City’s inclusionary requirements.
Each jurisdiction must ensure that its Housing Element inventory can accommodate its share of the RHNA by income level throughout the planning period (Government Code Section 65863). If the City approves a housing project at a lower density or with fewer units by income category than identified in the Housing Element, it must determine whether there is sufficient capacity to meet the remaining unmet need. If not, the city must “identify and make available” additional adequate sites to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of housing need by income level within 180 days of approving the reduced‐density project. Therefore, the Sites List includes the required RHNA plus a sizable surplus to address the no-net loss provision and act as a buffer to backfill sites that may not produce the assumed units in the Sites List.
AB 725
All (100%) of the Moderate and Above Moderate sites on the Sites List allow four or more units, ranging from 6 to 164 units. This complies with AB 725, which requires at least 25 percent of the RHNA for Moderate and Above Moderate be identified for fourplexes or greater.
Capacity to Accommodate RHNA
The residential units that are already planned or approved as shown in Table F-2 and the anticipated ADU construction based on historical trends are subtracted from Pacifica’s RHNA, which leaves the remaining allocation to be achieved through development of the opportunity sites. The opportunity sites for future residential production are detailed in the Sites List (Tables F-10, F-11, F-12) and summarized in Table F-9.
Table F-10 Residential Sites with Existing Capacity, includes parcels that are currently zoned for residential development at densities allowed for under the current General Plan. As shown in Table F-9, the combined capacity of these sites, pipeline projects and ADU projections result in a RHNA shortfall of 1,366 units across all income groups, including 660 lower-income units. Tables F-11 and F-12 Sites that Need Rezoning, include the sites that require rezoning to allow for residential development to accommodate the full RHNA target, plus a surplus . After rezoning, the total capacity shows a surplus of the required RHNA as a buffer against uncertainty in future actual development. The overall buffer is 36 percent, which is more than recommended by the State. The City has placed an emphasis on providing a very large buffer for lower-income units (50 percent) which significantly exceeds Pacifica’s RHNA for this income category and helps mitigate the difficulty in financing affordable housing for lower income groups.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1559 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT F-39
TABLE F-9: RHNA CAPACITY ANALYSIS
LowerIncome
Capacity
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Above
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Total
Capacity
RHNA 848 291 753 1,892
Submitted/Approved Projects 52 8 157167 217227
Projected ADU's 112 56 19 187
Residential Sites with Existing Capacity 24 76 22 122
Subtotal 188 140 198208 526536
RHNA Shortfall 660 151 555545 1,3661,356
Sites That Require Rezoning to Meet RHNA 1,083 297 662 2042 RHNA Buffer (Surplus) 423 146 107117 676682
RHNA Buffer (Surplus Percent) 50% 50% 14%156% 36%31%
Source: City of Pacifica.
435.9. PACIFICA SITES LIST
Tables F-10, F-11, and F-12 are a complete list of the Pacifica site inventory. Table F-10 includes Opportunity Sites that Allow Residential which have existing capacity under existing zoning regulations to contribute to the associated RHNA. Table F-11 includes sites that will require rezoning to meet the RHNA shortfalls. Table F12 includes sites that will be rezoned but are not required to meet the RHNA shortfall and serve to create a buffer to cover “No Net Less” situations. The zoning updates for the commercial and mixed-use sites in these tables will require a minimum amount of residential within the development and will not allow 100% commercial uses.
Once sites are rezoned, at least 50 percent of the lower income shortfall can be accommodated on sites designated exclusively residential. This includes Sites 2, 18, 25, 29, G, and I, which combined have the capacity for 366 lower-income units, compared to half the lower-income shortfall of 330. In accordance with Gov. Code 65583.2, the following components will be included in the rezoning, as indicated in program HE-I-1, for sites listed in Table F-11:
Permit by-right uses for developments where 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households.
Permit the development of at least 16 units on the site. The density shall be at least 20 dwelling units per acre.
Tables F-10, F-11, and F-12 also include a column (“Lower Income Amenities”) indicating the amenities available for lower income sites. Sites that will accommodate lower-income RHNA were evaluated based on the following criteria:
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1560 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) F-40 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 Amenity Criteria
1. High Performing Schools TCAC Opportunity Area Education score 50 or higher
2. Parks and Community Services 0.5-mile of beach, park, library, community center
3. Grocery Stores 0.5-mile of grocery store
4. Proximity to Transit Along or withing 0.25-mile of Sam Trans Line Tables F-11 and F-12 also include Site Factors that support the redevelopment of non-vacant non-residential sites (excluding City owned sites):
Site Factor Criteria
A. Age of Structure Greater than 30 years
B. Lot Coverage Less than 50%
C. Single Story Structure Yes
D. No Demolition Required Yes
E. Site Size Greater than 1 Acre
F. Improvement to Land Value Less than .5
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1561 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT F-41
TABLE F-10: RESIDENTIAL SITES THAT HAVE EXISTING CAPACITY (TABLE A HCD SITES LIST) Site
No.
Site Address/
Intersection
Assessor
Parcel
Number
General Plan
Designation Zoning Designation Minimum Density Allowed (Units/Acre) Max Density Allowed (Units/Acre) Parcel Size (Gross Acres) Existing Use/ Vacancy Publicly
Owned Lower-Income Capacity Moderate- Income Capacity Above Moderate- Income Capacity Total Capacity TCAC
Resource Level
Lower
Income
Amenities
Residential
3 Santa Maria/
Palmetto
a
016-032-310 MUN C-10 26 0.36 Vacant Private 0 0 88 High Resource 6 Talbot/Goodman
016-232-080 HDR
R-3
0 21 0.09 Vacant Private 21 21 High Resource
016-232-090 HDR R-3 0 21 0.07 Vacant Private High Resource 016-232-100 HDR R-3 0 21 0.06 Vacant Private High Resource 016-232-110 HDR R-3 0 21 0.05 Vacant Private High Resource 016-232-120 HDR R-3 0 21 0.05 Vacant Private High Resource 016-232-140 HDR R-3 0 21 0.08 Vacant Private High Resource 016-252-140 HDR R-3 0 21 0.2 Vacant Private High Resource 016-252-150 HDR R-3 0 21 0.08 Vacant Private High Resource 016-252-160 HDR R-3 0 21 0.1 Vacant Private High Resource 016-252-170 HDR R-3 0 21 0.09 Vacant Private High Resource 15 610 Crespi
022-162-350 MUC C-30 50 0.39 Crespi Storage Private 0 55 0 55 High Resource 022-162-380 MUC C-30 50 0.98 Crespi Storage Private High Resource 33 1655 Oceana Blvd 016-220-150 MUC C-1 0 50 0.35 US Bank Private 0 0 14 14 High Resource 37 700 Oddstad Blvd 023-450-100 Open Space/
Ag/Res A/B-5
0 N/A for
Farmworker
Housing
8.12 St Peter Catholic Private 24 0 0 24 High Resource 1, 2, 3, 4 Existing Capacity Subtotal 24 76 22 122
a Used in 4th and 5th RHNA cycles.
Source: City of Pacifica.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1562 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) F-42 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 TABLE F-11: SITES THAT REQUIRE REZONING TO ADDRESS RHNA SHORTFALL (CORE RHNA) (TABLE B HCD SITES LIST) Site
No.
Site Address/
Intersection
Assessor
Parcel
Number
General Plan
Designation
Zoning
Designation Minimum Density Allowed (Units/Acre) Max Density Allowed (Units/Acre) Proposed Maximum Density Allowed (Units/Acre) Parcel Size (Gross Acres) Existing Use/Vacancy Publicly
Owned Lower-Income Capacity Moderate-Income Capacity Above Moderate- Income Capacity Total Capacity TCAC
Resource
Level
Lower
Income
Amenities Age of Structure <1993 or No Structure Single Story Structure or No Structure Lot Coverage <50% No Demo of Structure Required Site >1 Acre ILV <0.5 Partial Site for Residential Balance for Existing Use Residential
2 751 Oceana 009-245-030 HDR R-3 0 30 40 2.5 Vacant Private 6 6 69 81 High Resource 10 4275 Coast Hwy 018-140-050 MUN C-2 0 30 60 1.95 Building Materials, Equipment Storage Private 0 49 0 49 High Resource 1960’sX X X10% X1.0 X.01 1 Acre
11 Coast Hwy 018-140-460 MUN C-2 0 30 60 1.12 Vacant Private 69 0 0 69 High Resource 1, 2, 3, 4 Coast Hwy 018-140-470 MUN C-2 0 26 60 0.31 Vacant Private High Resource 16A 1055 Terra Nova Blvd 023-593-070 MUN C-1 0 26 50 0.41 Vacant/Neighborhood Shopping Park Mall Private 0 17 0 17 High Resource
16B 1035 Terra Nova Blvd 023-593-130 MUN C-1 0 30 50 2.97 Neighborhood Shopping Park Mall Private 4 3 37 44 High Resource 1970-76X X 27% 1.09X .25X 1.09 Acres
18 Linda Mar Blvd TBD MUN N/A 0 30 60 2.1 CalTrans Park and Ride
Public
(State) 53 0 0 53 High Resource 1, 2, 3, 4 1.1-Acre
19 533 Hickey Blvd 009-502-290 MDR R-1 0 15 30 1.65 Filipino 7th Day Adventist Private 0 15 0 15 High Resource NoneX X 7%X X X 6 Acres 38 Coast Hwy/
San Mario Eastside 018-140-660 MUN C-1 0 30 60 1.2 Vacant Private 61 0 0 61 High Resource 1, 2, 3, 4 Coast Hwy/
San Mario Eastside 018-140-300 MUN C-1 0 30 60 0.06 Vacant Private Non-Residential
Public
20 104 Avalon Dr 009-166-010 Retail C-2 0 0 60 0.13 Pacifica Public Works Corp Yard
Public
(City) 39 0 0 39 Moderate Resource 2, 3, 4
155 Milagra Dr 009-252-040 Retail C-2 0 0 60 0.16 PW Corp Yard Public (City)
Moderate
Resource
151 Milagra Dr 009-252-050 Retail C-2 0 0 60 0.52 PW Corp Yard Public (City)
Moderate
Resource
21 401 Paloma 009-293-070 Public R-1 0 0 40 51.31 Oceana High School Public (District) 14 12 152 178 High Resource NoneX X 8%X XX 5.5X No Info
5.5 Acres
22 1450 Terra Nova Blvd 022-310-300 Public and
Semi-Public R-1 0 0 40 43.33 Terra Nova High School
Public
(District) 10 9 110 129 High Resource NoneX X 8%X XX 4.0X No Info 4 Acres
24a 1111 Tera Nova 023-593-140 Public and
Semi-Public C-1 0 0 50 2.86 Sanchez Library Public(City) 65 0 0 65 High Resource 1, 2, 3, 4 25 Skyline Blvd N/A N/A N/A 0 0 40 5 Vacant – Caltrans
Skyline ROW
Public
(State) 165 0 0 165 High Resource 1, 2, 3, 4
Shopping Center
27A Palmetto Ave 009-134-130 Retail C-1 0 0 60 0.76 Pacific Manor Shopping – parking Private 3 3 31 37 Moderate Resource None X 8%X X .04X REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1563 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT F-43
a Used in 5th RHNA cycle.
Source: City of Pacifica.
TABLE F-11: SITES THAT REQUIRE REZONING TO ADDRESS RHNA SHORTFALL (CORE RHNA) (TABLE B HCD SITES LIST) Site
No.
Site Address/
Intersection
Assessor
Parcel
Number
General Plan
Designation
Zoning
Designation Minimum Density Allowed (Units/Acre) Max Density Allowed (Units/Acre) Proposed Maximum Density Allowed (Units/Acre) Parcel Size (Gross Acres) Existing Use/Vacancy Publicly
Owned Lower-Income Capacity Moderate-Income Capacity Above Moderate- Income Capacity Total Capacity TCAC
Resource
Level
Lower
Income
Amenities Age of Structure <1993 or No Structure Single Story Structure or No Structure Lot Coverage <50% No Demo of Structure Required Site >1 Acre ILV <0.5 Partial Site for Residential Balance for Existing Use lot
27B Palmetto Ave 009-134-150 Retail C-1 0 0 60 1.6
Pacific Manor
Shopping – parking
lot
Private 4 4 45 53 Moderate
Resource
None
NoneX X 8%X X 1.1X .13X 1.1 Acre
28 777 Hickey Blvd 009-440-080 Retail P-D 0 0 50 0.26 Fairmont Shopping Center, Bridgestone Private 3 3 35 41 High Resource 1970’sX X 28%X 1.0X .40X 1 Acre
Gateway Dr 009-440-120 Retail P-D 0 0 50 5.24
Fairmont Shopping
Center, Mall Misc.
Retail
Private High Resource
29 De Solo Dr 023-041-190 LDR C-1 0 9 50 0.19 Linda Mar Shopping Center Rear Parking Private 14 13 155 182 High Resource 1983X X 29%X 4.0X .5X 4 Acres De Solo Dr 203-041-200 LDR C-1 0 9 50 0.25 Linda Mar Shopping Center Rear Parking Private High Resource
500 Linda Mar 023-041-270 Retail C-1 0 0 50 11.6 Linda Mar Shopping Center Private High Resource
Other Commercial
30 520 San Pedro Ave 023-073-090 Retail C-2 0 0 30 0.96 Builders Exchange Com Private 0 23 0 23 High Resource 1960’sX
X 24%X X .33X
31 560 San Pedro Ave 023-073-100 Retail C-2 0 0 30 0.52 Ace Hardware/ Surface Parking Private 0 30 0 30 High Resource 1970X X 28%X 1.24X .4X 560 San Pedro Ave 023-073-110 Retail C-2 0 0 30 0.72 Ace Hardware Private High Resource 32 Oceana /Manor 009-164-200 Retail C-1 0 0 60 0.11 Retail – Insurance/ Taqueria Private 97 0 0 97 Moderate Resource 2, 3, 4 1960-70’sX X 29%X 2.0.X 2 Acres
555 Oceana Blvd 009-164-210 Retail C-2 0 0 60 2.59
Brentwood Shopping
Center, Parking and
Older Buildings
Private Moderate
Resource
549 Oceana Blvd 009-164-220 Retail C-2 0 0 60 0.4 Restaurant/Starbucks Private Moderate Resource
G Skyline Blvd 009-610-110 Utilities P-D 0 0 40 4.46 Vacant/Skyline Water Tank
Public
(State) 55 0 0 55 High Resource 1, 2, 4 1.7 Acre
Rezoning Subtotal 662 187 634 1,483
Lower Income Vacant Subtotal 356
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1564 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) F-44 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 TABLE F-12: SITES THAT REQUIRE REZONING TO PROVIDE RHNA SURPLUS (BUFFER) (TABLE B HCD SITES LIST) Site
No.
Site Address/
Intersection
Assessor
Parcel
Number
General Plan
Designation
Zoning
Designation Minimum Density Allowed (Units/Acre) Maximum Density Allowed (Units/Acre) Proposed Maximum Density Allowed (Units/Acre) Parcel Size (Gross Acres) Existing Use/Vacancy Publicly
Owned Lower-Income Capacity Moderate-Income Capacity Above Moderate- Income Capacity Total Capacity TCAC
Resource
Level
Lower
Income
Amenities Age of Structure <1993 or No Structure Single Story Structure or No Structure Lot Coverage <50% No Demo of Structure Required Site >1 Acre ILV <0.5 Partial Site for Residential Balance for Existing Use Residential
12 Hwy 1 between 4300-4400
Coast Hwy 018-140-700 MUN C-2 0 30 60 3.48 Vacant Private 169 0 0 169 High Resource 1, 2, 3, 4 F Oddstad Blvd 023-593-160 MUN C-1 0 30 40 2.33 Accessory Structure Private 0 16 0 16 High Resource 1920’s X
X 5%X X X .5X 0.5-Acre
I Coast Hwy 018-140-220 LDR R-1/B-3 0 9 60 1.51 Vacant Private 73 0 0 73 High Resource 1, 2, 3, 4 Non-Residential
Public
23 1220 Linda Mar Blvd 023-2810-130 Public and
Semi-Public + Park PF 0 0 40 8.84 Sanchez Art Center Public(City) 130 0 0 130 High Resource 1, 2, 4 4 Acres Other Commercial
A 730 Sharp Park Rd 017-470-100 Public and SemiPublic P-F 0 0 40 4.39 Latter Day Saints Private 0 52 0 52 High Resource None X
X 14%X X 1.6X 1.6 Acres
B 2480 Skyline 009-360-520 Retail C-1 0 0 30 0.46 Ramallah Plaza Private 0 0 11 11 High Resource 1988X X 42%X D 340 Waterford 009-058-040 Retail C-1 0 0 40 0.2 Vacant Private 0 0 6 6 Moderate Resource
E 340 Waterford 009-058-030 Retail C-1 0 0 40 0.33 Car Wash Private 0 0 11 11 Moderate Resource
1960’s
X
X 20%X .11X
H 801 Oceana Blvd 009-245-020 Office C-1 0 0 40 1.29 Flower Shop/Funeral Home Private 0 42 0 42 High Resource 1950’s X
X 13%X
1.29 X
.05X
J 4400 Coast Hwy 018-140-090 Retail/HDR C-1 0 0-30 60 2.77 Lutheran Church Private 49 0 0 49 High Resource 1, 2, 3, 4 None X
X 14%X X 1X 1 Acre
Rezoning Total 421 110 28 559
F-11 Lower Income Vacant Subtotal 356
F-12 Lower Income Vacant Subtotal 242
Lower Income Vacant Total 598
Source: City of Pacifica.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1565 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT F-45
This page intentionally left blank
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1566 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT G-1
Photo: Coastline along Pacific Manor neighborhood (2019) APPENDIX G: HOUSING
CONSTRAINTS
February 6, 2025
State housing element law requires local agencies to analyze actual and potential constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels. The following section discusses governmental, nongovernmental, and environmental constraints affecting housing in Pacifica.
This appendix is organized as follows:
Non-Governmental Constraints
Governmental Constraints
Environmental and Infrastructure Constraints
1. NONGOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Many nongovernmental factors can constrain the maintenance, improvement, and construction of housing for all income levels. Factors include costs of land and construction, access to financing, and community opposition.
Land Costs
The cost of land is a significant determinant of the feasibility of building housing and contributes to the affordability of housing. The Federal Housing Finance Agency authored a working paper titled The Price of REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1567 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) G-2 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 Residential Land for Counties, ZIP Codes, and Census Tracts in the United States1 which includes data from millions of appraisals for the years 2012 through 2019. Information was available for California, San Mateo County, and Zip Code 94044 (comprising most of incorporated Pacifica) as shown in Table G-1, below, and provides insights into how the cost of land has impacted local housing values.
TABLE G-1: STANDARDIZED LAND VALUE AND SHARE OF PROPERTY VALUE FOR ZIP CODE 94044 AND SAN MATEO COUNTY (2020) FROM THE
PRICE OF RESIDENTIAL LAND FOR COUNTIES, ZIP CODES, AND
CENSUS TRACTS IN THE UNITED STATES
Year
Land Value
(¼ -Acre Lot,
Standardized)a
Land Value
(Per Acre, As-Is)b
Property Value
(Standardized)
Property Value
(As-is)
Land Share of
Property Value
All Single-Family Parcels for Zip Code 94044
2012 $678,600 $2,796,600 $1,086,000 $840,400 67%
2013 $769,100 $3,103,000 $1,192,700 $919,100 70%
2014 $932,500 $3,666,800 $1,416,100 $1,081,900 72%
2015 $1,101,400 $4,428,800 $1,583,400 $1,214,800 76%
2016 $1,240,700 $4,998,300 $1,736,200 $1,328,600 78%
2017 $1,368,900 $5,455,500 $1,890,700 $1,441,300 79%
2018 $1,512,100 $5,982,700 $2,111,500 $1,599,000 79%
2019 $1,445,700 $5,773,700 $2,077,000 $1,574,700 77%
Percentage Increase 113% 106% 91% 87% 14%
All Single-Family Parcels for San Mateo County
2012 $627,000 $2,889,400 $1,020,500 $859,200 68%
2013 $709,500 $3,260,000 $1,134,000 $945,900 69%
2014 $844,000 $3,848,800 $1,320,900 $1,097,700 71%
2015 $982,100 $4,513,900 $1,479,700 $1,227,400 74%
2016 $1,108,200 $5,101,700 $1,614,500 $1,336,900 76%
2017 $1,191,900 $5,415,100 $1,740,800 $1,431,200 76%
2018 $1,345,800 $6,098,600 $1,951,300 $1,593,700 77%
2019 $1,373,300 $6,239,800 $1,974,400 $1,624,400 $78%
Percentage Increase 119% 116% 93% 89% 14%
a
Standardized estimates report the price of land per quarter-acre, roughly the median sized lot in our data, after adjusting for the fact that the price of land per acre tends to fall as acreage increases, the so-called “plattage effect.” b
As-is estimates report the value of land per-acre, without any adjustments or corrections.
Source: The Price of Residential Land for Counties, ZIP Codes, and Census Tracts in the United States, Morris A. Davis, William D. Larson, Stephen D.
Oliner, Jessica Shui, FHFA Staff Working Paper 19-01, October 2020 (revised), January 2019 (original). https://www.fhfa.gov/PolicyPrograms Research/Research/Pages/wp1901.aspx
1 Morris A. Davis, William D. Larson, Stephen D. Oliner, Jessica Shui, The Price of Residential Land for Counties, ZIP Codes, and Census Tracts in the United States. FHFA Staff Working Paper 19-01, October 2020 (Revised), January 2019 (Original). The Price of Residential Land for Counties, ZIP Codes, and Census Tracts in the United States (fhfa.gov).
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1568 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT G-3
Traditionally, land has comprised 20 to 30 percent of total residential project costs. However, as available land becomes scarcer, the share of land cost compared to total property value is approaching 80 percent in Pacifica.
This underscores the impact of land costs on the total cost of creating new housing. Overall, the value of existing residential properties in Pacifica almost doubled between 2012 and 2019, and land values have risen even faster by 113 percent. These figures were slightly higher for San Mateo County.
Century Urban LLC conducted their own research of land costs, analyzed residential development costs for San Mateo and Santa Clara Counites, and examined unit mixes for San Mateo County2 on behalf of 21 Elements (a collaborative of all 21 jurisdictions in San Mateo County providing support and resources for housing policy and programs). Due to the smaller sample size and the fact that the study was looking at new rather than existing construction, Century Urban concluded that the ratio of land to total development costs is approximately 40 percent. More importantly, they estimate that the cost for a new single-family dwelling is $2,487,000 for a smaller (2,600-square-foot) home and $4,430,000 for a larger (5,000-square-foot) home.
A similar analysis was conducted where multi-family land sales were analyzed, and representative 10-unit (small) and 100-unit (large) projects were modeled. Land sales data was reported as cost per unit. Only two data points were available for Pacifica, resulting in an average land cost of $117,800 per unit. There were 28 data points available for San Mateo County, and this resulted in a weighted land cost average of $96,000 per unit. For the purpose of the multi-family development models, a per unit land cost of $100,000 was used for both the small and large projects. The projected costs for a small multi-family development are the most applicable to Pacifica as many potential development sites are smaller and not able to accommodate larger multi-family developments.
The cost of developing a typical 850 square foot apartment was estimated to be $786,500.
Construction Costs
In 2014, the cost of developing a 2,000-square-foot single-family residence in Pacifica ranged from $180 to $220 per square foot, including the price of land. According to the analysis by Century Urban LLC those costs for San Mateo County have risen to $949 per square foot, including land costs. Multi-family construction costs were very similar to those for single-family construction in 2014, ranging between $150 to $200 per square foot.
The Century Urban LLC model determined that these costs are now $795 per square foot, including land costs.
The Terner Center for Housing Innovation at University of California Berkeley produced two reports in March 2020 related to the cost of housing. The first report, The Hard Costs of Construction: Recent Trends in Labor and Materials Costs for Apartment Buildings in California,3 looked closely at the materials and labor cost components of developing new housing. After analyzing 240 multi-family projects built in California between 2009 and 2018, they made the following findings.
Hard costs increased 25 percent on a per square foot basis during this time span. Costs for certain materials, specifically wood, plastics, and composites, rose by 110 percent since 2010 after controlling for inflation.
Prevailing wage requirements are associated with higher construction costs; however, they also provide public 2 San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Development Costs & San Mateo County Unit Mix Research, Century Urban LLC, April 2022. http://21elements.com/documents-mainmenu-3/housing-elements/rhna-6-2022-2030/1380-b-d-dvpt-cost-and-unit-mix-2022-4-7- draft-updated/file
3 Hayley Raetz, Teddy Forscher, Elizabeth Kneebone and Carolina Reid, 2020. The Hard Costs of Construction: Recent Trends in Labor and Materials Costs for Apartment Buildings in California, The Terner Center for Housing Innovation, University of California Berkeley, March, p. 3. http:/te-rnercenter.berkeley.edu/uploads/Hard_Construction_Costs_March_2020.pdf REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1569 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) G-4 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 benefits. Concrete and steel construction required for high-rise buildings is much more expensive than wood frame, meaning that these types of buildings are limited to markets where proven high rents make them financially feasible. Costs in the Los Angeles region were higher than the statewide average by $35 per square foot. However, the Bay Area was even higher than the statewide average by $81 per square foot.
The second report from the Terner Center, The Costs of Affordable Housing Production: Insights from California’s 9% Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program,4 researched the cost to develop new affordable housing specifically funded under the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. Costs per unit have risen 13 percent (after controlling for inflation) between 2016 and 2019, reaching $480,000 per unit. The per square foot costs have increased by 30 percent, with a cost of $700 per square foot in 2019. Affordable housing developments are subject to the same drivers of cost increases cited above; however, the complexity of financing, including additional requirements imposed by various sources, differing funding cycles, and the uncertainty of being awarded funding, adds additional burdens, delays, risk, and cost. Of the projects studied, 80 percent had four to eight sources of funding compared to market rate housing which usually consists of equity from an investment partner and debt in the form of a bank loan.
Financing
After ranging between 3.5 percent and 5 percent for the last decade, starting in November 2018 the weekly average interest rates for 30-year mortgages began trending steadily downward hitting an all-time low of
2.77 percent in August 2021. This decline was due to the Federal Reserve reducing Federal Funds rates in 2019 in response to concerns about the impact of trade conflicts between the United States and China.5 More significant cuts took place in March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 recession. However, from March 17, 2022 through February 2, 2023 the Federal Reserve reversed course and raised the Federal Funds rates eight times resulting in the rate increasing from 0.25 percent to 4.75 percent.
Incremental Federal Funds rate increases throughout 2022 were intended to address the overheated economy and high inflation. The influence of these increases on mortgage interest rates took effect very quickly while housing prices were continuing to escalate, albeit at a slower rate. The Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University analyzed the impact of mortgage interest rate hikes on housing affordability by comparing various factors including interest rates, home price, and the annual income required to qualify.6 The analysis compared year over year from April 2021 to April 2022 and found that the change in interest rates from
3.06 percent to 4.98 percent combined with an increase in U.S. median home price from $340,700 to $391,200 resulted in a minimum household income of $107,600 being required in order to qualify, an increase of $28,000.
In the San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA), these numbers are much higher.
In this area the median home price was $1,507,182 in April 2022 and the income needed to qualify was $414,439.
It should be noted that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Median Family 4 Carolina Reid, 2020. The Cost of Affordable Housing Production: Insights from California’s 9% Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program, The Terner Center for Housing Innovation, University of California Berkeley, March. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2020/08/LIHTC_Construction_Costs_2020.pdf 5 Taylor Tepper, Benjamin Curry, 2022. Federal Funds Rate History 1990 to 2022, Forbes Advisor, updated December 14. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/fed-funds-rate-history/ 6 Daniel McCue, Across the Nation, Rising Prices and Increased Interest Rates Limits Access to Ownership, Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, August 10, 2022. https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/across-nation-rising-prices-and-increased-interest-rateslimit-access-homeownership REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1570 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT G-5
Income (MFI) for Fiscal Year 2022 in the San Francisco Metro Area, which includes Pacifica and San Mateo County, was determined to be $166,000.7
Since April 2022, average mortgage interest rates have continued to climb from 4.98 percent to a high of
7.08 percent for the week ending October 27, 2022 (see Figure G-1).8 While average mortgage interest rates have reduced slightly to 6.12 percent for the week ending February 9, 2023, the future remains uncertain. The rate at which mortgage rates might decline depends on how quickly the rate of inflation moderates. However, there is agreement among the banking industry that rates are unlikely to reach the unprecedented lows of less than 3 percent for the foreseeable future.9
Figure G-1: Primary Mortgage Market Survey, U.S. Weekly Average Mortgage Rates from February 9, 2013 to February 9, 2023
Source: Freddie Mac, 2023. https://www.freddiemac.com/pmms Requests to Develop Less Than Allowed
The City is required to evaluate the actual development of sites listed in the previous Housing Element and determine if developers consistently request projects at densities lower than is allowed by the zoning designation. The following summary includes the required analysis.
Salada Avenue (Prior Site No. 15)
The site on Salada Avenue had a Medium Density Residential designation at time of Housing Element adoption that allowed up to three units on this 0.207-acre site. At time of Housing Element adoption, the site was owned by a single owner. However, subsequently, the four underlying lots were sold to three different owners and no contiguous ownership of the lots remained. The owner of one of the lots, Lot 37 (2.250 square feet) obtained City approval of a rezoning to High Density Residential and approval of one unit (the remaining three lots still 7 HUD User, FY 2022 Median Family Income Documentation System, accessed January 8, 2023. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/ il/il2022/2022MedCalc.odn?inputname=METRO41860MM7360*San+Francisco%2C+CA+HUD+Metro+FMR+Area&selection_ type=hmfa&year=2022&wherefrom=mfi&incpath=%24incpath%24 8 Freddie Mac, Primary Mortgage Market Survey, U.S. Weekly Average Mortgage Rates as of January 5, 2023. https://www.freddiemac.com/ pmms, accessed January 7, 2023.
9 Robin Rothstein, Mortgage Rate Predictions for 2023, Forbes Advisor, updated January 6, 2023. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/ mortgages/mortgage-interest-rates-forecast/
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1571 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) G-6 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 have a Medium Density Residential designation). If the remainder of the site were to also be rezoned to High Density Residential, a total of four dwelling units could be constructed on the site, an increase from the three units assumed in the prior Housing Element.
Clarendon Road (Prior Site No. 22)
The site on Clarendon Road has a Low-Density Residential designation that allows up to 12 units on the
1.35-acre site. Subsequent to Housing Element adoption, the property owner applied for a subdivision of the single parcel. The City’s subdivision standards resulted in three lots due to the steep slope of the site. The project was approved with three single-family residences. 1335 Adobe (Prior Site No. 26)
The site at 1335 Adobe has a High-Density Residential designation that allows up to nine units on this small,
0.42-acre site. The project was approved with seven units.
Table F-5 in Appendix F shows that over the last five years, the approved density of multi-family projects has averaged 81 percent of the capacity allowed by the zoning designation. This is primarily due to the fact that the majority of sites are less than 0.5-acre which restricts the ability to maximize the allowable density.
2. GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Several actual and potential constraints upon housing maintenance, improvement, and development exist in Pacifica as a result of City regulations and procedures. They include:
Land Use Controls
Building Codes and Enforcement
Planning and Development Fees
Processing and Permitting Procedures
California Coastal ActLand Use Controls
The City of Pacifica mostly relies on two sources of authority to regulate all development, including housing – the General Plan and Zoning Regulations. The Land Use Element of the General Plan provides overarching guidelines for land categories and includes a map of assigned land uses. The Local Coastal Land Use Plan is a companion to the General Plan and contains additional provisions for land uses in the Coastal Zone. The Zoning Regulations (available on the city’s website in accordance with Gov. Code 65940.1 subd. (a)(1)(A)) also includes a map and contains detailed standards for development, regulating specific uses and imposing physical development standards. These development standards can impact the type and intensity of development, which can directly translate into the cost to maintain, improve, and develop housing units. In the event of any conflict, the provisions of the General Plan control.
General Plan
On July 11, 2022, the Pacifica City Council approved Resolution 45-2022, certifying an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and adopting findings of fact, and statement of overriding consideration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and adopting the City of Pacifica General Plan 2040. This action REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1572 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT G-7
was the culmination of a process which began in 2009 and included the simultaneous update of the Local Coastal Land Use Plan and Sharp Park Specific plan. The previous General Plan was approved in 1980.
While there had been a draft General Plan Update ready for adoption in 2015, the Council determined that additional community engagement was needed. Other community priorities postponed the effort until 2019 when staff convened a General Plan Outreach Committee, conducted multiple stakeholder interviews, and held community forums attended by 225 community members.
Land Use Designations determine the development capacity, allowed uses, and design expectations. A summary of the Pacifica Land Use Designations is found in Table G-2, below. The Land Use Diagram, Figure 4-3, from the City of Pacifica General Plan 2040 indicates where these designations are applied to land within the Planning Area.
TABLE G-2: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
Land Use Designation Development Capacity General Uses
Transitional Open Space/
Residential TOSR 0.1 du/gross acre
Residential and recreation uses. Existing legal lots less than 10 acres are allowed to develop one dwelling unit
consistent with all other applicable zoning and development standard.
Open Space/Agriculture/
Residential OSAR 0.2 du/gross acre
Residential, agriculture, and recreation uses. Farm worker housing may be permitted on sites zoned for agriculture uses and shall not be included in density calculations for a site.
Very Low Density
Residential VLDR 0.2 to 2 du/gross acre Residential, residential care facilities, schools and community uses.
Low Density Residential LDR 3 to 9 du/gross acre
Residential, residential care facilities, schools and
community uses. Cluster or small-lot development and
standard subdivisions are allowed.
Medium Density
Residential MDR 10 to 15 du/gross acre
Mix of housing types, including small-lot and attached
single-family, apartments, duplexes, townhomes, and mobile home parks. Residential care facilities, schools, and
community uses.
High Density Residential HDR 16 to 21 du/gross acre
Multi-family apartments, stacked flats and townhomes. Sites of 5,000 sf or more are allowed 16 to 21 du/gross acre.
Sites of 0.5 acre or more may develop up to 30 du/gross acre. Residential care facilities, schools, and community uses.
Coastal Residential Mixed
Use CRMU
Up to15 du/gross acre 0.5
FAR non-residential
1.0 FAR Total
Vertical or horizontal residential mixed use within Coastal Zone, including residential and retail, and small-scale visitor-oriented commercial uses such as retail, vacation rentals or time-share units. Hotels prohibited. Coastal access and public open space required.
Mixed Use Neighborhood MUN
<5,000 sf: 10 to 15 du/gross
acre, 0.5 FAR nonresidential, 1.0 FAR Total
≥5,000sf: up to 30 du/gross
acre, 1.0 FAR nonresidential, 2.0 FAR Total
Vertical or horizontal residential mixed use, including multifamily with ground-floor retail, restaurant, personal service, office or housing. Public or community uses and hotels
allowed. Sites 0.5 acre or more may develop up to 30
du/gross acre.
Mixed Use Center MUC
< 5,000sf: 16 to 26 du/gross
acre, 0.5 FAR nonresidential, 1.0 FAR Total
≥5,000sf: 30 to 50 du/gross
High density mixed use, including public or community uses and hotels. Ground floor retail, restaurants, personal
service, office or housing.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1573 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) G-8 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 TABLE G-2: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
Land Use Designation Development Capacity General Uses
acre, 2.5 FAR non-residential
2.5 FAR Total
Retail Commercial RC 1.0 FAR Retail, restaurant and service uses. Office allowed on second floor.
Office/Commercial OC 1.5 FAR Office with retail and service uses.
Service Commercial SC 0.6 FAR Industrial and heavy commercial uses, such as auto repair, equipment rental, storage, materials salvage.
Visitor Serving
Commercial VC 3.0 FAR
Hotels, visitor attractions, interpretative or conference centers, restaurants, retail, services, commercial
recreation. Sites 2 acres or greater must include hotel, lower-cost overnight accommodation or visitor attraction.
Low Intensity Visitor
Serving Commercial LIVC 0.2 FAR
Uses that create public access to the coastal setting, and adapt to changing environmental conditions, such as
campgrounds, rustic lodging, concession stands, warming huts, outdoor event sites.
Public and Semi-Public PSP 1.0 FAR Public or private schools, libraries, police and fire stations, other civic and community uses.
Beach and Commuter
Parking BCP --- Public parking serving beach visitors and/or transit riders.
Utilities U 1.0 FAR Water tanks, communication facilities (including cellular), and other utilities serving the city.
Park P --- Public land for active recreation.
Conservation C ---
Publicly- or privately-owned open areas not intended for development.
Urban Reserve UR 0.1 du/gross acre
Lands outside the city limits, but within the Planning Area.
Agriculture and residential development on minimum
10-acre sites. Lots less than 10 acres may develop one
dwelling unit.
Source: City of Pacifica 2040 General Plan 2040.
Zoning Development Standards
The city’s main residential zoning districts are the R-1 (Single-Family Residential), R-1-H (Single-Family Hillside), R-2 (Two-Family Residential), R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential), R-3/L.D. (Multiple-Family Density Residential), R-3-G (Multiple-Family Residential Garden) and R-5 (High Rise Apartment) districts. The city’s zoning regulations also permit residential development in the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning districts as part of mixed-use commercial-residential projects. The Planned Development (P-D) district is also prevalent throughout Pacifica and allows for more flexibility in site design, including the relationship between buildings and open space. Uses are approved as part of a development plan, and the development standards are determined by the zoning district(s) most similar in nature to the proposed uses.
Table G-3 summarizes Pacifica’s residential development standards. The table includes standards for minimum lot size, minimum site area per unit, minimum setbacks, maximum height, maximum lot coverage, minimum landscaping, minimum open space, and minimum parking. The allowable densities for residential development are determined by the applicable Land Use Designation as set forth in the General Plan. The standards apply REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1574 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT G-9
to each of the city’s residential zoning districts; different standards apply to mixed-use developments within commercial zones.
TABLE G-3: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT Standard
Zoning Districta
R-1 R-1-H R-2 R-3 R-3/L.D. R-3-G R-5
Lot Area (min.) 5,000 sf 5,000 sf 5,000 sf 5,000 sf 7,500 sf 7,500 sf 5,000 sf Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit (min.)b 5,000 sf 5,000 sf 2,900 sf 2,075 sf 4,840 sf 2,300 sf 2,075 sf Lot Width (min.) 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft 60 ft 50 ft Front Setback (min.) 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft Front Setback to Garage (min.) 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft Side Setback – Interior (min.) 5 ft 5 ft 5 ft 5 ft 5 ft 5 ft 5 ft Side Setback – Exterior (min.) 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft Rear Setback (min.) 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft Maximum Lot Coverage 40% 40% 50% 60% 50% 50% 60%
Landscaped Area (min.) 20% 20% 20% 20% 25% 25% 20%
Usable Open Space Per Unit (min.) N/A N/A N/A 400 sf 450 sf 450 sf 400 sf Height (max.) 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft Parking Spaces (min.) 2 garage
spaces
2 garage
spaces
2 garage
spaces
1/studio
1.5/1 BR
2/2+ BR
1 guest/
4 units
Same
as R-3
Same
as R-3
Same
as R-3
a Regulations for area, coverage, density, yards, parking, height and open space for P-D District shall be guided by the regulations of the most similar zoning district(s).
b
Densities are controlled by the applicable Land Use Designation as shown on Figure 4-3, Land Use Diagram, in the Pacifica General Plan 2040.
Source: Title 9, Chapter 4, Pacifica Municipal Code.
Listed below are various types of residential uses allowed in the city and a description of the zoning districts in which they are permitted. The lower the density of development, the higher the per-unit cost of housing.
Single-Family Residential – The Zoning Regulations allows single-family residential development by-right in the R-1 and R-2 districts and subject to a conditional use permit in the R-3 and R-3-G districts.
The R-1 district includes most of the city’s established neighborhoods. It allows detached single-family residential development on lots of 5,000 square feet or greater. It is also possible to develop housing on lots of less than 5,000 square feet, subject to more restrictive regulations. The purpose of the R-1 district is to retain the low-density character of these areas and its development standards are structured accordingly.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1575 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) G-10 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 The R-2 district encourages the development of slightly denser, attached single-family housing that blends easily with single-family neighborhoods. The minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet and the minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 2,900 square feet. It permits single-family detached housing on lots of 5,800 square feet or less.
In both the R-1 and R-2 districts, a Coastal Development Permit is necessary if a development is within the Coastal Zone (CZ) Combining District.
Multiple-Family Residential – The Zoning Code allows multiple-family residential development in the R-3, R-3/L.D., R-3-G, and R-5 districts subject to a Site Development Permit and in the C-1 and C-2 districts subject to a Conditional Use Permit. A Coastal Development Permit is necessary if a development is within the CZ.
Pacifica’s multi-family residential districts vary only slightly. In each one, duplexes and multi-family dwellings are permitted, while single-family detached houses are permitted with approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Multi-family residential zoning covers a significant area between the coastal bluff and Coast Highway at the north end of the city, sections of West Sharp Park, and other pockets of the city such as the Fairmont neighborhood near Hickey Boulevard and Gateway Drive.
Most of the recent large developments in Pacifica have been within the Planned Development (P-D) zoning district which is available to development sites of at least five contiguous acres (projects within the HPD (Hillside Preservation District) overlay zoning district are exempt from the 5-acre area requirement). The purpose of the P-D district is to allow diversification of the relationships of various buildings, structures, and open spaces in planned building groups, while ensuring substantial compliance with the district regulations and other provisions. The P-D section of the Zoning Code states that development standards shall be guided by the regulations of the zoning district most similar in nature to the proposed use. The benefit of this district is that the flexibility can allow more creative design and, in some cases, has resulted in new parks and open space.
Parking Standards
Parking can account for a substantial share of residential development expenses. Surface parking, the least expensive parking option, can occupy substantial portions of a development site, rendering the underlying areas unsuitable for other development. Covered parking, especially garage parking, is more expensive to construct and to incorporate into the architecture of the associated structure. Parking structures, the most expensive parking option, can allow development above or below the parking area, but require substantial engineering and construction resources.
The Zoning Regulations set different parking requirements depending on the type of housing development.
Single- and two-family structures have a parking requirement of two garage spaces per unit. Attached or detached garages satisfy this requirement. Multi-family structures, including apartments, townhouses, and condominiums, have parking standards that vary by the size of the units. Standards range from one parking space per studio unit to two spaces for units with two or more bedrooms. Every four units require a guest parking space. At least one of the required spaces for each unit must be in a garage or carport. A carport is less expensive to construct than a garage space, which can make a housing unit more affordable.
The Zoning Regulations do not allow tandem parking to satisfy parking requirements except for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and mobile home parks, which can further add to development costs on smaller lots or those with unique design challenges. The Zoning Regulations do, however, reduce parking requirements for REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1576 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT G-11
housing especially designed for occupancy by persons of 62 years of age or more (one space for every two units, and one guest parking space for each five units). This reduction can reduce the cost of senior housing development. Less restrictive parking requirements also exist for mobile home parks, lodging and boarding houses, and projects with affordable units which help to reduce the housing unit development costs.
Clustered Housing Standards
The Zoning Regulations’ Residential Clustered Housing Development Standards apply to condominiums, community apartments, stock cooperatives, zero lot line projects, and similar developments. Clustered housing standards impose additional requirements on such developments to ensure high-quality site design and resident amenities. Additional requirements imposed on clustered housing, but which do not automatically apply to multi-family rental housing, include minimum amounts of usable open space, private open space, building separation, laundry facilities private storage, and individual utility metering. Furthermore, every clustered housing development must undergo a discretionary review process for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit, unless the site is within the P-D zoning district (which has its own process for discretionary review). The elevated level of design and lengthy processing required by the clustered housing standards result in greater development costs per housing unit.
Typical Densities for Development
Appendix F – Sites Inventory, includes a detailed description of actual approved densities for recent residential projects in the City of Pacifica (Table F-4). Overall, these projects have not developed at maximum density allowed but on average, develop at 81 percent of maximum density. This was incorporated into the assumptions and methodology used to calculate future potential development in the site inventory, which estimates development capacity at 81 percent of actual allowed density under the new zoning program. Market feasibility, especially for higher density sites in the inventory have not been tested in the City of Pacifica.
Park Dedication Fees
On April 25, 2022, the Pacifica City Council approved Resolution 19-2022 setting updated charges for the Park Facilities Impact Fee and the Quimby Act Parkland dedication requirements and in lieu fees imposed on new development. The new fees were codified by Ordinance 878-C.S. adopted on May 9, 2022. These fees had not been updated since 2012, and the increase in the cost of land as well as the cost of providing public facilities to serve new development have increased significantly. To illustrate, the combined park land and improvement fee for a two-bedroom dwelling went from the 2012 rate of $5,181 to a 2021 rate of $36,842. The City Council did approve a reduction in fees for affordable housing with moderate-income units being subject to 75 percent of the maximum fee, low-income units subject to 25 percent of the maximum fee, and very low-income units being completely exempt from the fee.
Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance
The City Council enacted the city’s Below Market Rate (Inclusionary) Program (i.e., Inclusionary Ordinance), codified in Pacifica Municipal Code Title 9, Article 47, with Ordinance No. 746-C.S. in May 2007. It establishes requirements for housing developers to provide housing units affordable to a range of income levels under certain circumstances. The Inclusionary Ordinance applies to all residential developments of eight or more units, lots, or parcels, including those in which eight or more units will be added to existing projects. Projects subject to the requirement must ensure at least 15 percent of all units, lots, or parcels are affordable to households with very low, lower, or moderate incomes.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1577 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) G-12 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 The Inclusionary Ordinance establishes affordability as follows:
The first required below-market rate (BMR) unit and at least 50 percent of the required BMR units shall be restricted to occupancy by lower-income households and the remaining required BMR units shall be restricted to occupancy by moderate-income households. The developer has the right but is not required to increase the percentage of lower-income household BMR units.
The City approves sales prices and rental rates to ensure their affordability to low-, lower-, or moderate-income individuals and families. The Inclusionary Ordinance also establishes minimum periods of affordability of 45 years for ownership units and 55 years for rental units, in addition to other use restrictions.
The Inclusionary Ordinance requires on-site construction of all required units. However, PMC sec. 9-4.4706 provides for alternatives to on-site construction when the purposes of the Inclusionary Ordinance would be better served by implementation of the proposed alternative and the proposed alternative would meet the greatest community needs at that time. Alternatives allowed by the Inclusionary Ordinance include off-site construction, land dedication in-lieu of construction, payment of a fee in-lieu of construction, or a combination of these alternatives.
The City of Pacifica has reasonably administered the Inclusionary Ordinance to facilitate housing development for all income levels. One important example includes the Harmony at One subdivision approved in November 2007. The project included 14 residential units, and was required under the Inclusionary Ordinance to provide two units to be constructed on-site. Approximately six years later, prior to construction of any subdivision improvements or housing units in the project, the developer approached the City to request after-the-fact approval of fee payment in-lieu of on-site construction. Based on the developer’s request and analysis of the justification provided, the City in 2013 approved the in-lieu fee payment. This demonstrates the City’s practice of facilitating the development of housing for all income levels while also ensuring the requirements of the Inclusionary Ordinance are met.
In addition to flexible alternatives, the Inclusionary Ordinance also provides that any project subject to its provisions automatically qualifies for the density bonus and additional incentive under Article 41 of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the PMC. Therefore, in combination with the allowance of alternatives to on-site construction, the automatic eligibility for a density bonus and additional incentive provide flexibility to allow a developer to tailor a project to meet its financial objectives while also satisfying the Inclusionary Ordinance’s requirements.
Therefore, there is no evidence that the City of Pacifica’s Inclusionary Ordinance is a constraint on the development of housing for all income levels. Instead, the Inclusionary Ordinance is inherently flexible to meet developer and community needs, and provides additional incentives including automatic density bonus eligibility to ensure the feasibility of housing projects for all income levels. In addition, the Inclusionary Ordinance’s 15 percent dedication requirement is below the threshold for ordinance review by HCD provided in Assembly Bill (AB) 1505 (Government Code Section 65850.01).
Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types
Housing Element law specifies that jurisdictions must identify adequate sites to be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards to encourage the development of various types of housing for all economic segments of the population, including single-family housing, multi-family housing, manufactured housing, mobile homes, emergency shelters, and transitional housing, among others. Table G-4 summarizes the permitted housing types by zone.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1578 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT G-13
TABLE G-4: HOUSING TYPES PERMITTED BY ZONE
Land Use R-1 R-1-H R-2 R-3
R-3/
L.D. R-3-G R-5 A
Accessory Dwelling Units P* P* P* P* P* P* P* NP
Single-Family P P P* C C C C P*/C
Multi-Familya NP NP P P P P P NP
Transitional and Supportive Housinga -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Employee Housing (6 or fewer persons)a -- -- -- -- -- -- -- C Special Care Facilities (6 or fewer persons) P P P P P P P NP Special Care Facilities (7 or more persons) C C C C C C C NP Emergency Sheltersa -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Low-Barrier Navigation Centersa -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Child Daycare Home (12 or fewer) P P P P P P P NP
Child Daycare Home (more than 12) NP NP C C C C C NP
Single-room Occupancy Units NP NP NP C NP C C NP
KEY: P=Permitted, P*=Permitted with Specific Standards, C=Conditional Use, NP=Not Permitted a See Program HE-I-14.
Source: Title 9, Chapter 4, Pacifica Municipal Code.
Manufactured and Factory-Built Housing
Gov. Code Section 65852.3 requires that cities allow installation of certified manufactured homes on foundation systems on lots zoned for conventional single-family residences, and Gov. Code Section 65852.4 generally requires that manufactured homes be subject to the same land use regulations as conventional homes. In addition, Gov. Code Section 65852.7 deems mobile home parks a permitted use on all land planned and zoned for residential use; but does allow local jurisdictions to require a use permit.
The City enacted its Manufactured Housing Ordinance in January 1982. A manufactured house is a structure comprising two or more modules, including mobile homes, which are manufactured off-site and later assembled or installed on a property. Manufactured housing, by virtue of being mass-produced, can be significantly less expensive to develop and to purchase than traditional single-family structures. The design of manufactured housing has improved greatly in recent years and is a viable option for many lower-income residents. The City’s main requirement for manufactured housing is that it meets all CBC requirements so that the housing is safe.
The City’s development standards allow construction of manufactured housing in any zoning district that permits single-family dwellings. The R-1 (Single-Family Residential) zoning district, and the R-2 (Two-Family Residential) on parcels less than 5,800 square feet in area, single-family dwellings are permitted by-right, and a property owner or developer may construct manufactured housing without undergoing discretionary review.
In the R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) zoning district, single-family dwellings—including manufactured housing—require a Conditional Use Permit.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1579 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) G-14 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 Accessory Dwelling Units
Pacifica has adopted zoning regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior ADUs in compliance with Gov. Code Sections 65852.2 and 65842.22. ADUs are permitted, subject to development standards, on any site zoned for residential use as a permitted use, or any site zoned for commercial use which allows residential use as a permitted use or for which a permit has been issued to authorize a residential use. ADUs are accessory to a primary dwelling unit and may not be granted a certificate of occupancy before the primary dwelling unit. While either the primary dwelling unit or ADU may be rented, the minimum rental term for an ADU is 30 consecutive days. Detached ADUs are limited to a maximum floor area of 1,200 square feet, and generally may not exceed 25 feet in height or the height of the primary dwelling unit, whichever is less. An attached studio or one-bedroom ADU is limited to a maximum floor area of 850 square feet or not more than 50 percent of the floor area of the primary dwelling unit. For a two-bedroom ADU, the maximum floor area is 1,000 square feet or not more than 50 percent of the primary dwelling unit. Junior ADUs are contained entirely within the primary dwelling unit, and while they can function independently or the primary dwelling unit by providing provisions for sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation, they are allowed to share sanitation facilities with the primary dwelling unit.
Transitional and Supportive Housing
Gov. Code Section 65651 requires that Transitional and Supportive Housing be a use by right in zones where multi-family and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multi-family uses, if the proposed housing development satisfies certain requirements, including:
(1) Units within the development are subject to a recorded affordability restriction for 55 years. (2) One hundred percent of the units, excluding managers’ units, within the development are restricted to lower-income households and are or will be receiving public funding to ensure affordability of the housing to lower-income Californians. For purposes of this paragraph, “lower-income households” has the same meaning as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. The rents in the development shall be set at an amount consistent with the rent limits stipulated by the public program providing financing for the development.
(3) At least 25 percent of the units in the development or 12 units, whichever is greater, are restricted to residents in supportive housing who meet criteria of the target population. If the development consists of fewer than 12 units, then 100 percent of the units, excluding managers’ units, in the development shall be restricted to residents in supportive housing. (4) The developer provides the planning agency with the information required by Section 65652. (5) Nonresidential floor area shall be used for on-site supportive services in the following amounts:
(A) For a development with 20 or fewer total units, at least 90 square feet shall be provided for on-site supportive services.
(B) For a development with more than 20 units, at least 3 percent of the total nonresidential floor area shall be provided for on-site supportive services that are limited to tenant use, including, but not limited to, community rooms, case management offices, computer rooms, and community kitchens.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1580 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT G-15
(6) The developer replaces any dwelling units on the site of the supportive housing development in the manner provided in paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65915. (7) Units within the development, excluding managers’ units, include at least one bathroom and a kitchen or other cooking facilities, including, at minimum, a stovetop, a sink, and a refrigerator.
The Pacifica Zoning Regulations do not currently address Transitional or Supportive Housing uses. Program HE-I-14 “State and Federal Law Conformance” will amend the Zoning Regulations in compliance with Gov.
Code Section 65651 and the City will apply the Code directly in the interim.
Employee and Farmworker Housing
Currently, the Pacifica Zoning Regulations only allow employee housing in the Agricultural District subject to obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. Program HE-I-14 will amend the Zoning Regulations in compliance with Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6. However, Section 9-5.07 of the Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) requires that any amendments to the Agricultural District be approved by a vote of the people, in addition to the procedure set forth in PMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 35, before they become effective. In the interim, the City of Pacifica will apply Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6 directly to allow ministerial (“by right”) approval of employee housing for six or fewer employees in the same manner as singlefamily dwellings in the same zone; and will treat employee housing with more than 36 beds or 12 units/spaces as an agricultural use.
Under Program HE-I-14 the City will also review existing zoning code definition for “Boardinghouse” or “Rooming House” which currently requires a conditional use permit and is defined as a dwelling other than a hotel where lodging and meals for five or more persons are provided for compensation. The City will amend zoning code if necessary to encourage the production of housing for extremely low-income households, including farmworkers.
Special Care Facilities
Health and Safety Code Sections 1267.8, 1566.3, and 1568.08 require local governments to treat licensed group homes and residential care facilities with six or fewer residents no differently than other by-right single-family housing uses. Pacifica’s Zoning Regulations define “Special Care Facility" to mean a State-authorized certified or licensed family care home, foster home, or group home serving mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped persons, dependent and neglected children, or elderly persons on a 24-hour-per-day basis. “Special Care Facility” shall also include 24-hour shelters for victims of family violence, homeless persons, or other need categories.
Special Care Facilities serving six or fewer persons are permitted in all zoning districts that permit single-family dwellings and are not subject to any additional standards. For those facilities serving more than six persons, a use permit is required, in addition to meeting the following criteria:
Separation of 500 radial feet from the perimeter of the property to any other Special Care Facility. If other facilities are located within 500 radial feet, the Planning Commission may determine facility overconcentration if impacts in the area are considered significant. Compliance with Federal, State and local law.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1581 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) G-16 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 Submission of written notice to the City Manager within seven days of any suspension or revocation of State license.
Inclusion of common dining and living areas.
Provision of a minimum of 100 square feet or usable open space per resident. Indoor common living areas and amenities may comprise up to 75 percent of the required open space area. Provision of outdoor areas designed to provide amenities and recreational areas compatible with the needs of the residents.
Emergency Shelters
An emergency shelter is defined by the California Health and Safety Code (Section 50801[e]) as “housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.” Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A) requires the identification of one or more zoning designations that allow residential uses, including mixed uses, where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit and that are suitable for residential uses. The City has already begun to implement Program H-I-14 to amend the Zoning Regulations to come into compliance with Gov.
Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A) through (J).
The City Council is scheduled to adopt an Emergency Shelter Ordinance on December 11, 2023. The ordinance designated the C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district as the zoning designation to permit emergency shelters by right to satisfy the requirements of State law. The C-2 zoning district allows residential uses subject to approval of a conditional use permit and allows various visitor-serving and commercial uses such as retail stores, offices, personal and business service establishments, and restaurant uses that serve the community. The C-2 zoning district is the most suitable zone to accommodate emergency shelters as the district is located within proximity of transit, amenities and services that could contribute to individuals utilizing an emergency shelter facility.
The proposed amendments would enact a new Article 53 to Chapter 4 (Zoning) of Title 9 (Planning and Zoning) of the PMC concerning emergency shelters in order to comply with requirements of State law under California Government Code section 65583.
Emergency shelters would provide housing with minimal supportive services that is limited to occupancy of up to six months by persons who are homeless, victims of domestic violence, individuals and households made temporarily homeless due to natural disasters or other persons requiring temporary housing. The text amendment defines emergency shelters to be consistent with subdivision (e) of Section 50801 of the California Health and Safety Code and per AB 2339 expands the definition to include other interim interventions, such as a navigation center, bridge housing, and respite or recuperative care.
The text amendment requires emergency shelters to be consistent with the development regulations of the C-2 Zoning District and design standards of existing parking areas consistent with PMC Section 9-4.2817. Any modifications to the development regulations shall be permitted subject to approval of a use permit to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Additionally, the amendment would include updating Section 9-4.2818 of Article 28 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) to designate parking for employees or REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1582 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT G-17
volunteers on duty when the shelter is open to individuals utilizing the emergency shelter. One parking space per employee or volunteer would be required for each emergency shelter facility.
The San Mateo County 2022 Point In Time Homeless Count indicated that approximately 161 individuals were experiencing unsheltered homelessness in the City of Pacifica. Based on this data, the City should demonstrate that there is enough land (adequate sites) to accommodate the need for emergency shelters by multiplying 161 people experiencing homelessness by 200 square feet. This would result in approximately 0.74 acres of land area that would be needed to accommodate potential emergency shelters. Staff has identified a combination of vacant and nonvacant sites in the C-2 zoning district that would comply with this land area. Additionally, an action included in Program HE-I-10 “Strengthen Services for People At-Risk of Experiencing Homelessness” to evaluate the capacity for one year-round shelter to ensure the C-2 district can meet the need.
The C-2 zoning district includes approximately 45 acres on 15 parcels, ranging in size from 0.11 acres to 30.32 acres (Attachment C). These sites are developed, many with community commercial uses identified as permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the C-2 zoning district. There is property along Oceana Blvd with a vacant tenant space. There are also multiple developed properties that contain office and commercial uses that have an improvement to land value (ILV) ratio of less than 0.5. ILV was identified as one indicator to be used to determine redevelopment potential. The ILV consists of the value of any improvements on a parcel divided by the value of the land within the parcel boundaries. The ILV ratio indicates which parcels are underutilized from a development perspective, with a lower ILV ratio indicating greater potential for redevelopment because the value of existing improvements (i.e., buildings) is less than the value of the underlying land. Therefore, based on the analysis performed, nonvacant sites identified in the C-2 zoning district are suitable sites for potential development or conversion to accommodate an emergency shelter facility.
The C-2 zoning district has three vacant parcels ranging in size from 0.13 acres to 1.56 acres. Of the three, staff has identified one vacant parcel (APN 018-140-040) in the C-2 zoning district that can accommodate an emergency shelter as this parcel is vacant, habitable, and in proximity to public transit, amenities, and services.
The parcel is a total of 1.56 acres and can provide capacity for up to 20 beds or persons, by assuming the permitted number of beds or persons to be housed per the proposed development standards for an emergency shelter. Additionally, using the assumption of 200 square feet per person, the City has at least 32,200 square feet (0.74 acres) available for an emergency shelter facility at this single vacant parcel. Therefore, the city has enough capacity in this zone to accommodate emergency shelter facilities either on vacant or nonvacant sites.
Low Barrier Navigation Centers
Gov. Code Section 65660 defines “Low Barrier Navigation Center” as a Housing First, low-barrier, service enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. “Low Barrier” means best practice to reduce barriers to entry. A Low Barrier Navigation Center is a use by right in areas zoned for mixed use and non-residential zones permitting multi-family uses, provided the development complies with the requirements set forth in Gov. Code Section 65662.
At this time, the Pacifica Zoning Regulations do not address Low Barrier Navigation Centers. Program HEI-14 will amend the Zoning Regulations in conformance with Gov. Code Sections 65660 through 65666 and apply these provisions directly during the interim.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1583 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) G-18 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 Single-Room Occupancy Units
Currently, Single-Room-Occupancy (SRO) is not specifically identified as a separate allowed use in the Pacifica Municipal Code. A single-room occupancy unit falls within the definition of “boardinghouse” as defined in the Pacifica Zoning Regulations. “Boardinghouse” is defined as a dwelling other than a hotel where lodging and meals for five or more persons are provided for compensation and is permitted as a conditional use in the R-3, R-3-G, and R-5 zoning districts.
While the City has not denied any applications for SRO units in the last planning element cycle, it has included an action under Program HE-I-14 to consider an amendment to the zoning and building codes to facilitate and encourage new SRO construction. This would include adding a definition and use of single-room occupancy and the identification zoning districts where SROs will be permitted consistent with state law. A morestreamlined entitlement process helps in providing greater predictability in the approval and development of new SROs.
Housing for Persons with Disabilities
This section analyzes governmental constraints on the development, improvement, and maintenance of housing for persons with disabilities. Gov. Code Section 65583 requires housing elements address and where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for persons with disabilities.
The City maintains conformance with the latest State disability access requirements, through the regular adoption of the California Building Standards Code every three years. Compliance for individual projects is confirmed by the City through the Building Permit review process, when plan checkers verify development meets applicable disability access requirements.
In August 2019 the city amended Chapter 4 (Zoning) of Title 9 (Planning and Zoning) of the PMC to add a new Article 51 (Reasonable Accommodation) to establish a procedure for requesting reasonable accommodation in the City’s land use and zoning regulations for persons with disabilities as protected by Fair Housing Laws. The new regulations were prepared based in part on the California Department of Housing and Community Department’s “model ordinance” and reasonable accommodation ordinances adopted in other California jurisdictions. Staff then tailored the proposed ordinance to meet Pacifica’s particular needs. The amendments provide a process to address regulatory barriers that would otherwise prevent an individual with a disability from accessing equal housing opportunities. A reasonable accommodation would allow for modifications that would provide a suitable housing environment for disabled residents.
The City’s ordinance includes the following general provisions:
A request for reasonable accommodation from land use or zoning regulations, policies, procedures, or practices may be filed at any time that the accommodation is necessary to ensure equal access to housing.
Examples include, but are not limited to, reduced setbacks for accessibility improvements; reduced minimum landscaping coverage for hardscape additions, such as widened driveways, parking areas or walkways; or protected tree removal to allow construction of accessibility features.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1584 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT G-19
Where improvements or modifications approved through a reasonable accommodation would generally require a variance or a parking exception, the reasonable accommodation shall satisfy this requirement and a variance or parking exception shall not be required.
If an individual with a disability needs assistance in making a request for reasonable accommodation, the City will endeavor to provide the assistance necessary to ensure that the process is accessible to the requestor.
Reasonable accommodation requests are considered by the Zoning Administrator, who is a City staff member (typically the Planning Director).
The process and findings for reasonable accommodation applications involve the following:
The applicant is provided a form to identify the Zoning Code provision, regulation or policy from which accommodation being requested, and to provide the basis for the claim and why the accommodation is necessary.
Any information identified by a requestor as confidential shall at all times be retained in a manner so as to respect the privacy rights of the requestor and shall not be made available for public inspection, unless required by law.
A request for reasonable accommodation shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator without a public hearing pursuant to Section 9-4.3802 when no other discretionary approval is sought. The Zoning Administrator shall make a written determination on a reasonable accommodation request within 45 days of finding the information related to the request complete when no discretionary approval is sought. The Zoning Administrator shall make its determination of the reasonable accommodation request without issuing a public notice and without conducting a public hearing. There shall be no fee for the first eight hours of City staff time processing a reasonable accommodation request under this article. Fees for staff time in excess of this allowance, or for costs associated with other studies required pursuant to a request, shall be charged in accordance with the hourly rate as set forth in the fee schedule, as adopted by City Council, and shall require a deposit submitted by the requestor. A requestor may seek a reasonable accommodation for payment of fees in excess of the eight hour allowance.
The reviewing authority shall issue a written decision to grant, grant with modifications, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation which shall be consistent with fair housing laws and based on the following factors:
1. That the housing which is the subject of the request for reasonable accommodation will be used by an individual with disabilities protected pursuant to fair housing laws;
2. That the requested accommodation is necessary to make housing available to an individual with disabilities protected under the fair housing laws, and alternatives that may provide an equivalent level of accommodation while complying with applicable land use or zoning regulations, policies, procedures, or practices are infeasible;
3. That the requested reasonable accommodation would be constructed in a manner that is architecturally compatible with the subject property, to the maximum extent practicable, while still achieving the required functionality of the reasonable accommodation;
4. That the requested reasonable accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City;
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1585 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) G-20 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025
5. That the requested reasonable accommodation would not constitute a fundamental alteration of the City's land use or zoning regulations, policies, procedures, or practices, including the Local Coastal Program, as applicable;
6. That the requested reasonable accommodation would not have significant adverse impacts on coastal resources; and
7. That the requested accommodation would not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the area.
The factors for consideration of a reasonable accommodation request do not serve as deterrents to housing accessibility. Since adoption of the ordinance in 2019, the City has received requests for reasonable accommodations and not denied any reasonable accommodation requests under the ordinance. Here is an examples of how these factors might be applied in practice:
A person with a disability requests reasonable accommodation to allow them to build a ramp on their home to facilitate wheelchair access. The City would consider the following factors:
Is the person with a disability protected under fair housing laws? (Yes) Is the ramp necessary to make the home accessible to the person with a disability? (Yes) Are there any other feasible alternatives that would provide an equivalent level of accommodation? (No) Would the ramp be architecturally compatible with the home? (Yes) Would the ramp impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city? (No) Would the ramp constitute a fundamental alteration of the city's land use or zoning regulations? (No) Would the ramp have significant adverse impacts on coastal resources? (No) Since all six of these factors are met, the City would be required to grant the reasonable accommodation request and allow the person with a disability to build the ramp on their home. Based on Pacifica’s built environment and common types of coastal resources, it is exceedingly unlikely that a reasonable accommodation request would be denied due to a significant adverse impact on coastal resources. Most reasonable accommodation requests entail construction of ramps to facilitate wheelchair entry in a residence (as in the example above), or construction of larger interior living spaces to enable wheelchair maneuver. Both of these examples entail reducing generally applicable setback requirements to allow improvements closer to the property line. Because these improvements would be undertaken on already developed properties, where ornamental landscaping for yard areas or paving for driveway areas already exist, the potential for any coastal resource impacts is very low, and the potential for significant adverse impacts on coastal resources is effectively nonexistent. Therefore, incorporating a required finding that the reasonable accommodation does not negatively impact coastal resources is not a constraint to building housing for people with disabilities but rather ensures that accessibility needs harmonize with the California Coastal Act requirement to preserve and protect sensitive coastal environments.
Definition of Family
The Pacifica Zoning Regulations currently define “family” as “one or more persons occupying a premises and living as a single housekeeping unit, as distinguished from a group occupying a hotel, club, or fraternity or sorority house. A family shall be deemed to include necessary servants.” Program HE-I-2 “Zoning REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1586 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT G-21
Modernization and Streamlining” would remove the reference to “family” for purposes of use descriptions and calculating density and replace it with the more neutral term “single housekeeping unit.” The definition is consistent with State law, which requires that the definition of family to not distinguish between related and unrelated persons and does not impose a numerical limit on the number of people who constitute a family in order to prevent discrimination of the siting of group homes.
Housing Element Program Conformance with State Law states that “Revise use and density descriptions regarding the term “Family” within the zoning regulations. The definition of family will affirm persons with disabilities are not subject to any potential special regulations such as the number of persons, population types, licenses, higher discretionary standards or other requirements that do not apply to other residential uses in the same zoning district.”
Conformance with the Requirements of SB 330
SB 330 prohibits local jurisdictions from enacting new laws that would have the effect of reducing the legal limit on new housing within their borders or delaying new housing via administrative or other regulatory barriers. The City of Pacifica is consistent in its application of SB 330, and housing developments for which a preliminary application is submitted in compliance with applicable General Plan and zoning standards are subject only to the development standards and fees that were applicable at the time of submittal.
Conformance with the Requirements of SB 9
The Pacifica City Council approved Resolution 11-2022 on February 28, 2022 adopting interim guidance, ruless and regulations to implement SB 9, and directing the preparation of an ordinance implementing SB 9.
Program H-I-14 includes the prepration of the implementing ordinance.
Conformance with the Requirements of SB 35
Currently, the City of Pacifica has not approved a process to accommodate SB 35 streamline application.
Program H-I-14 includes the adoption of an ordinance and administrative procedures to implement SB 35.
Growth Control Ordinance
In January 1982, the Pacifica City Council adopted Ordinance No. 322-C.S., an initiative ordinance known as the “Growth Control Ordinance” (GCO) which provided for controlled residential growth through 1992. A series of ordinances have extended growth control policies to the present day. Most recently, Ordinance 880- C.S. was adopted by the Pacifica City Council on May 23, 2022, extending the GCO through June 30, 2027.
However, it was acknowledged that SB 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, prohibits cities from adopting or implementing any provisions that would limit the number or require some sort of numerical allocation for housing development permits. Therefore, while the GCO technically remains in effect, it is preempted by SB 330 until its expiration or repeal (currently January 1, 2025) and may not be implemented.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1587 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) G-22 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 Building Codes and Enforcement
Building Codes
State law requires local agencies, including the City of Pacifica, to enforce the California Building Code (CBC) and other construction-related codes when reviewing and inspecting new developments and modifications to existing developments. On November 14, 2022, the Pacifica City Council adopted the 2022 California Building Standards Code (Building Code, Mechanical Code, Plumbing Code, Electrical Code, International Property Maintenance Code, Energy Code, Green Building Code, Residential Code, Historical Buildings Code, Existing Buildings Code, Reference Standards Code of the Pacifica Municipal Code) and 2022 California Fire Code with Local Amendments, including amendments to require building electrification, underground utility installation, and expanded geotechnical hazard evaluation. The factors unique to Pacifica which were used to justify the adoption of the local amendments include: the circulation pattern which consists largely of dead-end local streets connecting to Coast Highway and steep topography limiting access during emergencies, seismic impacts from the San Andreas, Loma Prieta, and Seal Cove faults, risk of wildfire due to overhead utility lines, and climate change which has modified rainfall patterns, increased the frequency and severity of localized flooding, and amplified coastal wave action leading to more erosion.
The local amendments modify the CBC and California Residential Code (CRC) to require underground utilities in all new buildings and when an existing line is upgraded. Exceptions are allowed if the undergrounding would require: 1) trenching and repaving of a street with paving less than one -year-old, 2) trenching more than 500 feet (only the first 500 feet from the building must be underground), or 3) the servicing utility has issued a notice that undergrounding is impractical or impossible and they refuse to provide service. The local amendments also require an expanded geotechnical hazard assessment for any site located within a geologic or seismic hazard zone mapped by the California Geologic Survey or adopted in the Pacifica General Plan. It is possible for a registered design professional to seek a waiver from the requirement to construct project design features that would minimize potential off-site geotechnical hazards if the construction costs of these features would be disproportionate to the cost of the overall project.
The Green Building Code was also modified to eliminate the exception from all-electric building construction for cooking appliances and fireplaces in residential buildings, public agency owned and operated emergency centers, and accessory dwelling units. In addition, the installation or use of natural gas for any purpose in an all-electric building constructed after January 1, 2023, is prohibited, except for for-profit restaurants. Standards for the installation of Electric Vehicle (EV) parking circuits for single-family, multi-family and non-residential uses were also established.
Code Enforcement
Code enforcement is accomplished through the review of proposed building plans to assure compliance with adopted building and energy codes, as well as periodic inspections conducted throughout the construction process. Title 8, Chapter 5, of the PMC, adopts the International Property Maintenance code by reference, in order to assure properties are maintained in a sanitary and safe condition. In addition, Pacifica has adopted public nuisance provisions as PMC Title 4, Chapter 25, to establish guidelines and procedures for the correction of property maintenance violations and nuisances.
Enforcement is conducted on a complaint-driven basis. Complaints may be submitted by email, facsimile or by calling designated staff. City staff prioritize resolution of code violations by educating the respondent regarding REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1588 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT G-23
the applicable regulations and providing options for resolution. When out in the field conducting inspections, code enforcement staff do not proactively seek out violations. However, if conditions are noted which could result in a potential life safety impact, the violations are documented, and the case is prioritized for additional action. Program HE-I-8 “Rehabilitation of Homes in Lower Resource and Coastal Areas” includes actions which will result in a process for proactively identifying properties in need of significant maintenance and connecting the responsible parties with resources that can assist with the necessary repairs.
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for San Francisco International Airport Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code requires a local agency to refer any amendment of a general plan or specific plan, or the adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation (“Local Legislative Actions”) within the boundary of an airport land use compatibility plan to the airport land use commission prior to adoption. A portion of the City of Pacifica is located within the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (November 2012). Specifically, a small area in northern Pacifica near the intersection of SR-35 (Skyline Boulevard) and Hickey Boulevard is located within Airport Influence Area B (AIA B), the Project Referral Area, for San Francisco International Airport.
The ALUCP for San Francisco International Airport (“SFO”) addresses three airport/land use compatibility factors related to potential future Local Legislative Actions that could affect housing development : (a) noise compatibility, (b) safety compatibility, and (c) airspace compatibility. These factors relate to housing development in Pacifica as follows:
Noise Compatibility: The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) 65 decibels (dB) aircraft noise contour defines the threshold for airport noise impacts established in the SFO ALUCP. In accordance with SFO ALUCP Noise Policy NP-1, SFO ALUCP Exhibit IV-5 depicts the noise compatibility zones within which the noise compatibility policies of the ALUCP apply. A very small area near Skyline and Hickey Boulevards lies within the CNEL 65-70 dB contour. Any Local Legislative Actions to authorize housing in this location would be subject to ALUC review prior to approval. Safety Compatibility: The SFO ALUCP includes five safety zones and related land use compatibility policies and criteria. As shown on SFO ALUCP Exhibit IV-3, the Safety Zones do not extend into Pacifica.
Accordingly, the Safety Compatibility policies do not apply to developments in this jurisdiction. Airspace Compatibility: The SFO ALUCP airspace policies establish maximum heights for the compatibility of new structures. The policies also stipulate the need for compliance with federal regulations requiring notification of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of certain proposed construction or alterations of structures. Because the Housing Element is a policy document and not a specific development proposal, the airspace compatibility policies of the SFO ALUCP do not directly apply. Consistency with the airspace compatibility policies would be required for future development proposals stemming from the Housing Element and any associated programs that may require Local Legislative Actions such as Program HE-I-1 “General Plan and Zoning Amendments” to Achieve RHNA. SFO ALUCP Airspace Policy AP-3 states that in order to be consistent, the maximum height of a structure must be the lower of (1) the height shown on the critical aeronautical surfaces map (SFO ALUCP Exhibits IV-17 & IV 18), or (2) the maximum height determined by the FAA not to be a “hazard to air navigation” in an aeronautical study prepared pursuant to the filing of Form 7460-1. These restrictions would only apply to sites located within AIA B. Utilizing SFO’s iALP Airspace Tool the estimated maximum building heights for this area would not be less than 98 feet, well above the building height anticipated to be implemented by any future Local REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1589 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) G-24 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 Legislative Actions in Pacifica or by any Housing Element implementation program including but not limited to Program HE-I-1.
In order to ensure compliance with the SFO ALUCP in relation to any future Local Legislative Actions in Pacifica, the Housing Element includes an action in Program HE-I-14 to ensure compliance with all referral requirements and other applicable restrictions in the SFO ALUCP applicable within the City of Pacifica.
Planning and Development Fees
The Planning Department assesses fees for its review of entitlement applications, which generally precede building permit reviews and fees. The Master Fee Schedule is posted on the City’s website (https://www.cityofpacifica.org/departments/administrative-services/finance/2022-2023-adopted-budget) pursuant to Gov. Code 65940.1 subd. (a)(1)(A) and is also available as Attachment G-1. Entitlement applications include major efforts, like amending the City’s General Plan to allow housing or processing a subdivision or condominium map for a new housing project. Entitlements can also be smaller, such as a Use Permit to allow an addition to a house that does not conform to the City’s current zoning standards. A common entitlement in Pacifica is a Coastal Development Permit, mandated by the California Coastal Act of 1976 for many types of work within the Coastal Zone. In some areas of the Coastal Zone (the Coastal Zone Appeals Zone), additions exceeding 10 percent of existing floor area require a Coastal Development Permit.
In addition to fees for entitlement application review and basic permit review and inspection fees, the City commonly assesses fees for infrastructure or other improvements associated with development. These fees are generally described as “impact fees.” Frequently, these come in the form of off-site improvements, although sometimes developers pay fees in lieu of physical improvements. The City's requirements regarding off-site improvements vary, depending on the scale of the project or its relative location within the city. Of the fees described in Table G-6, below, impact fees comprise 4 percent of the total project cost for single-family developments, 5.5 percent for small multi-family developments, and 6.6 percent for large multi-family developments.
Off-Site Improvements
The City of Pacifica facilitates housing construction by disclosing off-site improvement requirements in advance of development permit applications and providing other supportive assistance to determine potential off-site improvement requirements. Advanced disclosure of applicable standards includes online access to California Building Code, California Fire Code, and related technical codes (including local amendments thereto) that determine the built form of proposed developments, as well as subdivision improvement standards and Public Works standard plans. A developer can determine applicable standards for most off-site improvements by reviewing this information. City staff is available to answer developer questions about these standards via the City’s pre-application meeting process which any developer can request.
The California Fire Code generally sets the minimum acceptable width for a new street. In some instances, City Administrative Policy No. 42 establishes additional street width and sidewalk requirements depending on the cross slope of an area proposed for development and the anticipated level of vehicular traffic on the proposed street. The Fire Chief can consider an Alternative Materials & Methods Request (AMMR) in the event a developer is unable to comply with the minimum street width required by the California Fire Code. Similarly, a developer can request City consideration of reduced street widths during the tentative subdivision map review process.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1590 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT G-25
The City also provides a cost-effective method to determine potential off-site sewer improvements. A developer may request for the City to run its sewer collection system digital model to determine potential sewer line capacity constraints that may trigger off-site improvements/upgrades. Running the model generally costs several thousand dollars and can help a developer understand whether more costly sewer upgrades may be needed before finalizing the design of a development.
Development Fees
Table G-5 summarizes the total development fees typically levied on residential developments including, planning entitlement related fees, building permit fees and impact fees. Typical fees for a single-family residence (2,600 square feet), and a small 10-unit multi-family project (10,000 gross square feet (GSF)) are summarized below and then compared to the total residential development costs displayed as both cost per unit and cost per square foot. Total development costs, including land, range from $717 to $817 per square foot depending on the size of the project. The total City development fees represent 2 percent of total development costs for a single-family home, and 5 percent for small multi-family projects. Development costs are based on the report dated April 7, 2022, prepared by Century Urban LLC, which surveyed development costs for residential projects in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Average land values for the City of Pacifica from the report are used in Table G-5.
In order to get a sense of how jurisdictions in San Mateo County compare with each other regarding planning and development fees, 21 Elements conducted a survey of their member jurisdictions. The results of the survey were used to calculate entitlement, building permit, impact and other fees for hypothetical single-family, small (10-unit) multi-family and large (100-unit) multi-family developments.10 The total fees for each type of development are shown in Table G-6, below. There was no data available from the City of Pacifica for large (100-unit) multi-family developments, as there were no known examples of comparable developments of this size.
10 Summary of Constraints for San Mateo, July 10, 2022. http://21elements.com/documents-mainmenu-3/housing-elements/rhna-6- 2022-2030/1381-summary-of-constraints-san-mateo-v2/file REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1591 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) G-26 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 TABLE G-5: RESIDENTIAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS – SAN MATEO COUNTY (UNIT & SQUARE FOOT)
Single-Family
(2,600 GSF)
Small Multi-Family
(10 Units/10,000 GSF)
Cost
per Unit
Cost
per SF
% of
Dev. Cost
Cost
per Unit Cost per SF
% of
Dev. Cost
Hard Costs
Construction Hard Costs $1,040,000 $400 56% $440,000 $440 54% Site Work/Utilities/Parking $81,500 $82 10%
Hard Cost Subtotal $1,040,000 $400 56% $521,500 $522 64% City Fees
Entitlement Fees $11,000 $4 1% $0 $0 0%
Building Fees $10,803 $4 1% $26,150 $26 3%
Impact Fees $11,922 $5 1% $14,001 $14 2%
City Fees Subtotal $33,725 $13 2% $40,151 $40 5%
Soft Costs $290,000 $112 16% $138,000 $138 16%
Land $500,000 $192 27% $117,000 $117 14%
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS $1,863,725 $717 100% $816,651 $817 100% Source: City of Pacifica.
TABLE G-6: TOTAL FEES (INCLUDES ENTITLEMENT, BUILDING PERMITS,
AND IMPACT FEES) PER UNIT
Jurisdiction Single-Family
Small Multi-Family
(10 units)
Large Multi-Family
(100 units)
Atherton $15,941 No data provided No data provided
Brisbane $24,940 $11,678 No data provided
Burlingame $69,425 $30,345 $23,229
Colma $6,760 $36,590 $17,030
Daly City $24,202 $32,558 $12,271
East Palo Alto $80,867 $30,812 $19,184
Foster City $67,886 $47,179 $11,288
Half Moon Bay $52,569 $16,974 No data provided
Hillsborough $71,092 No data provided No data provided
Millbrae $97,756 $68,237 $55,186
Pacifica $33,725 $40,151 No data provided
Portola Valley $52,923 No data provided No data provided Redwood City $20,795 $18,537 $17,913
San Bruno $58,209 $72,148 $39,412
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1592 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT G-27
TABLE G-6: TOTAL FEES (INCLUDES ENTITLEMENT, BUILDING PERMITS,
AND IMPACT FEES) PER UNIT
Jurisdiction Single-Family
Small Multi-Family
(10 units)
Large Multi-Family
(100 units)
San Carlos $72,046 $29,137 $18,182
San Mateo $89,003 $60,728 $41,547
South San Francisco $81,366 $76,156 $32,471
Uninc. San Mateo Co. $36,429 $15,088 $3,344
Woodside $70,957 $82,764 No data provided
Median $58,209 $34,574 $18,683
Source: City of Pacifica.
Pacifica is well below median in terms of total planning and development fees for single-family development, and above median for small multi-family developments. City staff believes that Pacifica’s planning and development fees exceed median values primarily due to the cost of building permit fees which at $261,500 for a 10-unit multi-family development exceed the San Mateo County median of $142,869. Impacts fees for both single-family and small multi-family development were below median despite a recent parkland fee update adopted in 2022. Importantly, the parkland fees include fee reductions for affordable housing units ranging from a 25 percent reduction for moderate-income units, 75 percent reduction for lower-income units, and a full exemption for very low-income units (City Council Resolution No. 19-2022). Maintaining up-to-date development impact fees is essential to ensure Pacifica recovers actual costs of providing services to the community and the availability of fee reductions for affordable housing units helps to reduce the barriers to creating affordable housing.
Processing and Permitting Procedures
An analysis of potential constraints of processing and permitting procedures is provided below. See program text for provisions to address these potential constraints.
Special processing and permitting procedures required for certain types of housing projects may increase the costs of development and delay the start of construction. Even projects that may otherwise meet zoning development standards and General Plan development guidelines still must undergo special processing due to requirements established in the Zoning Regulations. For example, all projects within the R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) or any commercial zone require issuance of a Site Development Permit prior to authorizing construction. Furthermore, housing developments within any commercial zone require approval of a Use Permit. Typical processing times for projects of this sort are between 3 and 8 months, and potentially longer if environmental review pursuant to the CEQA is required. Appeals to the City Council or Coastal Commission can extend that timeline further (Table G-7). Delays and uncertainty complicate the investment decisions of developers. For those that choose to proceed, they often must price housing units higher to account for the delays and risks they incurred to reach the construction phase.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1593 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) G-28 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 TABLE G-7: TIMELINES FOR DISCRETIONARY PERMIT PROCESSING Permit/Approval Type
Typical
Processing Time Approval Body
Site Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit,
Variance, Coastal Development Permit, Parking
Exception
3-6 months Planning Commission
Zone Change (i.e., Rezoning) 4-7 months Planning Commission/City Council General Plan Amendment 5-8 months Planning Commission/City Council Tentative Subdivision Map 3-6 months Planning Commission/City Council Final Subdivision Map 6-8 weeks City Council
Negative Declaration 3-6 months Planning Commission/City Council Environmental Impact Report 6-18 months Planning Commission/City Council Source: City of Pacifica.
Program HE-I-2 “Zoning Modernization and Streamlining” includes many implementation actions which specifically address the current requirements for Site Development Permits and Use Permits, including HE-I2.1.J which would establish objective standards and criteria enabling ministerial approval of multi-family projects for lower-income levels for projects up to 20 dwelling units in all multi-family and mixed-use zones.
HE-I-2.7 would remove the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit (UP) in instances where the proposed residential uses are consistent with the General Plan land use and density designations.
Projects within the P-D (Planned Development) district also receive scrutiny through the discretionary review process. Review and approval of an overarching Development Plan (i.e., the site-specific zoning) is necessary for any project within the P-D (Planned Development) zone as a pre-requisite to considering more detailed plans for each parcel. After Development Plan approval, a developer must then seek approval of a Specific Plan (i.e., the site-specific layout and architectural design to implement uses consistent with the Development Plan) for each structure or parcel within the Development Plan area. The only housing projects in the city that may avoid discretionary review in most cases are single-family homes and duplexes outside of the Coastal Zone.
These types of housing developments are unlikely to meet the total housing demand in Pacifica given the scarcity of buildable land for these housing types and their relatively high per-unit development costs.
Therefore, the bulk of the city’s future housing development will undergo lengthy development processing and permitting prior to receiving construction approvals.
After project approval by the Planning Commission or City Council, permitting and processing continues during the Building Permit stage. The Building Division of the Planning Department performs plan checks and issues building permits. Throughout construction, the Building Division performs building inspections to monitor the progress of the project. Corrections needed during the plan review portion of the building permit stage, or failed inspections during the construction phase, can delay project completion. State law requires local agencies to implement plan reviews and construction site inspections to ensure compliance with the California Building Code, limiting Pacifica’s ability to mitigate this constraint.
Table G-8 lists the typical discretionary permits required for the sample developments presented in Table G-7 Certain discretionary permit requirements tend to be site specific, and will depend on site location, topography, zoning, and other factors. Thus, as with the fee estimates for these sample developments, determining the REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1594 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT G-29
discretionary permits required for the sample developments relied on certain assumptions that may be different for an actual project.
TABLE G-8: DISCRETIONARY PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR SAMPLE
DEVELOPMENTS
Permit Type
5-Unit Detached
Single-Family Residential
(R-1 Zone)
20-Unit Attached
Multiple-Family Residential
(R-3 Zone)
Site Development Permit X
Conditional Use Permit Required for Condominium/
Townhome Projects Only
Coastal Development Permit Only within Coastal Zone Only within Coastal Zone Tentative Subdivision Map X
Final Subdivision Map X
Negative Declaration X
Environmental Impact Report X
Total Review Time 6-12 months 9-24 months
Source: City of Pacifica.
Notwithstanding the discretionary review processes described above, the City facilitates housing construction at the building permit stage of review through its building counter operations. Building Division staff publishes a handout providing step-by-step instructions for new submittal and resubmittal of building permit applications using the City’s online portal. The building counter also provides expanded hours to accommodate a range of customer schedules, including staying open until 7:30 PM on Wednesdays and during the lunch hour from 12- 1 PM on Fridays. These hours of operation allow all applicant types to manage their applications or speak with Planning Department staff in relation to their applications.
Findings
The City’s Zoning Regulations vest the Planning Commission with authority to approve, deny, or approve with conditions most developments in Pacifica. Decisions of the Planning Commission are subject to appeal to the City Council. The Planning Commission must make certain findings in order to approve each permit type. A summary of these findings for the most common permit types is below. In addition to these findings, in most cases the Planning Commission must also affirm environmental findings unique to each development site.
Site Development Permit Findings – A permit shall not be issued if the Commission finds:
1. That the location, size, and intensity of the proposed operation will create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern, taking into account the proposed use as compared with the general character and intensity of the neighborhood;
2. That the accessibility of off-street parking areas and the relation of parking areas with respect to traffic on adjacent streets will create a hazardous or inconvenient condition to adjacent or surrounding uses;
3. That insufficient landscaped areas have been reserved for the purposes of separating or screening service and storage areas from the street and adjoining building sites, breaking up large expanses of paved areas, REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1595 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) G-30 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 and separating or screening parking lots from the street and adjoining building areas from paved areas to provide access from buildings to open areas;
4. That the proposed development, as set forth on the plans, will unreasonably restrict or cut out light and air on the property and on other property in the neighborhood, or will hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of land and buildings in the neighborhood, or impair the value thereof;
5. That the improvement of any commercial or industrial structure, as shown on the elevations as submitted, is substantially detrimental to the character or value of an adjacent R District area;
6. That the proposed development will excessively damage or destroy natural features, including trees, shrubs, creeks, and rocks, and the natural grade of the site, except as provided in the subdivision regulations as set forth in Chapter 1 of Title 10 of this Code;
7. That there is insufficient variety in the design of the structure and grounds to avoid monotony in the external appearance;
8. That the proposed development is inconsistent with the City's adopted Design Guidelines; or
9. That the proposed development is inconsistent with the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, or other applicable laws of the City. If the proposal, however, does not have any of the impacts listed above, the Site Development Permit may be granted.
Conditional Use Permit Findings – A permit shall be issued only if the Commission finds:
10. That the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City;
11. That the use or building applied for is consistent with the applicable provisions of the General Plan and other applicable laws of the City and, where applicable, the local Coastal Plan; and
12. Where applicable; that the use or building applied for is consistent with the City's adopted Design Guidelines.
Development Plan Findings (P-D District) – Approval shall be granted only if the Commission finds that:
13. The proposed P-D District can be substantially completed within the time schedule submitted by the applicant;
14. Each unit of the development, as well as the total development, can exist as an independent development capable of creating an environment of sustained desirability and stability or adequate assurance that such objective will be attained;
15. The land uses proposed will not be detrimental to the present or potential surrounding uses but will have a beneficial effect which would not be achieved through other districts;
16. The streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic, and increased densities will not generate traffic in such amounts as to overload the street network outside the P-D District;
17. Any proposed commercial development can be justified economically at the location proposed and will provide adequate commercial facilities for the area;
18. Any exception from the standard district requirement is warranted by the design of the project and amenities incorporated in the development plan;
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1596 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT G-31
19. The area surrounding the development can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with the proposed development, and the P-D District uses proposed are in conformance with the General Plan and, where applicable, the Local Coastal Plan, or that changes in the General Plan or Local Coastal Plan are justified;
20. The project is consistent with the City's adopted Design Guidelines; and
21. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and, if applicable, Local Coastal Plan.
Specific Plan Findings (P-D District) – Approval shall be granted only if the Commission finds:
22. That the specific plan is consistent with the approved development plan; and
23. That the specific plan is consistent with the City's adopted Design Guidelines.
Program HE-I-2.6 would revise the findings for Site Development Permit (PSD) to remove subjective findings required to approve residential or mixed-use projects which include residential uses. Rather the new findings will focus on verifying compliance with objective development standards for design and transportation.
Exemptions from Standards
Pacifica’s Zoning Code contains provisions that allow relief from the strict application of development standards. Allowing flexibility for developers can result in lower project costs or higher densities, which lead to more housing units affordable to persons with extremely low, very low, and low incomes. In extreme cases, relaxing a particular requirement can mean the difference between pursuing project approvals and abandoning a housing development altogether. The Planning Director, acting as the Zoning Administrator, may grant Minor Modifications to standards governing area, yard requirements, distance between buildings, lot coverage, fence/wall height, and off-street parking. Modifications approved by the Zoning Administrator may not exceed 20 percent of the respective standards, except in the case of off-street parking, where a reduction of one space is allowable.
When circumstances warrant a greater departure from development standards, the City may grant a permit known as a Variance. A Variance authorizes any deviation from zoning regulations the Planning Commission finds is necessary to allow a property owner to enjoy the same privileges enjoyed by other owners with similarly situated property. The main limitation to a Variance is that it may not authorize a use not permitted by the zoning of the subject site.
The Planning Commission may grant a Variance only if it finds:
1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the provisions of this chapter deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification;
2. That the granting of such variance will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the area;
3. Where applicable, that the application is consistent with the City's adopted Design Guidelines; and
4. If located in the Coastal Zone, the application is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Local Coastal Plan.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1597 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) G-32 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 Allowances for Residential Uses in Commercial Zoning Districts Most of the city’s future housing development potential lays in commercially zoned sites. Large tract housing development on vacant sites are not likely to occur in Pacifica due to a lack of large, undeveloped parcels in private ownership. Many remaining vacant sites zoned for residential development are small, fragmented, and often have environmental challenges to development. Therefore, it is important to consider commercial sites for their ability to meet Pacifica’s future housing need.
The City permits housing development in several commercial zones, most notably the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and C-2 (Community Commercial) zones. Residential development in commercial districts must have a mixed-use configuration with residential uses above ground floor commercial spaces or in separate buildings on the same site (horizontal mixed-use). Approval of mixed-use housing developments is not by-right but is subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit. Table G-9 indicates the development standards for residential uses in the city’s main commercial zones. For clarity in presentation below, the table will only display standards for the C-1 and C-2 districts. The Zoning Code applies standards from the C-1 district to developments in the C-1-A district and from the C-2 district to developments within the C-R and O districts.
TABLE G-9: ALLOWANCES FOR HOUSING IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS (C-1 & C-2)
Lot Area (min.) 5,000 sf
Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit (min.) 2,000 sf
Lot Width (min.) 50 ft
Setbacks (min.) None, unless required by Site Development Permit Maximum Lot Coverage None
Landscaped Area (min.) 10%
Usable Open Space Per Unit (min.) 450 sf
Height (max.) 35 ft
Parking Spaces (min.) 1 per studio; 1.5 per 1 BR; 2 per 2+ BR; and 1 guest per 4 units Source: Pacifica Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 4, Zoning.
Development standards in commercial zones are generally favorable to mixed-use (residential and commercial) development. These commercial zones have no front, side, or rear setbacks, no floor area ratio limitations, and no lot coverage limits. The flexibility inherent in these regulations create larger developable areas than comparably sized residential sites, which helps to mitigate land costs, construction costs, and delays associated with processing and permitting. Larger developable sites result in greater density, which in turn reduces the perunit cost of development and ultimately can make housing more affordable to persons with extremely low, very low, and low incomes.
In terms of parking, multi-family units in mixed use projects are subject to the same requirements that apply to other multi-family dwellings. The requirements are cumulatively added to the requirements for the commercial portions of the project to determine the total number of spaces needed. In certain cases, the Planning Commission can grant a lower parking requirement if a developer can show the characteristics of uses within a development can offset parking demands from one another. For instance, certain commercial uses may have REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1598 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT G-33
large parking requirements during business hours when many residents are away from the site at work.
Correspondingly, during evening hours the residential use has a large parking demand while most businesses are closed.
Combined, the favorable treatment of mixed-use housing developments in commercial zones mitigates the constraints of land and construction costs. Given that the City is relying on commercial sites to accommodate housing, the City will encourage and facilitate residential development on commercial sites (mixed-use) for lower-income households. For parcels identified on the Sites List to meet the RHNA shortfall, future zoning revisions will require that mixed use sites include a residential component to eliminate the possibility of building a 100% commercial development.
Density Bonus Ordinance
The Density Bonus Ordinance, adopted in April 1984, offers the incentive of increased density and flexibility in development standards in exchange for housing which will meet the City’s need to provide ownership and rental housing affordable to persons with extremely low, very low, and low incomes. Multi-family residential projects can exceed the maximum density, reduce unit floor area, or provide less parking, if provision is made for rental housing, affordable housing, or housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities. The amount of the density bonus ranges from 15 percent for rental housing (including market rate projects) to 50 percent for housing affordable to persons with extremely low, very low, and low incomes, elderly persons, or persons with disabilities. The Density Bonus Ordinance ensures the continued availability of housing granted a density bonus by requiring deed restrictions or other legal arrangements on properties so developed.
Higher housing density combined with relaxed floor area and parking requirements allows developers to mitigate the constraints imposed by land and construction costs. Lower per-unit costs of construction can result in lower per-unit sales costs or rental rates, making housing more affordable to persons with extremely low, very low, and low incomes. An added advantage of the Density Bonus Ordinance is that it provides the greatest bonus for providing housing to the neediest groups: those with extremely low, very low, and low incomes, and seniors or persons with disabilities.
Pacifica’s Density Bonus Ordinance requires certain revisions to remain consistent with state law, and the City will undertake an action program to initiate the amendment.
California Coastal Act
In 1976, the California Coastal Act was passed to protect coastal resources and maximize public access to the shoreline. Local governments may prepare and implement Local Coastal Programs (LCPs), which can be certified by the California Coastal Commission. The Coastal Commission then delegates responsibility for issuing coastal permits for most new development to the local jurisdiction, subject to the standards established in the certified LCP.
There are two components of the LCP, the Land Use Plan, and the Implementation Program. The Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) specifies the kinds, locations, and intensities of land uses; the applicable resource protection and development policies; and where necessary, a listing of implementing actions. The Implementation Program consists of zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and other legal instruments to implement the Land Use Plan. The current planning process does not include the development of an Implementation Program.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1599 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) G-34 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 The Local Coast Land Use Plan currently in effect in Pacifica was adopted in 1980. With the support of a grant from the California Coastal Commission, an update was included as part of the General Plan Update starting in Spring 2019. Following consultation with the community and the Coastal Commission staff, an updated plan was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission February 3, 2020, and was approved by the City Council on February 24, 2020, for transmittal to the Coastal Commission for certification. After working for over two years to respond to requests for additional information, the City received notice from the Coastal Commission in December 2022 that it will take up to another year to certify the plan.
For properties affected by the California Coastal Act there can be a significant degree of uncertainty regarding the development process which can be a deterrent to creating new housing. The California Coastal Commission is exempt from the permit streamlining requirements that apply to most local jurisdictions, and the application requirements are often unclear and typically require multiple iterations of resubmittals and revisions in order to be accepted. There are also unique environmental analyses specific to coastal hazards and access that apply in addition to CEQA, and often the project modifications necessary to meet the “least impactful” coastal protection requirements result in the project being financially infeasible.
The Coastal Zone in Pacifica is the area west of Coast Highway, as well as the Shelldance Nursery property and some additional land located east of Coast Highway. It includes approximately 1,286 acres and is divided into seven subareas to better address these unique geographies. The LCLUP includes guiding policies and implementing policies for land use and development, public access and recreation, environmental and scenic resources, natural hazards, and coastal resilience.
Coastal Zone Housing
State law includes several requirements for housing in the Coastal Zone. Specifically, Gov. Code Section 65588(d) calls for jurisdictions to include in their housing elements information on the following:
The number of new housing units approved for construction within the coastal zone after January 1, 1982; The number of housing units for persons and families of low- or moderate-income required to be provided in new housing developments either within the coastal zone or within three miles of the Coastal Zone; The number of existing residential dwelling units occupied by persons and families of low- or moderateincome that have been authorized to be demolished or converted since January 1, 1982, in the coastal zone; and
The number of residential dwelling units for persons and families of low- or moderate-income that have been required for replacement or authorized to be converted or demolished as identified in paragraph (3).
The location of the replacement units, either on-site, elsewhere within the locality’s jurisdiction within the Coastal Zone, or within 3 miles of the Coastal Zone within the locality’s jurisdiction, shall be designated in the review.
State law calls for replacement of demolished units, if determined to be feasible. In addition, all new development in the Coastal Zone is required to include low- and moderate-income units if feasible. Due to the small size of all new development in Pacifica's coastal zone, only one project approved since 1982 has included affordable units. Future projects within the coastal zone are also unlikely to yield affordable units unless they develop eight or more housing units, at which point they become subject to the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1600 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT G-35
Housing Unit Construction, Demolition, and Replacement
Housing activity in the coastal zone is summarized in Table G-10, below. Between 2015 and 2022, 38 new housing units were approved for construction in the coastal zone. During this same period, 57 housing units were demolished within the coastal zone. Of these units, 54 were demolished as a result of natural hazards and coastal bluff emergencies. Due to these circumstances, income documentation was not required nor obtained.
The remaining three units were demolished in conjunction with new development but were not occupied by low- or moderate-income households and therefore not subject to replacement.
TABLE G-10: HOUSING IN THE COASTAL ZONE
Housing Activities
Number
of Units
Number of New Housing Units Approved for Construction Within the Coastal Zone between 2015 and 2022 38
Number of Low- or Moderate-Income Housing Units Required to be Provided Within the Coastal Zone or Within 3 Miles of the Coastal Zone 30
Number of Occupied Low- or Moderate-Income Housing Units Authorized to be Demolished or Converted Since January 1, 1982 57
Number of Low- or Moderate-Income Housing Units Required for Replacement of Authorized Demolished or Converted Housing Units
– Within Coastal Zone 0
– Within 3 Miles of Coastal Zone 0
Source: City of Pacifica.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS
Environmental Constraints
Environmental constraints to housing development in Pacifica include sensitive and critical habitat, hillside erosion, coastal erosion, and seismic hazards. Landslides and slope failures have presented serious problems in the past. The City is unaware of any immediate or direct threat to any of the identified housing sites from these constraints, but further environmental analysis as part of a development review process could identify issues that threaten the feasibility of proposed new housing.
Sensitive and Critical Habitat
The southern and eastern portions of the Pacifica Planning Boundary have been designated as Critical Habitat for the California red-legged frog (CRLF). In 2010, the most recent designation by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (WSFWS) identified approximately 2,900 acres of CRLF Critical Habitat in Pacifica. Currently, there is no critical habitat designated for the San Francisco garter snake (SFGS).11 However, these species may be present in various locations throughout Pacifica, and only site-specific biological analysis can confirm their presence.
11 City of Pacifica, 2022. General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report – Appendix B, May 25, page 3.7-
18. https://cityofpacifica.egnyte.com/dl/sbYOEeSNef
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1601 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) G-36 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 When biological investigations for earlier developments have located populations of these species, the City has worked with developers to provide mitigation by protecting potentially affected areas of habitat for these species. Mitigation has included altering development plans so as not to disturb site areas comprising habitat and requiring on-site monitoring during the construction phase to avoid unpermitted taking of the species.
Although the City does not consider the presence of these species a significant constraint to the accommodation of the city’s share of regional housing needs, identification of these species at any given housing development site could be quite impactful on an individual project basis.
Geological Hazards
In January 1982, Pacifica experienced widespread and severe landslides and flooding which caused loss of life and significant property damage. These events caused Pacifica to undertake a different approach to development, including instituting a new geological review process and retaining an independent engineering and geology firm to review all hillside projects. According to Pacifica’s geotechnical consultant, slope stability has been overrated in the past in Pacifica, and standards used to evaluate hillside development must be reassessed and strengthened.
Pacifica also experienced coastal bluff retreat of approximately 75 feet in some areas because of winter storms during 1983 and 2009. Areas previously considered stable were undercut, houses and trailers were damaged, destroyed, or had to be relocated further inland. Coastal bluff retreat continued throughout 2014 in the northwest section of the city west of Esplanade Avenue. Several apartment buildings, 310, 320, and 330 Esplanade, have been deemed uninhabitable and were demolished More recently, the entire state of California was subject to a series of atmospheric rivers in January 2023 bringing high winds and successive waves of heavy rain. The storms resulted in sink holes, landslides, extended power outages, toppled trees, and extensive flooding throughout the region. In Pacifica, waves caused additional erosion to coastal bluffs, and closures of Coast Highway Scientific research suggested that similar weather events are likely to occur on a more regular basis due to climate change.12
The City now recognizes that geologic hazard mitigation will be required in many areas of Pacifica. This may affect the timing, location, and intensity of future development. For example, geologic studies of some bluff top properties may result in lowered densities by reducing the amount of net developable acreage. Additionally, densities on inland sloping properties may be affected where geologic studies indicate that the revenue produced by locating units to achieve maximum densities does not justify the cost of providing engineering solutions sufficient to achieve those densities. In these cases, hazard avoidance may be the only acceptable mitigation measure because mitigation of both on- and off-site geotechnical hazards is a requirement of project approval or building permit issuance.
Pacifica expects that mitigation of existing and potential geologic hazards will, to some extent, reduce its growth rate; however, this effect cannot be quantified at this time, since these constraints are to some extent site specific. It is possible that land use designations may be revised to reflect changed conditions and policies, and this, too, may constrain Pacifica's future housing development potential. 12 X. Huang, D.L. Swain, 2022. Climate Change Is Increasing the Risk of a California Megaflood, Science Advances, 8(32), August 12. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq0995
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1602 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT G-37
Seven of the selected housing sites are identified in the Open Space Task Force report as candidates for preservation. These parcels include the Calson, Fish, Hacienda Court/Place, Lower Gypsy Hill, Rock, San Pedro Road, and Zeebros properties. Although these properties have been identified in the Open Space Task Force report as candidates for preservation, they have not been designated as open space and there are no development limitations imposed on these properties.
Infrastructure Constraints
All sites identified for residential development are within existing service areas for water, sewer, and electrical utilities. The City is unaware of any service limitations that would affect any of the residential development sites. Nearly all of the housing sites and densities identified in this Housing Element are among the most efficient in terms of water, sewer, and electrical demand and consumption. However, there are two areas which require further analysis and are highly dependent on the timing and design of the development.
Coast Highway
The primary north-south traffic corridor to, from, and through Pacifica is Coast Highway. Many of the City’s local streets intersect with the Coast Highway and have no outlet, essentially a network of dead-end cul-de-sacs.
Given the lack of opportunities to distribute traffic, recent traffic studies associated with proposed development have concluded that without mitigation, roadway operation would drop to Level of Service (LOS) E and possibly LOS F (unacceptable and intolerable congestion and delays). However, the City Council adopted Ordinance 813 on March 13, 2017, which prohibits the City Council or other legislative bodies of the City from taking formal action to support or authorize the construction and/or development of additional through-lanes on any portion of the Coast Highway without first obtaining a majority approval from the electorate of the City of Pacifica. As a result, any mitigation that would result in additional through lanes is prohibited until and unless the voters approve or this ordinance is repealed.
Water and Wastewater
Rainfall dependent infiltration/inflow (RDI&I) is a chronic issue that impacts the capacity of Pacifica’s sewer pump stations, and it should be noted that according to staff from the Pacific Public Works Department, wet weather events in recent years have caused the capacity of the Rockaway Beach Pump Station to be exceeded.
Old sewer laterals play a significant role in RDI&I, and the City has a program to provide incentives for homeowners to replace substandard pipe. Since 2016, 367 grants have been made to homeowners to assist with the costs to replace sewer laterals to help mitigate this issue. In addition, the City has included two rehabilitation and replacement (R&R) projects for the Vallemar and Rockaway Beach neighborhoods in the adopted 2023- 2028 Capital Improvement Plan which are also expected to reduce RDI&I sufficient to remove any associated constraints to the sites included in the inventory. The Vallemar R&R project is scheduled to commence in 2024 and is fully funded. The Rockaway Beach R&R project is also fully funded and is scheduled to commence in 2026.
It should be noted that according to staff from the Pacifica Public Works Department, wet weather events in recent years have caused the capacity of the Rockaway Pump Station to be exceeded. The effectiveness of these approved R&R projects to improve the capacity of the Rockaway Beach Pump Station was analyzed by Woodard & Curran, the City’s engineering consultant, and their conclusions were summarized in a technical memorandum to the City dated October 13, 2023. Woodward & Curran compared the projected sewer discharge increase within the Rockaway Beach Pump Station Tributary Area associated with the proposed REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1603 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) G-38 PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 2025 development of core RHNA housing sites 10 (4275 Coast Highway, Lumberyard), 11 (Coast Highway north of Lumberyard), and 38 (Coast Highway, North of Lutheran Church) to the reductions in RDI&I that could be achieved by the two approved R&R projects for Vallemar and Rockaway Beach. This analysis was based on hydraulic modeling completed for the Pacifica 2021 Collection System Master Plan Update and a previous analysis of the Rockaway Beach Pump Station capacity using a multi-day storm event which occurred in December 2021. The analysis used a conservative estimate of an increased Rockaway Beach Pump Station capacity of 200 new housing units (179 planned units with a buffer of 21 additional units). The projected daily average sewer load for 200 new units is 34,000 gallons per day (GPD).
It was concluded that they would resolve the existing wet weather issues and result in sufficient capacity to accommodate an additional 200 multi-family dwelling units.
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1604 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) PACIFICA 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT G-39
This page intentionally left blank
REVISED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT - HCD SUBMITTAL DRAFT (REDLINE) - FEBRUARY 14, 2025
7.e
Packet Pg. 1605 Attachment: Attachment C. Redline Comparison (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) February 14, 2024
Paul McDougall, Senior Program Manager
State Department of Housing and Community Development
C/O Land Use and Planning Unit
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
RE: Submission ofthe City of Pacifica’s Revised 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element for HCD Review Dear Paul McDougall,
I am pleased to transmit the City of Pacifica’s Revised 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element of the General Plan for your review.
The City posted the revised draft Housing Element on its website on February 6, 2025, and emailed a link to all individuals and organizations that previously requested notices relating to Housing Element adoption and has met the seven-day public review requirement. To aid your review, I have attached a consolidated version of the revised draft Housing Element (Attachment 1) and a redline comparison version showing changes since the City’s January 2024 Housing Element (Attachment 2). Also included are Attachments to the Pacifica Housing Element including public comments (Attachment 3).
As you may already recognize, preparation of the Housing Element has been a major undertaking for the City of Pacifica. However, the City has embraced the challenge and boldly established capacity for housing development far in excess of its RHNA obligations, creating more than 2,000 units of new housing capacity.
The revised draft Housing Element incorporated significant revisions required to address comments in the Department of Housing& Community Development’s (HCD’s) comment letter dated March 29, 2024, and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) comment matrix dated October 15, 2024, in addition to revisions in response to HCD’s August 8, 2023, comment letter. The City appreciatesthe thoughtful commentsfrom HCD staff which have resulted in an improved Housing Element. We also appreciate the dialogue with HCD staff preceding and following the comment letters. A detailed description of how the draft Housing Element was revised to comply with State Law and addresses HCD’s comments is attached (Attachment 4). Additional tables accompanying the submittal are included (Attachment 5).
Key revisions following the January, 2024 adopted Housing Element:
CITY OF PACIFICA
Community Development Department
170 Santa Maria Ave • Pacifica, California 94044-2506
(650) 738-7341 • www.cityofpacifica.org
MAYOR
Sue Beckmeyer
MAYOR PRO TEM
Christine Boles
COUNCIL
Mary Bier
Mayra Espinosa
Greg Wright
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov.
22, 1957
7.f
Packet Pg. 1606 Attachment: Attachment D. HCD Comments + Pacifica Responses_25-02-14 (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) • Added analysis supporting the selection of opportunity sites • Added program implementation actions to further affirmatively further fair housing • Expanded program actions to encourage the development of housing on publicly owned sites The City has increasingly invested in Housing Element implementation and a package of policies to implement the rezoning program and associated environmental review are well underway.
I look forward to your review and this major step towards HCD certification. Please contact me at any time should questions arise during your review. You can reach me by email [email protected] or by phone at (650) 446-4698.
Thank you,
Samantha Updegrave
Community Development Director
Mailing Address: 170 Santa Maria Avenue, Pacifica, CA 94044 Office Address: 1800 Francisco Boulevard, Pacifica, CA 94044 Planning: (650) 738-7341 / Direct: (650) 446-4698
[email protected]
cc: City Manager
City Attorney
Melinda Coy, Proactive Housing Accountability Chief
Attachments (All documents available on HCD Connect and via hard copy)
1. Revised City of Pacifica Draft Housing Element (dated February 6, 2025)
2. Redline comparison of Pacifica’s Adopted Housing Element (January 2024) and Revised City of Pacifica Draft Housing Element (dated February 6, 2025)
3. Attachments to the Revised City of Pacifica Draft Housing Element (dated February 6, 2025)
4. HCD Comments and City of Pacifica Responses: March 2024 – February 2025 (dated February 14, 2025)
5. HCD Sites Inventory, Tables A through C
7.f
Packet Pg. 1607 Attachment: Attachment D. HCD Comments + Pacifica Responses_25-02-14 (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) 1 CITY OF PACIFICA
Community Development Department
170 Santa Maria Ave • Pacifica, California 94044-2506
(650) 738-7341 • www.cityofpacifica.org
MAYOR
Sue Beckmeyer
MAYOR PRO TEM
Mary Bier
COUNCIL
Christine Boles
Mayra Espinosa
Greg Wright
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957
City of Pacifica Housing Element
HCD Comments and City of Pacifica Responses: March 2024 – February 2025 February 14, 2025
Notes:
1. An Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Review Matrix was provided to the City on October 15, 2024. The matrix, and city responses, are included as Attachment A to this document.
2. Additional guidance was provided by HCD for many of the below topics.
HCD Comment Letter – March 29, 2024
Note: Additional guidance provided by HCD for many of the below topics.
City Response – February 14, 2025
A.1.1
A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
1. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
Progress toward the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA): The element identified 227 units including 52 units for lower-income households as credit towards the RHNA. HCD’s prior review found that the element must analyze and demonstrate the availability of these units during the planning period. The element was revised to indicate that 107 units are pending but likely to be built during the planning period.
However, the element needs to provide support for the assertion that pending units will likely be built during the planning period. As found in HCD’s prior review, to demonstrate the availability of these units, the element could analyze infrastructure schedules, City’s past completion rates on pipeline projects, outreach with project developers, describe any Expanded the analysis of completion rates for pipeline projects, namely projects that have been approved or in the final stages of land use approvals (see Appendix F, p. F4-F8), indicated units in the pipeline by affordability level and by which step the project is in the permitting or construction process, and added a pipeline monitoring and outreach program to HE-I-1.
Added a mid-cycle review of progress toward achieving RHNA and added metrics to program HE-I-1 to be completed by 2027, and added back-up actions, including rezoning of additional sites to be completed by June 2028, if production metrics are not met.
(Response to HCD comment A1.1. and further guidance provided by HCD.)
7.f
Packet Pg. 1608 Attachment: Attachment D. HCD Comments + Pacifica Responses_25-02-14 (5882 : Adoption of the City of Pacifica Housing Element
HCD Comments and City of Pacifica Responses: March 2024 – February 2025 February 14, 2025
2 expiration dates on entitlements, anticipated timelines for final approvals, and any remaining steps for projects to receive final entitlements. Lastly, the element should also add or modify programs committing to monitoring, facilitating and encouraging the development of these units.
A.1.2
Realistic Capacity (Sites in Zones that Allow 100 Percent Nonresidential Uses): The element was revised to state that the City will require a certain percentage of residential and will not allow 100 percent nonresidential projects (p. F-47). However, the element did not include any corresponding programs to implement this action. As found in HCD's prior review, the element must analyze the likelihood that the identified units will be developed as noted in the inventory in zones that allow 100 percent nonresidential uses. This analysis should consider the likelihood of nonresidential development, performance standards, and development trends supporting residential development.
Added a requirement in Program HE-I-1.13 to amend the Zoning Code to clarify that all sites on the inventory will include a required minimum residential component in accordance with state law.
(Response to HCD Comment A.1.2.)
A.1.3
Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: The element was revised to indicate various criteria utilized when identifying the redevelopment potential on nonvacant sites. In addition, the element includes a listing of local and regional projects that share similar characteristics. However, while the element indicates which factors apply to different sites, as found in HCD’s prior review, the element must quantify these factors for each site (e.g., building age, LIR, etc.,). Based on a complete analysis, the element may need to add or revise programs to encourage redevelopment.
In addition, to provide sufficient capacity for the RHNA during the planning period and as part of identifying sites with potential for development, the element should consider public comments received regarding the inclusion of sites from property owners written interest in residential development in the planning period.
Provided additional site-level quantitative data points (i.e., age of structure, lot coverage, size of site above 1 acre, and the Improvement to Land Value) to demonstrate that it is realistic to expect these sites to be redeveloped within the planning period. (See Appendix F narrative (F-23) and tables F2, F11, and F12.). Updated and expanded Appendix A to include discussion of recent public comments. See pages A-13, A16-A19 for expanded discussion of comments. As discussed in additional analysis included on p. F-23, the data show it is realistic to expect these sites to be redeveloped within the planning period.
Note:
1. Provided the above referenced analysis for sites that are also being rezoned to increase residential capacity.
2. Previous reductions to the developable area for sites with physical constraints were already included in prior drafts indicated on Table F-11 in the column titled “Partial Site for Residential Balance for Existing Use” for sites with physical constraints.
7.f
Packet Pg. 1609 Attachment: Attachment D. HCD Comments + Pacifica Responses_25-02-14 (5882 : Adoption of the City of Pacifica Housing Element
HCD Comments and City of Pacifica Responses: March 2024 – February 2025 February 14, 2025
3 Revised the element to add additional data points to Tables F-11 and F-12 and include additional explanation regarding sites 27A and 27B. Revised Appendix F to clarify that site G has no structure on site. Restored Figure 10 which had previously been inadvertently deleted from the prior draft. (Response to HCD Comment A.1.3. and B.1.1 and further guidance provided by HCD)
A.1.4
Availability of Infrastructure: HCD's prior review found that the element must include additional discussion regarding the adequacy of sewer and water capacity (existing or planned) during the planning period to accommodate the RHNA. The element was revised to indicate that certain water pump stations will need to be improved to accommodate the City's capacity and the City's Capital improvement plan includes a commitment to implement these changes. First, the element still should indicate accessibility of infrastructure to identified sites and whether there is sufficient water and sewer capacity (planned or existing) to accommodate the entire RHNA.
Second, the element must include a program committing to actions such as the water pump improvements and a timeline to make sufficient infrastructure available to accommodate the RHNA.
Added additional analysis of the capacity of the Rockaway Beach Pump Station (see Appendix G: Housing Constraints p. 37--38, and p. 32 of the Housing Element) to indicate the capacity within the catchment area after completion of scheduled rehabilitation and replacement Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) is estimated to be sufficient for at least 200 additional units, presenting no constraint to the units included in the sites inventory within the catchment area, and added a backup action to program HE-I-13 for the City to rezone any necessary sites within one year if the CIP projects are not initiated by July 2026 (Vallemar) and July 2027 (Rockaway Beach).
(Response to HCD Comment A.1.4. and further guidance provided by HCD.)
Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:
A.1.5.1
Emergency Shelters – Emergency Shelters parking requirements should be updated pursuant to AB 139 (Chapter 335, Statutes of 2019) which requires only sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone. The element should demonstrate compliance with this requirement and include or modify programs as appropriate.
Revised program HE-I-10 to commit to update section 9-4.2818 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to modify the parking standard for emergency shelters to be consistent with AB 139 by requiring one space per staff member.
(Response to HCD comment A.1.5.1.)
A.1.5.2
Transitional and Supportive Housing –While the element includes Program HE 1- 14 (State and Federal Law Conformance), this Expanded the required zoning updates in program HE-I-14 to include a requirement that transitional housing and supportive housing shall be considered a residential use and subject only to those restrictions that
7.f
Packet Pg. 1610 Attachment: Attachment D. HCD Comments + Pacifica Responses_25-02-14 (5882 : Adoption of the City of Pacifica Housing Element
HCD Comments and City of Pacifica Responses: March 2024 – February 2025 February 14, 2025
4 Program only commits to complying with Government Code section 65651 which is intended for a specific type of supportive housing.
The element must also add or modify programs to permit
transitional and supportive housing as a residential use in all zones allowing residential uses and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone.
apply to other residential dwellings and that supportive housing will be a use by right in all zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted. (Response to HCD comment A.1.5.2.)
A.1.5.3
Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Units: HCD's prior review found that the City defines SROs as boardinghouses and must include a complete analysis to evaluate any constraints on this housing type.
The element was revised with Program HE-1-14 (State and Federal Law Conformance) indicating that the City will "consider" explicitly defining and permitting SROs. However, as found in HCD's prior review, SROs provide a valuable source of affordable housing especially for persons experiencing homelessness and extremely low-income households. As such, the element should go beyond "consider" and include a specific commitment to defining, permitting and facilitating the development of SROs.
Added a commitment to explicitly define SROs in the code to Program HEI-14 to codify the current practice that SRO applications are treated as an allowed use.
(Response to HCD comment A.1.5.3.)
A.2
An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities (Reasonable Accommodation): HCD's prior review found that the City must analyze all decision-making criteria including approval findings for potential constraints on housing persons with disabilities. The revised element noted several Added a commitment to Program HE-I-12 to revise Article 51 to remove or significantly change potentially subjective finding 3 regarding reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities and architectural compatibility, revise finding 4 to objectively define undue financial or administrative burden, and revise finding 7 to more objectively define how a nonconformity due to a reasonable accommodation request will be treated. (Response to HCD comment A.2 and to further guidance provided by HCD.)
7.f
Packet Pg. 1611 Attachment: Attachment D. HCD Comments + Pacifica Responses_25-02-14 (5882 : Adoption of the City of Pacifica Housing Element
HCD Comments and City of Pacifica Responses: March 2024 – February 2025 February 14, 2025
5 subjective approval findings including whether the request would have adverse impacts on coastal resources, architectural compatibility or adverse effect on people working or residing in that area. The element further indicated that it is not common for reasonable accommodation requests to be denied due to these findings and therefore it is not considered a constraint. However, several of these findings are subjective and similar to a conditional use permit finding. Reasonable accommodation should be a unique exception process from a conditional use permit, especially given its importance in addressing barriers to housing for persons with disabilities.
The element should include a program to amend the reasonable accommodation ordinance and remove constraints, namely subjective approval findings.
A.3
Analyze existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change to non-low- income housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of use restrictions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(9) through 65583(a)(9)(D).).
HCDs prior review found the element should evaluate the risk of conversion and analyze the cost for replacing versus preserving the units. The element was revised to include some general statements regarding conversion risk.
However, as found in HCD’s prior review, the element must estimate and analyze the cost for replacing versus preserving the units. For more information on the analysis, please visit: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planningand-community-development/housing- elements/building-blocks/assistedhousing-developments-risk-conversion.
Added analysis to Appendix C-Housing Needs regarding the cost for replacing versus preserving units and provided quantified estimates regarding the tradeoffs associated with replacement vs preserving at risk units that show preservation to be more cost effective. (Response to HCD comment A.3.)
B.1.1
B. Housing Programs
1.Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to Added additional sites analysis. See response to comment A.1.3. (Response to HCD comment. B.1.1.)
7.f
Packet Pg. 1612 Attachment: Attachment D. HCD Comments + Pacifica Responses_25-02-14 (5882 : Adoption of the City of Pacifica Housing Element
HCD Comments and City of Pacifica Responses: March 2024 – February 2025 February 14, 2025
6 paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factorybuilt housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)
As noted in Finding A1, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established.
Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types.
B.1.2
Program HE – 1-1 (General Plan and Zoning Amendments) – The element shows a shortfall of 1,356 units including 660 units for lower-income households to accommodate the RHNA. While the element included programs committing to rezoning, these programs must specifically commit to all of the rezone requirements pursuant to Government Code sections 65583, subdivision (c)(1) and 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). Examples of requirements include permitting, without discretionary action, multifamily developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lowerincome households, requiring minimum densities and residential performance standards. For more information, please see HCD’s site inventory guidance memo: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/housingelement/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf.
Revised program HE-I-1.8 to require rezoning of certain sites to allow approval of residential developments “by-right” and establish 16 units minimum and 20 units/acre minimum, consistent with Government Code sections 65583(c)(1) and 65583.2 (c), (h) and (i). See also program text of HE-I-1.12.
(Response to HCD comment B.1.2. and to further guidance provided by HCD.)
B.1.3
Program HE – 1-4 (Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)): While the element was revised to include a commitment to monitoring ADU development and implementing alternative actions, the element must include a timeline for when the City will implement any required alternative actions.
Program HE-I-4 was significantly expanded with commitments to several Housing Mobility actions and the addition of a specific completion date of December 2028 for backup action 1 (rezoning additional sites if specified targets are not met). See also response to HCD comment B.3. and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) comment 1-4 below.
7.f
Packet Pg. 1613 Attachment: Attachment D. HCD Comments + Pacifica Responses_25-02-14 (5882 : Adoption of the City of Pacifica Housing Element
HCD Comments and City of Pacifica Responses: March 2024 – February 2025 February 14, 2025
7 (Response to HCD comment B.1.3. and further guidance
provided by HCD)
B.1.4
Program HE – 1-2 (Zoning Modernization and Streamlining): The element is assuming that several parcels will be consolidated into larger sites to accommodate the lower-income RHNA. This assumption is based on ownership patterns and adjacency of parcels. This program indicates that the City will consider lot merger incentives. However, the element must also include a program with a specific commitment to establishing incentives and other actions to facilitate consolidation and development on small sites.
Revised program HE-I-2 to include a commitment to establish a site consolidation incentive to facilitate consolidation and development on small sites. Added an ombuds/liaison program to provide technical assistance to shopping center owners to facilitate the production of more housing and added a metric to conduct outreach to at least 50% of owners of at least two shopping centers.
(Response to HCD comment B.1.4 and further guidance provided by HCD.) B.1.5
Publicly Identified Sites: The element included Program 1-1 (General Plan and Zoning Amendments) and 1-3 (Public Land Planning) to address development on publicly identified sites. However, as found in HCD’s prior review, this Program must be revised with additional actions, firm commitments, discrete timelines, and quantifiable metrics. Additional actions to facilitate development should include frequent outreach with developers, any necessary rezoning, incentives such as financial assistance, issuing requests for proposals, facilitating any subsequent entitlements, and numerical objectives by affordability
Revised program HE-I-3 to include additional actions including outreach, test fits, creation of a development toolkit to support the reduction of barriers to undertaking development for public sites and hiring a consultant to bring forward recommendations to the Council. Added specific numerical targets and affordability levels regarding each of the publicly identified sites. Revised Program HE-I-1.6 to include specific timelines, commitments, and quantifiable metrics.
(Response to HCD comment B.1.5. and further guidance provided by HCD.) B.2
2. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov.
Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)
See responses to HCD comments A.2. and A.3. above. Added further related analysis to Appendices A, F, and G.
(Response to HCD comment B.2. and further guidance provided by HCD.)
7.f
Packet Pg. 1614 Attachment: Attachment D. HCD Comments + Pacifica Responses_25-02-14 (5882 : Adoption of the City of Pacifica Housing Element
HCD Comments and City of Pacifica Responses: March 2024 – February 2025 February 14, 2025
8 As noted in Findings A2 and A3, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.
B.3
3. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
The element was revised with some changes to affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) programs including further clarification on how these actions relate to addressing fair housing issues. However, as found in HCD’s prior review, actions should generally address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection. Additionally, given the City’s patterns of being largely affluent and highest resource, the element must include significant and robust actions (not limited to the RHNA) to promote housing mobility and increasing housing choices and affordability throughout the City, including lower-density neighborhoods. Actions should be added and revised with significant and meaningful numeric targets and geographic targets throughout the City, including lower-density neighborhoods.
Examples include creating more housing choices and affordability in singlefamily neighborhoods beyond complying with law (e.g., SB 9, ADUs) such as missing middle housing types, targeting affordable housing funding, homesharing, more than one unit of converted space within a single-family structure, increased multifamily capacity, enhanced efforts on religious institutional sites and other alternative land use and financing strategies.
Revised program HE-I-4 to further promote housing mobility, housing choice and affordability in high-opportunity areas, place-based strategies, and targeted outreach programs. Revised Program HE-I-4 to include specific commitments to:
• Home Sharing: Participate in a home sharing program, such as HIP Housing’s Home Sharing Program, to improve housing
opportunities for lower-income seniors and extremely low-income residents.
• Objective Development Standards (ODS): Develop ODS to facilitate missing middle housing in certain low density residential zones and improve housing mobility in a variety of neighborhoods including RCAAs.
• Bike/Ped Prioritization: Prioritize the safety and accessibility mobility improvements included in the Bike/Ped Master Plan in the northern areas of the city as part of a place-based initiative to better serve residents who have lower mobility options and economic opportunity.
• Conduct proactive outreach with higher education and religious institutions to develop deed-restricted affordable housing, including a provision to waive associated fees.
• Geographic Information Systems (GIS) tool: Establish a publicly accessible land use and GIS tool intended to facilitate the production of ADUs and missing middle housing,
• Mid-Cycle Review: Added a mid-cycle review of progress toward achieving RHNA and added metrics to programs HE-I-4 to be completed by 2027, and added back-up actions, including rezoning of additional sites, if production metrics are not met. • Geographic Targeting of Housing Supports: Establish specific geographic targets and metrics within the highest-resource
7.f
Packet Pg. 1615 Attachment: Attachment D. HCD Comments + Pacifica Responses_25-02-14 (5882 : Adoption of the City of Pacifica Housing Element
HCD Comments and City of Pacifica Responses: March 2024 – February 2025 February 14, 2025
9 (See also: ATTACHMENT A: AFFH REVIEW COMMENTS (Provided 10/15/2024) AND RESPONSES) neighborhoods in R1 and other predominantly single-family residential districts southwest of Fassler Ave.
See also Attachment 1: AFFH review comments provided 10/15/2024 and responses (below).
(Response to HCD comment. B.3. and further guidance provided by HCD.)
7.f
Packet Pg. 1616 Attachment: Attachment D. HCD Comments + Pacifica Responses_25-02-14 (5882 : Adoption of the City of Pacifica Housing Element
HCD Comments and City of Pacifica Responses: March 2024 – February 2025 February 14, 2025
10 ATTACHMENT A: AFFH REVIEW COMMENTS (Provided 10/15/2024) AND RESPONSES PB- Paced based strategies; SC- specific commitment; HM- housing mobility; NO- New opportunity; D- displacement; GT- geographic targeting; T-timing; M- metrics; Y- yes; N-No; ~- maybe
# Description Type SC T GT M HCD Notes City Response – February 14, 2025 1 -
1 General Plan
and Zoning
Amendment
s to Achieve
RHNA (R)
HM Y Y Y Y Revised program language to require that several components of program HE-I-1 be completed to achieve housing mobility goals, in addition to achieving RHNA. Revised program language to make it more explicit that programs apply citywide except as noted. Added specific deadline to a backup action.
(Response to HCD comment AFFH-1-1 and further guidance provided by HCD.)
1 -
2 Zoning
Modernizati
on and
Streamlining
NO Y Y Y ~ Add geographic
targeting and a
metric
Large Units: Established a metric for the large unit parking incentive in program HE-I-2 that the incentive should assist at least 25 units and additional metrics for actions 12 and 13. Revised program language to make it more explicit that programs apply citywide except as noted. (Response to HCD comment AFFH-1-2 and further guidance provided by HCD.)
1 -
3 Master
Planning
and
Implementat
ion for
Public Sites
NO Y Y ~ Y A specific deadline was added to a backup action. (Response to HCD comment AFFH-1-3 and further guidance provided by HCD.)
1 -
4 Support for
Developmen
t of
Accessory
Dwelling
Units and
HM,
NO
Y Y N ~ Increase metric,
increase housing
mobility actions, add
RI action
Revised HE-I-4 program language to include:
1. Religious and Educational Institutions: Adopt an ordinance to expand the feasibility of deed-restricted housing development on nonprofit higher education and religious institution sites and set specific
7.f
Packet Pg. 1617 Attachment: Attachment D. HCD Comments + Pacifica Responses_25-02-14 (5882 : Adoption of the City of Pacifica Housing Element
HCD Comments and City of Pacifica Responses: March 2024 – February 2025 February 14, 2025
11 # Description Type SC T GT M HCD Notes City Response – February 14, 2025 Housing
Mobility
targets for expansion of deed-restricted affordable housing at nonprofit educational and religious institutions.
2. Manufactured Home Parks: Offer and provide technical assistance to manufactured home park owners or resident associations regarding the Manufactured Housing Opportunity & Revitalization Program (MORE). The MORE program helps fund a variety of activities intended to keep mobile home parks a safe and affordable housing option.
3. ADU Tracking and Outreach: Track use and rental rates. Targeted outreach, and increased metric for processing of ADU applications were also increased from 15 to 25 planning applications per year.
4. Targeting: Establishing specific geographic targets within the highestresource neighborhoods in R1 and other predominantly single-family residential districts southwest of Fassler Ave applicable to ADU programs, home-share programs, ODS development, and supports for housing development on religious and educational institution land.
5. Requiring program commitments HE-I-1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.10-a, 1.10-b, 1-13, and 1-14 be completed as housing mobility actions in addition to achieving broader RHNA goals.
Metrics: Increased from 15 to 25 ADU applications processed per year and from 15 to 20 units being affordable during the planning period. An overall metric for Housing mobility units was already established at 100 units, but specific geographic targeting metrics were added.
Backup actions: Revised backup actions to include additional outreach to nonprofit higher education and religious institutions and affordable housing developers to determine policies that would better encourage these projects and address government constraints, including expanding the incentives to be available to mixed-income projects. Backup actions have also been revised to
7.f
Packet Pg. 1618 Attachment: Attachment D. HCD Comments + Pacifica Responses_25-02-14 (5882 : Adoption of the City of Pacifica Housing Element
HCD Comments and City of Pacifica Responses: March 2024 – February 2025 February 14, 2025
12 # Description Type SC T GT M HCD Notes City Response – February 14, 2025 include a target to complete implementation of backup actions and increase the current limits of ADUs on parcels in R1 and other majority single family residential districts.
(Response to HCD comment AFFH-1-4 and further guidance provided by HCD.)
1 -
5 Fund a
Housing
Action Fund
NO Y Y N N Add geographic
targeting (e.g.,
throughout the City)
and a metric
Grant Applications: Added a requirement to HE-I-5 that funding applications are required beginning in 2025.
Revised program language to make it more explicit that programs apply citywide except as noted.
(Response to HCD comment AFFH-1-5 and further guidance provided by HCD.)
1 -
6 Strengthen
Inclusionary
Housing
Program
NO Y Y ~ N Add metric and add
action to evaluate
changes as potential
constraints and make
adjustments as
appropriate
Inclusionary Housing: Added a commitment to HE-I-6 to evaluate the changes to the inclusionary housing program as potential constraints to development and a metric regarding a report on this evaluation. Revised program language to make it more explicit that programs apply citywide except as noted. (Response to HCD comment AFFH-1-6 and further guidance provided by HCD.)
1 -
7 Preserve
Existing
Affordable
Housing
Units
D Y Y Y Y N/A
1 -
8 Rehabilitatio
n of Homes
in Lower
Resource
and Coastal
Areas
D ~ Y Y N Revised HE-I-8 to require completion of Program: HE-I-4.7 (support for manufactured home park owners and/or resident groups regarding the MORE program). See also Program HE-I-4 for associated metrics. (Response to HCD comment AFFH-1-8 and further guidance provided by HCD.)
7.f
Packet Pg. 1619 Attachment: Attachment D. HCD Comments + Pacifica Responses_25-02-14 (5882 : Adoption of the City of Pacifica Housing Element
HCD Comments and City of Pacifica Responses: March 2024 – February 2025 February 14, 2025
13 # Description Type SC T GT M HCD Notes City Response – February 14, 2025 1 -
9 Housing for
Extremely
Low-Income,
Special, and
Disproportio
nate Needs
HM,
NO
Y Y Y N Add geographic
targeting and metric
Housing for Extremely Low-Income, Special, and Disproportionate Needs:
Added to HE-I-9 the prioritization of incentives to support development of extremely low-income housing not only within the RCAA but also within R1 and other majority single family residential districts south of Fassler Ave. and adjacent areas to increase access to opportunity for extremely low-income residents in higher resource areas.
Geographic Targeting of Housing Supports: Established specific geographic targets and metrics within the highest-resource neighborhoods in R1 and other predominantly single-family residential districts southwest of Fassler Ave.
(Response to HCD comment AFFH-1-9 and further guidance provided by HCD.)
1 -
1 0
Strengthen
Services for
Homelessne
ss
D Y Y Y Y N/A
1 -
1 1
Support Fair
Housing
Enforcement
and
Outreach
Capacity
HM N N NA N Substantial Renovation Evictions: Require the adoption of an ordinance consistent with Government Code Section 1946.2(b)(2)(D)(iv)(III) that requires a building permit be issued, if otherwise required under state and local law, as a prerequisite to serving a substantial renovation eviction notice by June 2025. Revised program language to make it more explicit that programs apply citywide except as noted. Added additional timing targets. See also revisions to program HE-I-4, including housing mobility and outreach commitments. (Response to HCD comment AFFH-1-11 and further guidance provided by HCD.)
1 -
1 2
Fair Housing
Affirmative
Marketing
Strategy
HM ~ Y ~ N Fair Housing Affirmative Marketing Strategy: Require completion of associated fair housing marketing actions included within program HE-I-4 as a requirement of the part of program HE-I-12 (Fair Housing Affirmative Marketing Strategy).
7.f
Packet Pg. 1620 Attachment: Attachment D. HCD Comments + Pacifica Responses_25-02-14 (5882 : Adoption of the City of Pacifica Housing Element
HCD Comments and City of Pacifica Responses: March 2024 – February 2025 February 14, 2025
14 # Description Type SC T GT M HCD Notes City Response – February 14, 2025 Per conversation with HCD on 10/24/24, further revisions are not required to program 12.
(Response to HCD comment AFFH-1-12 and further guidance provided by HCD.)
1 -
1 3
Infrastructur
e Capacity
Improvemen
ts
PB Y Y Y ~ Revised metrics to reflect the individual deadlines of July 2026 (Vallemar) and July 2027 (Rockaway Beach)
(Response to HCD comment AFFH-1-13 and further guidance provided by HCD.)
1 -
1 4
State and
Federal Law
Conformanc
e
NO Y N NA N
A
Revised program language to include additional specific completion targets. (Response to HCD comment AFFH-1-14 and further guidance provided by HCD.)
END
7.f
Packet Pg. 1621 Attachment: Attachment D. HCD Comments + Pacifica Responses_25-02-14 (5882 : Adoption of the March 6, 2025
Paul McDougall, Senior Program Manager
State Department of Housing and Community Development
C/O Land Use and Planning Unit
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
Sent via email: [email protected]
RE: Public Comments Received on the City of Pacifica’s Revised 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element for HCD Review
Dear Paul McDougall,
The City of Pacifica received six public comments regarding the revised draft 2023-2031 Housing Element during the seven-day comment period between February 7 and February 14, 2025. The six comments are included with this letter.
Of the comments, many were aligned with those considered and described in Appendix A: Community Consultation. Specifically, regarding Theme 11: Property owner and public requests to modify the housing site inventory by adding or removing specific sites. Comments that aligned with this theme during the comment period include:
• Encouraging consideration of Spanky’s Diner on Oceana Blvd; and • Opposition to including parts of Oceana High School in the sites inventory, citing concerns about infrastructure, including traffic, parking, sewage, water and power, and potential for impacts to scenic views and natural habitats.
For purposes of this housing element, the Spanky’s Diner site did not meet the criteria for site selection extensively described in Appendix F of the Revised 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element. City staff are always open to exploring other avenues for consideration of housing development. Please also see Appendix F for discussion of the Oceana High School site.
A comment was submitted expressing concern that the 122 units on Table 3 (Residential Sites with Existing Capacity) and the 1,483 Core RHNA on Table 4 (Sites That Require Rezoning to Meeting RHNA Capacity) are together 1,605 and less than the RHNA allocation of 1,892. The writer is correct that these
CITY OF PACIFICA
Community Development Department
170 Santa Maria Ave • Pacifica, California 94044-2506
(650) 738-7341 • www.cityofpacifica.org
MAYOR
Sue Beckmeyer
MAYOR PRO TEM
Christine Boles
COUNCIL
Mary Bier
Mayra Espinosa
Greg Wright
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov.
22, 1957
7.g
Packet Pg. 1622 Attachment: Attachment E. Public Comments on Public Review Draft 25-02-07-14 (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) two figures sum to less than RHNA, however, the 217 approved units, and 187 ADUs must also be considered. Taken together, the existing capacity, core rezoning sites, approved units, and ADUs total 2,009 units. This sum is 117 units greater than the RHNA allocation. An additional 559 units of buffer sites are also included in the rezoning commitment for a 30 percent total buffer.
Additional comments expressed support for increasing density in shopping centers and other sites near Highway 1 and transit while minimizing the inclusion of any units in locations where they might contribute to wildland urban interface or fire insurance issues. Consistent with the goals, policies, and programs in the General Plan, the Housing Element sites inventory emphasizes higher density infill development in shopping center sites and in areas served by transit.
Please contact me at any time should questions arise during your review. You can reach me by email at [email protected] or by phone at (650) 446-4698.
Thank you,
Samantha Updegrave
Community Development Director
Mailing Address: 170 Santa Maria Avenue, Pacifica, CA 94044 Office Address: 1800 Francisco Boulevard, Pacifica, CA 94044 Planning: (650) 738-7341 / Direct: (650) 446-4698
[email protected]
cc: City Manager
City Attorney
Melinda Coy, Proactive Housing Accountability Chief
Attachments
1. Public Comment Letters received February 7 – February 14, 2025
7.g
Packet Pg. 1623 Attachment: Attachment E. Public Comments on Public Review Draft 25-02-07-14 (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) From: Carol
To: Housing
Subject: Building on blighted lots
Date: Friday, February 07, 2025 10:09:07 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Is anyone considering building on the site that used to be a Spanky's Diner on Oceana Blvd. near the DPW building?
That dilapidated, empty building is an eyesore and the location would be perfect for housing as it is near SamTrans stops.
Please consider that as a possibility.
Thank you,
Carol Fregly
Rockaway Beach
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
7.g
Packet Pg. 1624 Attachment: Attachment E. Public Comments on Public Review Draft 25-02-07-14 (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) From: Remi Tan
To: Housing; Housing
Cc: City Council
Subject: Comments Re: Public Review Draft of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element Now Available Date: Thursday, February 13, 2025 9:07:50 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Table 4 The total amount of units 1,483 + 122 approved units is still short the 1,892 RHNA required units.
Some of the buffer sites need to be made part of required sites.
Also some of the units are on JUHSD and CalTrans sites. Has city had meaningful discussions with those agencies to see if they are willing to use the land for housing? If not some of the buffer sites need to be made into required sites
City should consider increasing density of the shopping center sites and other sites near HWY 1 and near existing transit. Reduce any units adjacent to open space to reduce wildland urban interface and fire insurance issues.
The above comments were made in previous rounds, but it does not look like the current update addressed these issues.
Thank you and Best Regards,
Remi Tan, AIA, LEED AP BD+C
Architecture, Green/Sustainability Consulting, and Real Estate Investment On Friday, February 7, 2025 at 01:45:00 PM PST, Pacifica Housing Element Updates <[email protected]> wrote:
7.g
Packet Pg. 1625 Attachment: Attachment E. Public Comments on Public Review Draft 25-02-07-14 (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element)
7.g
Packet Pg. 1626 Attachment: Attachment E. Public Comments on Public Review Draft 25-02-07-14 (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) adopted last year. This is the critical next step for the Housing Element to receive certification by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The revisions are based on HCD’s formal comments, dated March 29, 2024, and subsequent additional guidance.
This Public Review Draft contains the revisions and is scheduled to be sent to HCD on February 14, 2025, to initiate formal certification review.
Prior to making the formal submittal to HCD, a seven-day review period following State requirements is open, from February 7, 2025 to February 14, 2025, where comments can be submitted. The next step following the submittal to HCD is scheduling the Public Review Draft for review and adoption consideration by the City Council, where there will be further opportunities for comment.
To complete the Housing Element process, the Housing Element requires both State certification and City Council approval. Pacifica will also need to complete the rezoning associated with adopted Housing Element prior to obtaining State certification. That process is currently underway – the City is preparing the Response to Comments and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which will be brought first to Planning Commission, then to City Council, along with the proposed General Plan amendments and rezoning ordinance for consideration. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Background: On January 26, 2024, the City adopted its most recent Housing Element and submitted the document to the California Department of HCD to initiate review for State certification. Since receiving comments from HCD on March 29, 2024, the City has been working with HCD on draft refinements required for certification.
View the Document Here
City of Pacifica | 540 Crespi Dr | Pacifica, CA 94044 US Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice
7.g
Packet Pg. 1627 Attachment: Attachment E. Public Comments on Public Review Draft 25-02-07-14 (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element)
7.g
Packet Pg. 1628 Attachment: Attachment E. Public Comments on Public Review Draft 25-02-07-14 (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) From: al romero
To: Housing
Subject: NO on Building in Oceana High school
Date: Thursday, February 13, 2025 6:08:38 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
No on Building at Oceana High School. Totally against this idea.
Resident of Pacifica.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
7.g
Packet Pg. 1629 Attachment: Attachment E. Public Comments on Public Review Draft 25-02-07-14 (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) From: Jenny McGrath
To: Housing
Subject: Paloma-proposed housing
Date: Friday, February 14, 2025 12:23:53 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
I am writing to express my opposition to proposed housing at the Oceana High School lot (on Paloma ave). Traffic is already heavy & parking is difficult esp during frequent weekend events. This would be a loss of habitat for many wild species. The disruption due to construction would be immense, and our property values would likely decrease.
Myself & every neighbor I’ve talked to is opposed to this prop.
Jenny McGrath
Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
7.g
Packet Pg. 1630 Attachment: Attachment E. Public Comments on Public Review Draft 25-02-07-14 (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) From: Dana Perkins
To: Housing
Subject: Please Don"t Build on Paloma!
Date: Friday, February 14, 2025 4:46:00 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
To Whom It May Concern:
It's Friday afternoon, 2/14, and there is basically nowhere to park on Paloma from the pool up to the high school driveway. Why? Because there are soccer games happening, swimming happening, and neighbors parking where they usually park. This happens on many Fridays and most weekends. Adding 178 units of housing to this already busy space is not going to help the traffic situation, the parking situation, and the wildlife habitat.
I live across the street from the field across from Vallejo Terrace, and I frequently see coyotes on the hunt, birds everywhere (including a few herons!) and an occasional fox. Please let the wildlife hunt and fly in peace; we've done enough in terms of encroaching on their space throughout the Bay Area.
Dana Perkins
390 Paloma Ave.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
7.g
Packet Pg. 1631 Attachment: Attachment E. Public Comments on Public Review Draft 25-02-07-14 (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element) From: Gil C. Ayala
To: Housing
Cc: Gil C. Ayala
Subject: Proposed 178 new housing units @ the Oceana high school property on Paloma.
Date: Monday, February 10, 2025 4:27:43 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Good morning to you, the reader.
With the political climate. As it devolves for the everyday working person. But seams to be skyrocketing for the 1% of society. Capitalizing on the residences of the of this neighborhood.
On top of the extra stain of the of the infrastructure…Water, Sewage, power, & the wildlife that makes use of the area. It irritates me to a high degree. That some back-room deal has been struck. By greedy land developers & the city council of Pacifica. To cause additional construction zone chaos. More blight to the scenic views, more frustrating traffic congestion, unavailable parking. & the reduction of property value. To all this. I say NO to this action. I say NO to Donald Trump & the republican party & I say NO to the 178 NEW HOUSING UNITS @ THE OCEANA HIGH SCOOL LOT ON PALOMA AVE. Thank you for your time.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
7.g
Packet Pg. 1632 Attachment: Attachment E. Public Comments on Public Review Draft 25-02-07-14 (5882 : Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element)
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3/24/2025
1 SUBJECT:
Public Meeting to Receive Testimony Regarding Establishment of the '94 Business Improvement District (BID), the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District (PTMD) RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive public testimony regarding the proposed establishment of the ’94 Business Improvement District (BID), the Pacifica Tourism Management District (PTMD).
STAFF CONTACT:
Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager
(650) 738-7402
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District
In 2004, the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District (PHBID) was formed pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (‘89 Law). The City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Ordinance No. 714-C.S creating the PHBID and levying an annual assessment of $1.00 per room per day of occupancy on the hotels within the City.
The City of Pacifica and Pacifica lodging businesses now seek to modernize the PHBID by forming a new Pacifica Tourism Marketing District (PTMD) pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, Streets and Highways Code section 36600 et seq. (‘94 Law) and allowing the PHBID formed under the ‘89 Law to expire at the end of it’s current 1-year term on June 30, 2025, by not undergoing the annual renewal process at City Council.
The intent of creating the PHBID was to develop a mechanism of funding for the hotels in the City to self-fund activities that would promote occupancy through funds derived from the annual assessment of $1.00 per room per day of occupancy. BIDs are self-benefiting assessment districts where business owners voluntarily self-impose a fee to fund their daily business-related activities, advertising, or promotional opportunities. By California law, it is not a tax. Therefore, BIDs are most commonly encouraged and supported because they allow the business to selffund and self-promote. Additionally, unlike Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT), which go into the City's General Fund, the participating hotels allocate and control BID assessment funds.
The assessment from the funds levied by the businesses must be used "to promote lodging at the hotels within the district, administer marketing programs that increase overnight lodging, and to fund related activities, staffing, and administration for the district." (Pacifica Municipal Code § 3-17.02(b)). The revenue from the levy cannot be used to provide improvement or activities outside the district or for any purpose other than those specified in the resolution of intent.
In early 2024, the process to form the ’94 District and developed a Management District Plan (MDP) was initiated based on feedback from the PHBID Advisory Board (Board). At that time, the Board had decided on a 1% assessment rate for the new ’94 District. 8 Packet Pg. 1633
Pacifica City Council 2
March 24, 2025
In April 2024, petitions to form the ’94 District were distributed to all hotels owners (which also make up the PHBID Board) with the proposed 1% assessment rate. Six signed petitions were received out of a total of eight eligible PHBID members to reach the necessary majority to move forward with forming the new district.
Although the required legal threshold had been met, the City Council elected to not move forward with the formation of the ’94 district at that time. On April 22, 2024, City Council adopted a Resolution of Intention to Continue the ‘89 PHBID.
On June 24, 2024, City Council conducted a Public Hearing and adopted a Resolution Confirming the Annual Report from the PHBID and Assessing the Levy for the Fiscal Year 2024- 25 at the same rates as in the Fiscal Year 2023-24, which was $1 per room per night.
With the ’89 PHBID approaching the end of its current term, staff brought the continuation of the ’94 district formation as an agenda item at the January PHBID Board (Board) meeting. At the meeting, the Board expressed concerns about the financial burden of the 1% assessment rate on their guests. While the Board agreed to continue with the ’94 district formation, they proposed to modify the 1% assessment rate that they approved previously.
Since the circulation of the petitions, the Board has indicated a preference to maintain the current rate of $1 per room, per day of occupancy rather than 1% of gross short-term sleeping room rental revenue. Since this substantial change from the previously approved Board direction on the assessment was raised during the meeting, staff did not have the financial analysis for this newly proposed option at that time. The Board moved forward and voted for $1 per room per day of occupancy assessment. Following that meeting, staff conducted a financial analysis comparing the impact of $1 assessment versus various percentage-based assessments, revealing that adjusting a percentage assessment might be more beneficial to the BID Board than a $1-based assessment. This analysis was presented to the Council at the last meeting, when the resolution of intent to form the new district was also adopted.
At the conclusion of the ’94 PTMD formation process, the City Council may adopt, revise, change, reduce, or modify the proposed assessment pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 36624. Proposed assessments may only be revised by reducing any or all of them.
Council Direction to Staff on March 10, 2025
At the City Council meeting on March 10, 2025, Council adopted the Resolution of Intention and recommended that Staff coordinate an in-person meeting with the BID Board members to share the new financial analysis and discuss the assessments and the formation of the ’94 District before the Council holds the public hearing on the formation of the new district on April 28, 2025.
Staff has scheduled the BID board meeting for March 21, 2025, and will report back to the Council accordingly.
94 PTMD FORMATION PROCESS
March 10, 2025 - RESOLUTION OF INTENTION (COMPLETED)
Upon the submission of a written petition, signed by the business owners in the proposed district who will pay more than fifty percent (50%) of the assessments proposed to be levied, the City Council (Council) may initiate proceedings to establish a district by the adoption of a resolution expressing its intention to establish a district.
Petition Status: Petitions in favor of PTMD formation were submitted by 6 lodging businesses, 8 Packet Pg. 1634
Pacifica City Council 3
March 24, 2025
which represent 50.10% of the total PTMD assessment, not counting a single business proposed to pay more than 40 percent (40%),pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code section 36621(a). This majority petition allows the Council to initiate proceedings for PTMD formation at the March 10, 2025 meeting.
No later than
March 14, 2025 - MAILING OF PUBLIC NOTICE (COMPLETED)
The ‘94 Law requires the City to mail written notice to the owners of all businesses proposed to be within the PTMD. Mailing the notice begins a mandatory forty-five (45) day period in which owners may protest PTMD formation.
March 24, 2025 - PUBLIC MEETING
Allow public testimony on the formation of the PTMD and levy of assessments. No Council action required.
April 28, 2025 - FINAL PUBLIC HEARING
If written protests are received from the owners of businesses in the proposed PTMD which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the assessments proposed to be levied and protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the protests to less than fifty percent (50%), no further proceedings to levy the proposed assessment against such businesses shall be taken for a period of one (1) year from the date of the finding of a majority protest by the Council.
At the conclusion of the public hearing to establish the district, the City Council may adopt, revise, change, reduce, or modify the proposed assessment or the type or types of improvements, maintenance, and activities to be funded with the revenues from the assessments pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 36624. Proposed assessments may only be revised by reducing any or all of them.
The adoption of the Resolution of Formation shall establish the PTMD and levy of the assessment in each of the fiscal years referred to in the Plan. If the ’94 PTMD is approved after the foregoing process, the City will need to amend Chapter 17, “Hotel Business Improvement District” within Chapter 17, Title 3 of the Pacifica Municipal Code.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The City Council may elect not to proceed with the establishment of the PTMD formation under the 1994 District Law.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
"Fiscal Sustainability" includes investing in economic development to increase revenues, funding a reserve/emergency fund, and being well-prepared for grant opportunities.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No significant fiscal impact is associated with this action. The City currently collects no fee for administering the BID.
ORIGINATED BY:
City Manager's Office
8 Packet Pg. 1635
Pacifica City Council 4
March 24, 2025
ATTACHMENT LIST:
8 Packet Pg. 1636
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3/24/2025
1 SUBJECT:
Funding for the Temporary Safe Parking Program in Partnership with the Pacifica Resource Center
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive an update about the City of Pacifica and Pacifica Resource Center’s Temporary Safe Parking Program and consider extending Temporary Safe Parking Program and approving use of $204,000 from the City’s Housing Action Fund toward expansion and continuation of the program by renting and utilizing spaces in the San Francisco RV (SFRV) Resort in Pacifica.
STAFF CONTACT:
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
(650) 738-7409
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
In 2022 the City of Pacifica City Council approved implementation of an innovative program designed to assist community members living in their motorhomes on city streets to return to permanent housing. Called the Temporary Safe Parking Program (TSPP), this program was implemented in compliance with a settlement agreement between the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the City after the ACLU, the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County and Disability Rights Advocates filed a class action lawsuit against the City over the City’s Oversized Vehicle (OSV) Ordinance. The TSPP began in 2022 under a memorandum of understanding with the Pacifica Resource Center for implementation of the program.
Per the settlement agreement, the TSPP was developed as a three-year program. It began June 28, 2022, and is set to expire June 28, 2025. It has been operated in accordance with an operations agreement between the PRC and the City, and also includes other supporting documents developed by the PRC to be used between PRC and the participants in the Program, such as a Participant Bill of Rights and Onsite Code of Conduct, as well as a Release of Liability. More information about the background to the program and how the program was designed and to be implemented and funded can be found in the February 28, 2022 City Council agenda report, Item #10, when the City Council approved the program:
<https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1448>.
As described further in this report, the program has been successful in moving unhoused community members to housing. The purpose of this agenda item is for the City Council to consider approval of $204,000 from the City’s Housing Action Fund toward expansion and continuation of the program by renting and utilizing spaces in the San Francisco RV (SFRV) Resort in Pacifica. While there remain operational and funding details to work out with the Pacifica Resource Center and other potential collaborators such as San Mateo County and/or other potential grant funding sources, the City Council’s early commitment of a significant share of the funding is important to securing the SFRV rental space arrangements and establishing the City’s commitment to the continuation of the program. 9 Packet Pg. 1637
Pacifica City Council 2
March 24, 2025
Temporary Safe Parking Program Summary
The TSPP has been very successful in its goal of supporting community members living in motor homes to return to permanent housing. As described in more detail in Attachment A, the September 2024 Mid-point Evaluation Report (which will be summarized during the City Council meeting by Pacifica Resource Center Executive Director Anita Rees), the program has enabled nine participants from six households (which represents 27% of the program participants) to return to permanent housing. In addition, 85% of the participants have developed plans to return to permanent housing. These are remarkable results for a safe parking program when compared to other safe parking programs in the region.
The program per the settlement agreement included 13 parking spaces on city streets in six locations as detailed in the February 28, 2022, City Council report. However, four of the spaces in the coastal zone (two locations) required Coastal Development Permits and the City issued Coastal Development Permits were appealed to the Coastal Commission. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the implementation of those spaces was stayed during the pendency of the appeals. One location, representing one parking space was also delayed due to appeal to the Coastal Commission but the appeal was withdrawn. The space then had to be relocated during the program due to construction activity adjacent to the space. That space was relocated to the SFRV Resort, and its successful operation there has led to the opportunity to expand more spaces into the SFRV Resort, as described in the next section of this report.
Per the operational agreement with the PRC (Attachment B), the City’s obligations included preparation of the parking spaces, regular police patrol, co-hosting a program for safe disposal of waste at a cost of up to $30,000 per year, provision of dumpsters or drop-off service for garbage disposal, and operating payments to the PRC of $120,000 per year for 3 years. The PRC’s obligations included screening of applicants, issuance of Regular, Provisional and Short Term permits, assignment of parking spaces, requiring adherence to codes of conduct, written documentation provided to Permit Holders, assistance in maintenance of parking spaces, cohosting of the program for safe disposal of waste, and periodic reporting to the City on the status of the program.
In addition to the City’s funding toward the program, the County of San Mateo has also provided funding amounting to $400,000 over three years, and the PRC secured $150,000 in additional grant funding for the three-year program.
Program Expansion Summary
The TSPP now has the opportunity to expand into additional spaces off-street at the SFRV Resort. The Resort has offered up to 9 additional spaces (10 total counting the one currently being used) for rent towards the program. The annual cost for 10 spaces is $204,000 ($1,700/space/month). Utilization of 10 spaces in the SFRV Resort, combined with the 8 spaces currently utilized on City streets, would expand the program to 18 spaces, doubling the number of clients served. However, the PRC has indicated interest in flexibility with some of the on-street spaces based on safety concerns expressed by participants, and therefore recommends maintaining 5 on-street spaces in addition to the 10 SFRV Resort spaces, which would expand the program to 15 participants. The City Manager is requesting the Council’s consideration of $204,000 toward the program to fund the 10 SFRV Resort spaces for one year, with additional program costs or additional years of program operation contingent on financial commitments from Pacifica Resource Center and other potential collaborators such as San Mateo County and/or other potential grant funding sources. 9 Packet Pg. 1638
Pacifica City Council 3
March 24, 2025
Through discussions with PRC Executive Director Anita Rees, the City Manager has preliminarily confirmed that the PRC can continue to operate the program, but their operational funding needs are as follows:
• The annual funding the City provides to the PRC ($100,000 for FY 2025-26) cannot be used for the program as those funds are already allocated to the PRC’s other core work in Pacifica;
• The PRC can utilize other homeless outreach funding to continue outreach for the program, but those funds only have the capacity to provide case management services to up to 5 program families;
• Without additional programmatic funding, particularly for case management, the PRC would not expect to have the same outcomes as the first 3 years of the program which saw a 27% return to permanent housing;
• Continuing the operation with the level of case management currently provided would cost $104,000 for 6 months, $208,000 for one year.
• At a minimum, to continue the program with minimal coordination and management of the permits, an additional $20,000 would be needed for 6 months, $40,000 for one year.
Next Steps
Following Council’s direction about extending and expanding the TSPP, and depending on the level of funding approved, the City Manager will work in cooperation with the PRC and the SFRV Resort to secure the rental spaces, will work in cooperation with the PRC to seek continuing County participation in this successful program, and will extend the Operating Agreement with the PRC and return to Council for any necessary approvals of agreements and/or funding allocations.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The City Council could choose to pursue several alternatives:
1. Decline to continue the program, letting it end by June 28, 2025;
2. Consider committing less funding to the continuation and expansion of the program, specifying the amount and directing the City Manager to pursue financial contributions from other sources;
3. Consider committing more funding to the continuation and expansion of the program in order to cover PRC operating costs for a period of time, specifying the amount.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
The TSPP generally relates to the City’s Mission, Vision, and Values and specifically relates to its housing related strategies as a program that provides assistance to the unhoused moving towards permanent housing.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Recommended Action would have a fiscal impact of $204,000, to be paid out of the unrestricted Housing Action Fund (Fund 21), which has a current balance of $2,924,870.
ORIGINATED BY:
City Manager's Office
9 Packet Pg. 1639
Pacifica City Council 4
March 24, 2025
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A: Pacifica Safe Parking Program September 2024 Mid-point Evaluation Report (PDF)
9 Packet Pg. 1640
Pacifica Safe Parking Program (PSPP)
Mid-point Evaluation Report: Summary
September 2024
Prepared by:
Prepared for:
9.a
Packet Pg. 1641 Attachment: Attachment A: Pacifica Safe Parking Program September 2024 Mid-point Evaluation Report Introduction
2 About the Pacifica Safe Parking Program
Pacifica Safe Parking Program (PSPP) | Mid-point Evaluation Report Summary | September 2024 | Page Key Program Partners
The Pacifica Safe Parking Program (PSPP) began in June 2022 with the goal of supporting community members living in motor homes to return to permanent housing. The program is designed to serve individuals and families living in motor homes, with priority given to Pacifica residents.
The program is part of a settlement agreement for a 2021 class action lawsuit filed by the ACLU, the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County and Disability Rights Advocates against the City of Pacifica's oversized vehicle ordinance and vehicular habitation ordinance. The agreement specified that the City create a temporary safe parking permit program for 13 parking spaces for motor homes.
Pacifica Resource Center (PRC) is a nonprofit community resource center with a mission to support the resilience and wellbeing of families and individuals living in Pacifica and along the coast. PRC was responsible for designing the program in compliance with the settlement specifications and is the primary implementing partner for PSPP.
Pacifica City Council unanimously approved the temporary safe parking program MOU with PRC. Under the terms of the settlement, in addition to providing PRC with funding and 13 parking spaces for the program, the City is required to stripe the parking spaces, provide regular police patrol, co-host a mobile dumping station, and provide dumpsters or other means for garbage disposal.
Pacifica Police Department provides a full-time community service officer to act as a liaison for unhoused people in the city (part of the settlement agreement).
PSPP Participants must meet eligibility criteria for the program (which includes living in a registered vehicle that can be moved and has a working toilet system) and follow the terms outlined in a Rights and Responsibilities agreement.
The ACLU and legal advocates continue to monitor compliance with the settlement agreement.
About the Evaluation
Pacifica Resource Center engaged Learning for
Action (LFA) to design and conduct a midpoint
evaluation of PSPP to identify early successes and
challenges, and opportunities to enhance the
program in its final year. Data sources include:
participant data, interviews with current and former
PSPP participants, and key program partners.
This report provides a high-level summary of the
evaluation findings.
The numerical data reported in this summary are
current as of 7/31/24, unless otherwise noted.
9.a
Packet Pg. 1642 Attachment: Attachment A: Pacifica Safe Parking Program September 2024 Mid-point Evaluation Report Pacifica Safe Parking Program (PSPP) | Mid-point Evaluation Report Summary | September 2024 | Page 3 Evaluation Findings: High-Level Findings
In general, participants value the services provided by PSPP, which help to create an increased sense of stability and reduced stress in the near term, which allowed them to turn to other needs, including accessing mental health support and planning their next steps related to career, education, and housing. Some participants also note that the program’s services help them to save money.
The ultimate goal of PSPP is to secure permanent housing for participants, which can be challenging given the current housing crisis. In spite of these challenges:
o 9 PSPP participants from six households returned
to permanent housing (as of 9/15/24)
o 85% of participants developed plans to return to
permanent housing
[Being in the program] provided a
little more stability because I didn’t
have to move every three days. I got
access to the food pantry, which was
really nice, and I was able to save a
little more money that way. I felt
connected to someone in the
community [my caseworker].
- PSPP Participant
Community Benefits
Because PSPP participants are a part of the
community, any value experienced by PSPP
participants is a benefit to the community at
large. This is an important point to emphasize,
given that many community members see PSPP
participants as a problem impacting the
community, rather than as part of the community.
While many community members are concerned
about waste generated by motor homes,
PSPP ensures that participants dispose of waste
through the proper channels. PSPP runs a
dumping program that is required for all PSPP
participants and is also available for anyone else
in the community. PSPP participants are also
required to keep their site clean of trash. In
addition, PSPP regulates noise; for example,
generators must be turned off at night.
According to the Pacifica Police Department, over
time, community members’ complaints about
motor homes parked near their home have
decreased, perhaps because their concerns
about noise and pollution did not transpire.
Overall Impact on Participants
9.a
Packet Pg. 1643 Attachment: Attachment A: Pacifica Safe Parking Program September 2024 Mid-point Evaluation Report Pacifica Safe Parking Program (PSPP) | Mid-point Evaluation Report Summary | September 2024 | Page 4 Overview of Program Services Provided
The settlement agreement specified that the City
provide 13 designated parking spots for program
participants. The program launched with eight spots,
and a ninth spot was added in October 2022.
100% of Participants Accessed
Parking Space Permits
Participants have regular access (two times per
month) to wastewater removal services. As of
April 2024, the site used for wastewater removal
also includes access to clean water.
100% of Participants Accessed
Wastewater Removal and Clean
Water
Upon enrollment, PRC completes an inspection of
each motor home. When minor repairs are needed
to meet program requirements, or there is an
opportunity to make the motor home more livable,
PRC makes arrangements for repairs, through a
local connection.
21% of Participants
Accessed Motor Home
Repairs Participants have access to other
services that PRC provides to
community members, including gift
cards to help pay for gas, propane,
and groceries; access to their food
pantry; access to on-site showers; and
referrals to needed resources, such as
mental health support.
100% of Participants had Access
to Additional Support Services
Between PSPP’s inception and July 31, 2024, PSPP has provided services to over 50 individuals, including 33 people formally enrolled in PSPP, and dozens more who have accessed publicly-available PSPP services. The core services and rates of use among participants are summarized on this and the following page.
9.a
Packet Pg. 1644 Attachment: Attachment A: Pacifica Safe Parking Program September 2024 Mid-point Evaluation Report Pacifica Safe Parking Program (PSPP) | Mid-point Evaluation Report Summary | September 2024 | Page 5 Overview of Program Services Provided
82% of Participants
received Housing Case
Management
All PSPP participants receive 1:1 support through case
management, which may include support accessing
healthy food, showers, medical care, mental health
resources, and employment resources. All participants
are also required to participate in housing case
management, in which they identify their housing goals, and the case manager helps them to understand and
pursue relevant options, including submitting
applications for affordable housing units in geographic areas that the participant is open to living.
Housing Case
Management
As of 9/15/24, nine PSPP participants (27%) have
moved into permanent housing. Former participants
found housing through a variety of methods, including
receiving a place-based voucher program through
Veterans’ Affairs, securing a Moving to Work Program
voucher, and earning sufficient income to afford marketrate housing. Some participants have stayed in Pacifica, while others have moved to areas with a lower cost of
living.
Early Outcomes
85% of Participants
developed plans to
return to permanent
housing
27% of Participants
returned to
permanent housing
(as of 9/15/24)
9.a
Packet Pg. 1645 Attachment: Attachment A: Pacifica Safe Parking Program September 2024 Mid-point Evaluation Report Pacifica Safe Parking Program (PSPP) | Mid-point Evaluation Report | September 2024 | Page 6 Opportunities to Deepen Impact
Conversations with PSPP participants and partners surfaced three key areas of opportunity to deepen the impact of PSPP in the final stretch of the program. These recommendations are explored in greater detail in the full report.
The City of Pacifica could address the following to improve program effectiveness:
• Provide all 13 spots that are specified in the settlement agreement. • Address safety issues more proactively.
• Simplify requirements for participation.
• Dedicate a secure area of land for PSPP parking.
• Continue PSPP beyond the current 3-year time frame.
PRC and participants have identified a few ways in which PRC can refine its approach to providing program services to better support participants.
• Conduct case management in a more regular and formal format. • Practice greater transparency with participants regarding steps taken to pursue affordable housing options.
• Clarify and communicate expectations for participants more clearly. • Explore opportunities to expand access to motor home repair services.
PSPP partners have opportunities to leverage relationships within and beyond Pacifica to strengthen support for PSPP and expand its reach.
• Strengthen support for PSPP among community members through education. • Foster cross-county collaboration.
• Share PSPP as a model for replication.
1. Improve Program
Design &
Implementation to
Better Serve
Participants and the
Community at Large
2. Make
Modifications to
Service Delivery
3. Leverage
Relationships to
Strengthen Support
and Expand Reach of
PSPP
9.a
Packet Pg. 1646 Attachment: Attachment A: Pacifica Safe Parking Program September 2024 Mid-point Evaluation Report
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3/24/2025
1 SUBJECT:
Mid-year budget review and adoption of a resolution to adjust the Fiscal Year 2024-25 budget.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt a resolution authorizing the mid-year FY 2024-25 Operating and Capital Budget adjustments.
STAFF CONTACT:
Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager
650-738-7301
[email protected]
Marisol Gómez, Director of Finance and Administrative Services 650-501-0257
[email protected]
BACKGROUND:
The Finance staff has completed a Mid-year Budget review and is proposing adjustments to the FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget.
The purpose of the mid-year budget review is to analyze the year-to-date revenues and expenditures to review assumptions made before the budget cycle and make necessary adjustments to reflect changes in the City's financial conditions. The mid-year budget review is also a segue to the next fiscal year's budget development process, as the mid-year analysis is used to develop the base budget assumptions for the new year.
On June 24, 2024, the City Council adopted a balanced FY 2024-25 Budget that reflected the Council's Strategic Plan and priorities for the upcoming fiscal year. This FY 2024-25 Mid-year Budget report will focus on the following key objectives:
1. Updating City Council on the status of revenues and expenditures within the FY 2024-25 General Fund Revised Budget and requesting an increase to the FY 2024-25 General Fund revenue of $171,367 and net appropriation increase of $755,000 (Attachment 1), including all previously approved by the Council expenditures throughout the year (Attachment 2) and mid-year adjustments (Attachment 3).
2. Updating City Council on the status of revenues and expenditures within the FY2024-25 Non-General Fund Revised Budget and requesting an increase to the FY 2024-25 nongeneral (Other) Funds Revenues totaling $751,000 and Other Funds Expenditures adjustments of $3.9 million (Attachment 1), including all previously approved by the Council expenditures throughout the year (Attachment 2) and mid-year adjustments (Attachment 3).
10 Packet Pg. 1647
Pacifica City Council 2
March 24, 2025
3. Updating Council on the projected fund balance for all City Funds through June 30, 2025 (Attachment 6).
The FY 2024-25 General Fund Budget was adopted as a balanced budget, meaning that the General Fund operating expenditures did not exceed operating revenues. The FY 2024-25 Revised General Fund budget is $48.2 million in revenue, $47.7 million in total General Fund operating expenditures, including $75,000 in capital project expenditures. The difference between the budgeted operating revenues and expenditures and mid-year adjustments of $583,633 will decrease the General Fund balance accordingly, projecting a fund balance of $19,309,045 at June 30, 2025 compared with previously budgeted ending fund balance of $19,892,678. As a side note the audited ending General Fund balance was $18,740,450 as of June 30, 2024, which was higher than the estimate used for the beginning fund balance of $18,616,311 adopted with the FY 2024-25 budget.
Staff used the following methodology for the mid-year budget analysis: the year-end estimates in operating revenues and expenditures exceeding the adopted budget by 5% and $25,000 in each revenue and expense category or cost center were considered material in nature and are being proposed for a budget adjustment.
1. Status of General Fund Revenues and Expenditures in FY 2024-25 Revised Budget FY 2024-25 General Fund Revenues
The General Fund is the City’s primary operating fund and is used to account for most day-today activities. It receives unrestricted revenues and provides the City’s general administrative services, public safety, parks, beaches and recreation, public works, and community development-related activities such as planning, building, and engineering. Revenue sources include but are not limited to property tax, sales tax, transient occupancy tax (TOT), business tax registration, and current fees and charges for services.
The revised estimates for General Fund revenues are projected to be $48.2 million or $0.2 million (0.4%) higher than the Adopted Budget of $48.0 million, mainly due to the revenue increase in the Child Care one-time grant backfill of $0.4 million, which was not expected when the budget was adopted. The revised revenue projections also include reductions of $0.2 million in Sales Tax (including Measure Y) based on the actual data analysis as of the quarter ending December 31, 2024.
The following Table 1 demonstrates General Fund revenues for the FY 2023-24 actuals, FY 2024-25 adopted budget, and mid-year revised FY 2024-25 budget projections:
10 Packet Pg. 1648
Pacifica City Council 3
March 24, 2025
FY 2024-25 General Fund Revenues Adjustments for Council Approval The following revenues are projected to reflect changes over the FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget and recommended for budget adjustment:
• Sales Tax is the City’s second-largest revenue source. Based on the current year’s activity and the most recent projections from HdL, the City’s sales tax advisor, staff is proposing a decrease of $144,710 or 4.4% in sales tax revenues from the Adopted budget of $3.1 million. Unfortunately, the local sales tax is showing decreases in six out of the nine industry groups compared to the prior year, with the largest percentage decreases occurring in the Fuel and Services Stations and Food and Drugs groups based on year-to-date revenue trends. In addition, the Measure Y ½ cent transactions and use tax revenues category projections include a decrease of $56,000 or 2.2% from $2.51 million to $2.46 million. There is an approximately two-months lag of when the City receives Sales Tax revenues from the State. The calendar year’s quarter 4, as of December 31, 2024, will be available in the next few weeks for staff to review and develop reasonable assumptions for the upcoming FY 2025-26 budget. • Cannabis Tax is reduced by $60,000 or 7.0% based on the current year’s remittance received from the cannabis businesses, and what is expected to be received through the end of the fiscal year. Pacifica’s cannabis tax is following State trends which show a decline when compared to the previous year.
• Intergovernmental is increased by $432,077 or 18.3% based on the current year’s receipts of the previous year’s reimbursement from the State for the Childcare program upon completion of the program audit. Since this adjustment is correlated to previous years’ Childcare audits, the revenue increase is considered to be one-time.
FY 2024-25 General Fund Expenditures
Expenditure projections were reviewed based on five categories: personnel costs, Contractual services, materials & supplies, transfer out for operating, and transfer out for Capital listed below.
10 Packet Pg. 1649
Pacifica City Council 4
March 24, 2025
Previously Approved Changes to the FY 2024-25 Budget
At every Council meeting, staff brings agenda items for the Council's consideration and approval. Some of these items require amendments to the original budget. During the mid-year budget review process, Finance staff incorporate all previously approved budget amendments year-to-date into the FY 2024-25 Revised Budget. These adjustments increased the General Fund appropriation by $302,000, as further described in Attachment 2.
Mid-year Adjustments
During the mid-year budget review process, staff makes a number of minor cleanup changes and adjustments within the department's budgets. Money is moved from various individual line items with savings to other line items within a department budget. This is done when a line item may go over its original budget amount. These changes are considered routine as they have minimal effects on the overall budget and remain within the FY 2024-25 Council-approved funding level. Again, only the year-end estimates in expenditures categories in excess of the adopted budget by 5% and $25,000 in each cost center are being proposed for a mid-year budget adjustment.
There are two mid-year budget requests in the General Fund, totaling $453,000. Combined with the previously approved $302,000, this brings the total General Fund budget adjustment to $755,000. The requests include:
• $101,000 for the Police Department to upgrade the jail-related audio and video systems to comply with the State audit and to upgrade Police Station security and surveillance; • $352,000 transfer out to the City’s Motor Pool Fund for fleet replacement and maintenance.
Overall, FY 2024-25 General Fund operating expenditures are proposed to be amended with a net increase of $755,000, or 1.6% over the adopted budget.
2. Status of Non-General Fund Revenues and Expenditures in FY 2024-25 Revised Budget
Non-General Funds include the following categories.
• Enterprise Funds, including Sewer Operating and Capital and Beach Parking funds • Special Revenue and Capital Funds, including Gas Tax and Street funds, Drainage, 10 Packet Pg. 1650
Pacifica City Council 5
March 24, 2025
General Capital, Housing and Park in lieu funds, PB&R Roy Davies Trust fund, Disaster Accounting and others.
• Internal Service Funds, including Motor Pool Operating and Replacement funds, Dental Benefit funds, and Risk Management (Workers' Comp and General Liability) funds. • Debt Service Fund
Non-General Fund FY 2024-25 Revenues and Transfers-In
In the Adopted FY 2024-25 Budget, these revenues comprise $37.2 million or 43.6% of the City's $85.3 million total revenue budget. The non-general fund revenues are projected to increase by a net of $751,000 or 2% to $37.96 million or 44% of the total revenue budget, as listed in Attachment 4.
FY 2024-25 Non-General Fund Revenues Adjustments for Council Consideration The following non-General Fund revenues as shown in Attachment 4 are projected to reflect material changes over the FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget and are recommended for budget adjustment:
Special Revenue and Capital Funds:
• Motor Pool (Fund 672) revenues are proposed to be increased by $751,000 from $25,000 to $776,000 for the contributions to be made from the General Fund and Sewer Fund for the fleet purchase and maintenance of $352,000 and $399,000 respectively.
Additional information on individual non-general fund mid-year revenue requests is presented in Attachment 3.
FY 2024-25 Non-General Fund FY 2024-25 Expenditures and Transfers-Out Adjustments for Council Consideration
Non-General Fund FY 2024-25 Adopted expenditures comprise $52.2 million, or 52.7% of the City's $101.8 million total expenditure budget. These expenditures are proposed to be amended by a net of $3.9 million or 7.5% over the adopted expenditures budget. This includes $2.7 million from previously approved City Council items, and $1.2 million from department requests and adjustments as detailed below.
Summary of previously approved items:
At every Council meeting, staff brings agenda items for the Council's consideration and approval. Some of these items require amendments to the original budget. During the mid-year budget review process, Finance staff incorporated all previously approved budget amendments year-to-date into the FY 2024-25 Revised Budget. These adjustments increased the NonGeneral Funds appropriation by $2,671,354 as further described in Attachment 2 which contains the list of previously approved items with Council dates and resolution numbers.
Mid-year adjustments:
• General Liability Insurance Fund (Fund 667): An additional appropriation of $50,000 to cover a Forestry Management Survey of the Pacifica Urban Forest. • Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (Fund 207): An additional $30,000 to 10 Packet Pg. 1651
Pacifica City Council 6
March 24, 2025
fund the installation of security cameras, access control systems, and holding cell intercoms at the police department building.
• Motor Pool Fund (Fund 672): An additional budget appropriation of $751,000 is needed to cover previously approved vehicle purchases for Public Safety from the prior year, as well as a transfer from the Sewer Fund to fund a crane truck for the Wastewater division in the current year.
• Sewer Fund (Fund 518): A $399,000 transfer out to the City’s Motor Pool fund is proposed to support the purchase of a crane vehicle for the Wastewater Division. This transfer utilizes funds that were previously budgeted in Wastewater. Additionally, the Wastewater division requested a budget appropriation transfer from CIP projects P0024 and P0037 to initiate a new Sewer Rate Study project before the end of the fiscal year, resulting in a net zero budget change.
Additional information on individual non-general fund mid-year budget adjustments is presented in Attachment 3.
Capital Improvement Program
There are no other adjustments to the Capital Budget. The Capital expenditures will be further reviewed by staff during the FY 2025-26 CIP Budget development process that is now being prepared by the Public Works Department.
3. Projected Fund Balance Structure
After incorporating all mid-year budget adjustments described in this report, the City is projected to have a small surplus of $568,596 in the FY 2024-25 budget year, which is a reduction from the projected surplus at the budget adoption, but is still a positive number that will project to increase the General Fund balance.
Adopted
FY2024-25
Revised
FY 2024-25
(Mid Year)
Change
(Revised vs.
Adopted)
Total Revenue 48,068,300 48,239,667 171,367
Total Expenditures 46,916,071 47,671,071 755,000
FY 2024-25 Surplus (Deficit) 1,152,229 568,596 (583,633) Table 3 - FY2024-25 REVISED BUDGET (MID-YEAR)
NET GENERAL FUND FY 2024-25 PROJECTED SURPLUS (DEFICIT) The FY 2024-25 revised budget amounts have been updated from the adopted budget figures following the independent audit of FY 2023-24. Under GASB 54, this balance consists of the following components: non-spendable items or portions of fund balance that cannot be liquidated, restricted amounts for use by outside agencies, committed amounts by Council action such as emergency/contingency reserves, and assigned balances to pay off unfunded liabilities and fund infrastructure improvements.
As shown in Table 4 below and Attachment 6, the mid-year budget review reflects restricted reserves and operating contingencies at $5.97 million, leaving an unassigned projected balance of $13.3 million. This amount represents 28% of the General Fund operating expenditures 10 Packet Pg. 1652
Pacifica City Council 7
March 24, 2025
(excluding one-time and capital transfers). This is a decrease of $583,633 from the Adopted Budget, adjusted by the beginning fund balance.
The General Fund balance complies with the Government Finance Officers Association of the US and Canada (GFOA) recommendation for government entities to meet the minimum unassigned reserve recommendation of at least two months of operating revenues or expenditures ($7.9 million or 16.7%). This minimum reserve recommendation is being met before considering any additional assigned reserves previously set aside by Council policy, as listed in the table below.
Designations FY 2023-24
Actuals
FY 2024-25
Adopted
Budget
Revised
2024-25
(Mid-Year)
$ Change
Revised
over
Adopted
Beginning Fund Balance $ 16,884,462 $ 18,740,449 $ 18,740,449 $ - Total Revenue 47,785,173 48,068,300 48,239,667 171,367
Total Operating Expenditures 44,591,185 46,841,071 47,596,071 755,000 Total Capital Project Expenditures 1,338,000 75,000 75,000 - Ending Fund Balance 18,740,449 19,892,678 19,309,045 (583,633) Non-Spendable 8,287 8,287 8,287 -
Restricted 375,291 375,291 375,291 -
Assigned Reserves
Policy Level of 10% of Expenditures 4,728,876 4,684,107 4,684,107 - 2/3 Emergencies 3,152,584 3,122,738 3,122,738
1/3 Economic Contigency 1,576,292 1,561,369 1,561,369
Facility Maintenance & Replacement 205,000 205,000 205,000 - Compensated Absences 200,000 200,000 200,000 -
Child Care Reserve 494,591 494,591 494,591 -
Legal Reserves 100,000 100,000 - (100,000)
Assigned Reserves 5,728,467 5,683,698 5,583,698 (100,000) Total Designations 6,112,045 6,067,276 5,967,276 (100,000) Unassigned Fund Balance 12,628,404 13,825,402 13,341,769 (483,633) Operating Expenses 44,591,185 46,841,071 47,596,071
Unassigned Fund Balance as % of Op. Expenses 28% 29.5% 28% Table 4 - FY2024-25 REVISED BUDGET (MID-YEAR)
GENERAL FUND (ASSIGNED & UNASSIGNED BALANCES)
A major contributing factor to the healthy unassigned fund balance is prudent fiscal management by the City Council and demonstrated financial discipline by the City Manager and all City Departments in keeping their operations within their limited budget means. This projected General Fund balance will be used as a starting point in preparation for the new FY 2025-26 Budget.
Staff will continue monitoring remaining fund balances and reevaluate strategies for future use of these funds as part of the FY2025-26 budget development. Please refer to the attached summary schedule presented in Attachment 6 for additional information on the City's Revised FY 2024-25 projected fund balances across all funds.
The City of Pacifica prides itself on an open, inclusive, and comprehensive budget process. This process traditionally takes place over the course of several months and involves several Council 10 Packet Pg. 1653
Pacifica City Council 8
March 24, 2025
study sessions. The City Council held a Strategic Planning workshop on March 1, 2025, which provided a critically important roadmap for the organization as it established the framework for the City's short and long-term priorities and objectives. Over the next few weeks, staff will translate the Council’s vision into the workplan for the upcoming year to be later reflected in the City Manager’s Recommended FY 2025-26 Budget that will be brought forward for the Council’s adoption in June 2025.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The City Council is being asked to adopt a resolution amending the FY 2024-25 Budget. No reasonable alternative action is identified.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
A balanced and structurally sustainable budget is consistent with all the City Council's goals.
FISCAL IMPACT:
As part of the FY 2024-25 mid-year review, General Fund revenues are amended to $48.24 million, an increase of $171,367 or 0.4%, and General Fund operating expenditures are amended to $47.67 million, a net increase of $755,000 or 1.6% over the FY 2024-25 Adopted budget.
The combined non-General Fund revenue increases of $751,000 or 2.0% and the combined non-General Fund appropriation increases of $3.9 million or 7.5% are also included in the midyear budget adjustments as described above and in the supporting attachments.
ORIGINATED BY:
Finance Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment 2 - FY 2024-25 Previously Approved Budget Amendments (PDF) Attachment 3 - Department Requests (PDF)
Attachment 4 - FY 2024-25 Summary of Revenues and Transfers by Fund (PDF) Attachment 5 - FY 2024-25 Summary of Expenditures and Transfers by Fund (PDF) Attachment 6 - FY 2024-25 Fund Balance Summary by Fund (PDF) 10 Packet Pg. 1654
Pacifica City Council 9
March 24, 2025
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 MID-YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the FY 2024-25 Operating and Capital Budget on June 24, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the Adopted FY2024-25 budget was a balanced expenditure plan that ensured the maintenance of adequate reserves; and
WHEREAS, City Staff has completed a midyear budget review to validate budget assumptions and conduct an analysis of the year-to-date revenues and expenditures; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Mid-Year Budget analysis and requested budget adjustments; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica now desires to adopt the FY 2024-25 Mid-Year adjustments to the FY 2024-25 budget.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby approves the mid-year adjustments to the FY 2024-25 budget.
The citywide revenues and appropriations are amended as follows:
10 Packet Pg. 1655
Pacifica City Council 10 March 24, 2025
Fund Number and Fund Name Revenue
Adjustments
Appropriation
Adjustments
GENERAL FUND
101 General Fund 171,367 755,000
Total General Funds 171,367 755,000
SPECIAL REVENUE AND CAPITAL FUNDS
207 SLES Fund - 30,000
210 Gas Tax Maintenance Fund* - 52,355
211 Measure W Fund - 624,392
213 Street Improvement Fund - 465,355
238 Disaster Accounting Fund - 1,340,000
Total Special Revenue & Capital Funds - 2,512,102
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
518 Sewer Utility - 588,252
Total Enterprise Funds - 588,252
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
667 Self-Insurance Fund Liability - 50,000
671 Motor Pool Operations Fund - 751,000
672 Motor Pool Replacement Fund 751,000 -
Total Internal Service Funds 751,000 801,000
751,000 3,901,354
$ 922,367 $ 4,656,354
City of Pacifica
Summary of FY 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget Adjustments
Total Other Funds (non-General Fund)
Total All Funds
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 24th day of March 2025, by the following vote:
AYES, Councilmembers:
NOES, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_________________________________
Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 10 Packet Pg. 1656
Action Item Reso. No. Date Department GL Account
Revenues Expenses Transfers Net
General Fund (Fund 101)
ESA Agreement for Mapping Update Services 80-2024 8/12/2024 CD 101312-51206 52,000 52,000 Rockaway Quarry Legal Expenses 100-2024 10/14/2024 CMO 101311-51100 250,000 250,000 $ - $ 302,000 $ - $ 302,000
Gas Tax Maintenance Fund (Fund 210)
St. Francis Electrical, LLC Construction Agreement -
Street Lights 92-2024 10/14/2024 PW 210412-51206 $52,355 52,355 $ - $ 52,355 $ - $ 52,355
Sewer Utility (Fund 518)
Anza Pump Station Project Construction &
Engineering Services Contingency 102-2024 11/25/2024 PW 518452-51206-C0036 $189,252 189,252 $ - $ 189,252 $ - $ 189,252
Street Improvement (Fund 213)
Esplanade & Palmetto Bicycle & Pedestrian Project 04-2025 1/13/2025 PW 213411-51206-00321 $465,355 465,355 $ - $ 465,355 $ - $ 465,355
Measure W (Fund 211)
Sharp Park PDA Pedestrian Improvement Project -
Construction 05-2025 1/13/2025 PW 211411-51206-00374 $188,737 188,737 FY 2025-26 Sidewalk, Curbs, and ADA Ramps
Improvement Project 19-2025 3/10/2025 PW 211411-51206 xxxxx $435,655 435,655 $ - $ 624,392 $ - $ 624,392
Disaster Accounting (Fund 238)
Model Feasability Cost Sharing Agreement &
Feasability Studies 12-2025 2/10/2025 PW 238411-51206 xxxxx $1,340,000 1,340,000 $ - $ 1,340,000 $ - $ 1,340,000
Total General Fund $ - $ 302,000 $ - $ 302,000
$ - $ 2,671,354 $ - $ 2,671,354
$ - $ 2,973,354 $ - $ 2,973,354
Attachment 2
City of Pacifica
FY 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget
City Council Previously Approved Budget Amendments
Fiscal Impact
Total Non-General:
Total All Funds:
Total General Fund
Total Gas Tax Fund
Total Sewer Utility Fund
Total Street Improvment Fund
Total Measure W Fund
Total Disaster Accounting Fund
10.a
Packet Pg. 1657 Attachment: Attachment 2 - FY 2024-25 Previously Approved Budget Amendments (5886 : FY 2024-25 CITY OF PACIFICA FY 2024-2025 BUDGET
MID-YEAR REVENUE ADJUSTMENT
PROGRAM: General Ledger Account – Organization/Program and Object Code REQUEST TITLE: Increase the PBR Child Care Contract Revenue Request Summary
With the completion of the FY2023-24 childcare audit, it was determined that additional funding would be paid to the City of Pacifica. The total amount that has been received in the current fiscal year, includes reimbursement funds that were acquired through a State contract agreement in the FY2023-24 and in the FY2024-25, therefore this is a one-time request to increase and revise the FY2024-25 budgeted line item for Child Care Contract revenue.
Factors Driving the Request for Change
This is additional funding that has been received in the current fiscal year, from a previous audit year (2023/24). The funding is part of a reimbursement grant from the State of California for services rendered and expenses incurred by the City of Pacifica.
Impact of Change
This contributes to The Council's Strategic Goal One - Enhance Organizational & Fiscal Stability, to strengthen the stability and efficiency of the city's operations and finances as it is a recovery of funds from the previous fiscal year. This will increase the General Fund revenue for FY2024-25.
Alternatives
Returning the funds to the State of California.
Cost Summary
The original budget included contracted dollars with the State of California for FY2024-25, but because the audit for FY2023-24 was not completed at the time of adoption, the budget did not account for payments that are now anticipated to be received from the State in this current fiscal year. This is a one-time funding adjustment, as the City is typically paid within the fiscal year in which the programs operate.
Line Item Description Fund Dept/Division Object Code Project Total Amount Revenue (list detail on lines below)
Child Care General State Contract - FY2023-24 101 540 43540 432,077 funds to be received in the current FY
Total Revenue Adjustment 432,077
Overhead Allocation Impact (cost to or recovery from other funds) Net Revenue Adjustment 432,077
10.b
Packet Pg. 1658 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Department Requests (5886 : FY 2024-25 Mid-year Budget Review) CITY OF PACIFICA FY 2024-25 BUDGET
MID-YEAR EXPENSE AMENDMENT
PROGRAM: Public Works – Risk Management
REQUEST TITLE: Forestry Management Survey of Pacifica Urban Forest Is this a Capital Project? Yes ☐ / No☒ If Yes, is this New ☐ or Previously Approved CIP☐? Is this One-Time ☒ or Ongoing ☐?
Request Summary
Public Works would like to engage in a forestry management survey to determine the health of the City’s tree inventory and identify dead or dying trees that are in need of removal or significant structural pruning.
The survey is a one-time expense, estimated to cost $50,000 and will be conducted and completed by the end of the fiscal year. The data findings from the survey will be integrated into the City’s GIS system for on-going maintenance. The Risk Fund will be covering this expenditure, and the survey will help reduce the City’s liability as it will identify the health of the tree inventory.
Factors Driving the Request for Change
Within the City’s new GIS mapping platform there is a PWD management maintenance system to manage the tree inventory that includes identification and the condition of City-owned trees. There have been several trees already identified in poor health and are in need of significant maintenance or removal. The survey would provide a comprehensive and updated list of City-owned trees for current and future data tracking and help budget for this maintenance with the FY25-26 budget process.
The heavy rains and significant windstorms from the past few months generated reports of several trees with structural issues and in poor health. To prevent potential property losses or infrastructure damage, identifying dead or dying trees or trees with structural deficiencies is needed as soon as possible.
Impact of Change
Reduce liability on the City if we're able to identify and remove dead or dying trees or trees that are found to have structural defects. Reduce staff time to identify city owned trees by having the arborist look at hundreds of trees versus one at a time. Improve management of the urban forest. Improved community safety and health. This connects to the City Council’s Strategic Goals and FY2024-25 Priorities Goal #4 – Pursue climate change adaption and mitigation, 4.2 Continue the urban forestry plan, tree canopy goals, inventory, and projects. The city of Pacifica has an ongoing tree management plan which is based on available funding each year.
Alternatives
Postponing the project will increase exposure and liability. Reducing scope of assessment will increase cost because of lack of economies of scale. Not completing the tree survey before the end of the fiscal year will mean insufficient data to budget for tree maintenance in the coming budget cycle.
Cost Summary
The survey is a one-time expense, estimated to cost $50,000 and will be conducted and completed by the end of the fiscal year. The Risk Fund will be covering this expenditure, and the survey will help reduce the City’s liability as it will identify the health of the tree inventory.
10.b
Packet Pg. 1659 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Department Requests (5886 : FY 2024-25 Mid-year Budget Review) FY 2024-25 Mid-Year Expense Amendment Request Page 2 of 2 Line Item Description Fund GL Code Total Amount
Operating Expense (list detail on lines below) 50,000
One-time Forestry Management Survey expense 667 667190-51206 50,000 Capital Outlay (list detail on lines below) 0
Total Operating Costs 50,000
Offsetting Costs Savings or Revenues (Enter as a negative number. If there are none, leave this row blank in the table.) Net Operating Costs 50,000
10.b
Packet Pg. 1660 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Department Requests (5886 : FY 2024-25 Mid-year Budget Review) CITY OF PACIFICA FY 2024-25 BUDGET
MID-YEAR EXPENSE AMENDMENT
PROGRAM: Police Department Facilities
REQUEST TITLE: Police Department Intercom, Security Camera and Access Updates Is this a Capital Project? Yes ☐ / No☒ If Yes, is this New ☐ or Previously Approved CIP☐? Is this One-Time ☒ or Ongoing ☐?
Request Summary
On November 20, 2024, the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) conducted their 2023- 2024 comprehensive inspection of the Pacifica Police Department’s temporary holding facility. This inspection was conducted pursuant to Penal Code Section 6031 to determine compliance with the Minimum Standards for Local Detention Facilities as outlined in Titles 15 and 24, California Code of Regulations. The inspection results determined that the police department was not in compliance with Title 24, Section 1231.2.22 regarding the inoperable audio monitoring systems inside the holding cells.
On January 10, 2025, the Pacifica Police Department submitted a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) to the BSCC addressing the non-compliance issue identified in the inspection. BSCC acknowledged receipt of the CAP and will be conducting a follow-up inspection to verify compliance in 60 days.
Additionally, we determined the police department’s entire security camera system and access control system to the building was outdated and inoperable. The 20 year old system can no longer be serviced.
Furthermore, the current camera configuration does not have 360 degree surveillance capability of the exterior of the building.
The request is aligned with Council’s Goal and Strategy 2.4 Develop a Facilities and Equipment Plan, with the city wide plan to update security camera systems to most City buildings starting with the Civic Center.
The scope of work will include the installation of security cameras, access control systems, and holding cell intercoms at the police department building. Not only will this be necessary to pass the BSCC follow up inspection, but will be critically important to enhance security, improve monitoring capabilities. This will achieve better safety, real-time surveillance, and more reliable incident documentation.
Factors Driving the Request for Change
• Enhanced Safety: Improves protection for the public and staff, minimizing the risk of unauthorized access or potential threats.
• Upgraded Technology: Newer systems offer higher-quality video, better resolution, and advanced analytics (e.g., motion detection).
• Real-time Monitoring: Allows for instant surveillance and response, which is critical for emergencies or suspicious activities.
• Improved Incident Documentation: High-definition cameras and access logs provide clear, reliable evidence for investigations and legal proceedings. • Compliance with Regulations: Ensures the facility meets current legal requirements and best practices for security standards.
• Remote Access: Modern systems enable remote monitoring, enhancing the ability to oversee security from anywhere.
• Integration with Other Systems: Updated systems can integrate with alarms, emergency protocols, or building automation for more comprehensive security management. • Reduced Human Error: Automated systems reduce the chances of missed security breaches or surveillance gaps.
10.b
Packet Pg. 1661 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Department Requests (5886 : FY 2024-25 Mid-year Budget Review) FY 2024-25 Mid-Year Expense Amendment Request Page 2 of 2 • Deterrence of Criminal Activity: Visible, high-tech cameras and access control points deter unauthorized individuals from attempting to breach the facility. • Increased Operational Efficiency: Streamlined processes, such as electronic access control, can reduce manual security tasks and improve overall facility management. • Future-proofing: Investing in the latest technologies ensures long-term sustainability and reduces the need for frequent upgrades.
Impact of Change
• Improved Security: Increased surveillance and controlled access lead to a safer environment for personnel, detainees, and visitors.
• Faster Response Times: Real-time monitoring allows for quicker identification of security threats and more immediate action.
• Better Incident Resolution: High-quality footage and accurate access logs aid in resolving disputes, identifying suspects, and providing evidence in investigations. • Operational Efficiency: Automation of security protocols can streamline facility operations and reduce human error, freeing up resources for other tasks. • Cost Savings Over Time: Reducing manual security checks and improving incident prevention can lead to long-term savings in damage control and personnel costs. • Public Trust: Enhanced security measures help build public confidence in the facility’s ability to protect staff and sensitive information.
• Legal and Regulatory Compliance: Updated systems ensure the facility adheres to evolving security regulations and reduces liability risks.
• Deterrence of Crime: Visible and sophisticated security systems may deter criminals from attempting to infiltrate or target the facility.
• Scalability for Future Needs: Modern systems are often adaptable, allowing for easier upgrades and integration as future security requirements evolve.
Alternatives
No alternatives at this time as a portion of this project is required by the State to become compliant with our audio/video capabilities inside our holding cells.
Cost Summary
To updgrade the Police Department Facilities security cameras, access control, and become compliant with the holding cell audio/video mandate this project would have a one-time cost of $ 131,000 with $30,000 to be covered by the Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS) Grant, and the remaining $101,000 by the General Fund. There will be approximately $13,000 in on-going cost to the General Fund for yearly cloud storage, mobile credential and card management, and 10 year camera warranty with an active license.
Line Item Description Fund GL Code Total Amount
Operating Expense (list detail on lines below) 0
Capital Outlay (list detail on lines below) 131,000
Purchase of Security Cameras, Access Control and Holding Cell Intercoms 101 101211-57001 101,000 207 207211-57001 30,000
Total Operating Costs 131,000
Offsetting Costs Savings or Revenues (Enter as a negative number. If there are none, leave this row blank in the table.) Net Operating Costs 131,000
10.b
Packet Pg. 1662 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Department Requests (5886 : FY 2024-25 Mid-year Budget Review) CITY OF PACIFICA FY 2024-2025 BUDGET
MID-YEAR BUDGET TRANSFER REQUEST
PROGRAM: Public Works – Wastewater Division
REQUEST TITLE: WWTP Sewer Rate Study Project
Is this a Capital Project? Yes ☒ / No☐ If Yes, is this New ☒ or Previously Approved CIP☐? Is this One-Time ☒ or Ongoing ☐?
Request Summary
Every five years, the City completes a sewer rate study to determine the rate increases that are necessary to meet the Wastewater Division’s (Wastewater) operating costs, projected Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The new Sewer Rate Study must be performed to determine the new sewer service charges for the next five years from Fiscal Years 2027-2032. Public Works Wastewater Division uses consultant services to perform this rate study.
Factors Driving the Request for Change
The WWTP Sewer Rate Study Project was not originally included in the FY2024-2025 CIP budget. Staff initiated a RFP for the sewer rate study consultant search, and anticipating to begin this project in the FY2024-2025 time frame.
Impact of Change
Council has flagged the decreasing or stagnant revenue trends for these charges for services, and accelerating the RFP will assist with strategic planning and fiscal responsibility. This request will bring positive impact to the Council’s Strategic Goals and FY2024-25 Priorities with Goal #1 - Improve and Steward City Infrastructure, Streets and Facilities. This request has no impact to the General Fund, and the proposed transfer will result in a net zero change in Sewer Enterprise Fund. CCWRP Blower Replacement Project P0024 is a reoccurring CIP there is no timeline disruption in rebudgeting the funds.
CCWRP Electrical Condition Assessment P0037 was already initiated, with no expenditures in the current year, the assessment report is still in a draft form and staff will be evaluating. Using the FY2024-2025 allocation will not cause any timeline disruption.
Alternatives
The alternative is to wait for FY2025-2026 CIP budget and add the necessary funds during that time; however, this will delay the WWTP Sewer Rate Study Project. Public Work’s goal is to ensure the sewer rate for Fiscal Years 2027-2032 is ready for City Council review in FY2026-2027 and provide sufficient time for the Prop 218 process.
Cost Summary
This request has no impact to the General Fund, and there is no impact to the Sewer Enterprise Fund. The proposed transfer from the existing projects to the Sewer Rate Study Project will not impact the timeline of the CCWRP projects.
Line Item Description From Fund/Org From Accnt/Obj Amount To Fund/Org To Accnt/Obj Amount CCWRP Blower
Replacement 518452 51206-P0024 (50,000)
CCWRP Elec Condition
Assessment 518452 51206-P0037 (50,000)
Sewer Rate Study (new
project) 518452 51206-P0026 100,000
Total Transfers $ (100,000) $ 100,000
10.b
Packet Pg. 1663 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Department Requests (5886 : FY 2024-25 Mid-year Budget Review) CITY OF PACIFICA FY 2024-2025 BUDGET
MID-YEAR BUDGET TRANSFER REQUEST
PROGRAM: Motor Pool – Vehicle Replacement
REQUEST TITLE: Transfer to Motor Pool for WW and GF Vehicle Replacements Request Summary
Following budget adoption, the City’s Motor Pool division purchased and replaced two City vehicles for the Public Works Wastewater division. A transfer request of $399,000 from the Wastewater Enterprise Fund to the Motor Pool Fund is included in order to cover the purchases of those vehicles. Also included in this form is a transfer request from the General Fund to the Motor Pool Fund, in the amount of $352,000, in order to cover previously encumbered purchase orders that were created in the old accounting system and moved subsequently to the new system without the coinciding budget encumbrances.
Factors Driving the Request for Change
The vehicle expenditures were approved at budget adoption and like all City vehicles, purchased through the Motor Pool fund. A transfer is needed from the Wastewater Enterprise Fund in order to cover vehicles specifically used by Wastewater. Additionally, the implementation of the new ERP system created a lag in reflecting the encumbrances from the previous fiscal year, for which the invoices were received and paid upon vehicle delivery in the current fiscal year.
Impact of Change
This would correct the expenditure budget for Motor Pool Fund 672, and allow for year-end processing to more accurately reflect the balance of the fund.
Alternatives
There are no reasonable alternatives to this request at this time as the previously Council approved purchases have already been made.
Cost Summary
Cost Transfer Out from Wastewater of $399,000, Transfer Out from General Fund of $352,000, and appropriate the use of these funds in the Motor Pool Fund 672.
Line Item Description From Fund/Org From Accnt/Obj Amount To Fund/Org To Accnt/Obj Amount Transfer Out from Fund
518 for purchased
WasteWater Vehicles 518999 59672 (399,000)
Transfer Out from Fund
101 for Vehicles 101999 59672 (352,000)
Transfer to Fund 672
from GF 672999 49101 352,000
Transfer to Fund 672
from WW 672999 49518 399,000
Total Transfers $ (751,000) $ 751,000
10.b
Packet Pg. 1664 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Department Requests (5886 : FY 2024-25 Mid-year Budget Review) FY 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget Transfer Request Page 2 of 2 Line Item Description Fund GL Code Total Amount
Operating Expense (list detail on lines below) 0
Capital Outlay (list detail on lines below) 751,000
Appropriation of use of the Transfers In from GF and WW 672 672470-57001 751,000 Total Operating Costs 751,000
Offsetting Costs Savings or Revenues (Enter as a negative number. If there are none, leave this row blank in the table.) Net Operating Costs 751,000
10.b
Packet Pg. 1665 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Department Requests (5886 : FY 2024-25 Mid-year Budget Review) Fund Name FY 2023-24
Actual
FY 2024-25
Original Budget
Previously
Approved
Mid-Year
Adjustments
Total
Mid-Year
Adjustments
FY 2024-25
Revised Budget
% Change
over
Adopted
101 GENERAL FUND $ 47,785,173 $ 48,068,300 $ - $ 171,367 $ 171,367 $ 48,239,667 0.4%
SPECIAL REVENUE & CAPITAL FUNDS
207 Supplemental Law Enf Serv 209,743 150,000.00 - - - 150,000 - 209 Measure A 1,439,586 1,400,000.00 - - - 1,400,000 -
210 Gas Tax 2,416,933 2,442,000.00 - - - 2,442,000 -
211 Measure W 603,579 560,000.00 - - - 560,000 -
213 Street Improvement 2,060,372 655,000.00 - - - 655,000 - 216 NPDES Stormwater 207,152 193,000.00 - - - 193,000 - 221 Housing Action Fund 1,747,869 1,650,000.00 - - - 1,650,000 - 224 Housing In-Lieu 14,821 - - - - - -
225 Parking In-Lieu 7,054 20,000.00 - - - 20,000 -
227 Davies Trust 251,510 - - - - - -
228 PB&R 113,558 - - - - - -
229 Tree Replacement 150 - - - - - -
238 Disaster Accounting 1,836,681 1,650,000.00 - - - 1,650,000 - 312 Highway 1 Improvement 48,789 5,000.00 - - - 5,000 - 314 Manor Drive Improvement 1,030 107,947.00 - - - 107,947 - 315 Aircraft Noise Project 25 - - - - - -
319 Planned Local Drainage 17,280 25,000.00 - - - 25,000 - 322 General Capital Improvement 3,124,337 1,279,800.00 - - - 1,279,800 - 323 Frontierland Remediation 7,809 75,000.00 - - - 75,000 - 326 Parks and Playfield 156,469 100,000.00 - - - 100,000 - 331 Pacifica Library 3,038 - - - - - -
Total Special Revenue & Capital
Funds 14,267,788 10,312,747 - - - 10,312,747 -
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
440 Debt Service Fund 2,436,940 483,226 - - - 483,226 - Total Debt Service Funds 2,436,940 483,226 - - - 483,226 -
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
518 Sewer Utility 20,385,935 20,310,000 - - - 20,310,000 - 535 Beach Parking 472,026 592,000 - - - 592,000 -
Total Enterprise Funds 20,857,961 20,902,000 - - - 20,902,000 -
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
665 Self Insurance - Dental Plan 254,510 255,000 - - - 255,000 - 666 Self Ins - Workers Comp 1,157,391 1,112,000 - - - 1,112,000 - 667 Self Ins - General Liability 2,044,502 2,808,400 - - - 2,808,400 - 671 Motor Pool - Operating 1,203,000 1,184,459 - - - 1,184,459 - 672 Motor Pool - Replacement 312,187 25,000 - 751,000 751,000 776,000 3004% 674 Fire Equip Replacement 282,300 133,000 - - - 133,000 - Total Internal Service Funds 5,253,889 5,517,859 - 751,000 751,000 6,268,859 13.6% Total Other Funds (non-General F 42,816,577 37,215,832 - 751,000 751,000 37,966,832 2.0% Total All Funds $ 90,601,750 $ 85,284,132 $ - $ 922,367 $ 922,367 $ 86,206,499 1.1% Attachment 4
City of Pacifica
FY 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget
Summary of Revenue & Transfers by Fund
10.c
Packet Pg. 1666 Attachment: Attachment 4 - FY 2024-25 Summary of Revenues and Transfers by Fund (5886 : FY 2024-25 Fund Name FY 2023-24
Actual
FY 2024-25
Original
Budget
Previously
Approved
Mid-Year
Adjustments
Total
Mid-Year
Adjustments
FY 2024-25
Revised Budget
% Change
over
Adopted
101 GENERAL FUND $ 45,929,185 $ 46,916,071 $ 302,000 $ 453,000 $ 755,000 $ 47,671,071 1.6%
SPECIAL REVENUE AND CAPITAL FUNDS
207 Supplemental Law Enf Serv 119,510 79,100 - 30,000 30,000 109,100 37.9% 209 Measure A 1,951,363 1,938,926 - - - 1,938,926 -
210 Gas Tax 2,663,409 2,128,400 52,355 - 52,355 2,180,755 2.5% 211 Measure W 272,250 862,000 624,392 - 624,392 1,486,392 72.4% 213 Street Improvement 1,131,795 882,947 465,355 - 465,355 1,348,302 52.7% 216 NPDES Stormwater 304,756 266,000 - - - 266,000 -
221 Housing Action Fund - 473,000 - - - 473,000 -
224 Housing In-Lieu - - - - - - -
225 Parking In-Lieu - - - - - - -
227 Davies Trust 724,425 100,300 - - - 100,300 -
228 PB&R 93,767 216,474 - - - 216,474 -
229 Tree Replacement 53,065 - - - - - -
238 Disaster Accounting 2,206,546 668,455 1,340,000 - 1,340,000 2,008,455 200.5% 293 Housing Successor - - - - - - -
312 Highway 1 Improvement 28,922 35,966 - - - 35,966 -
314 Manor Drive Improvement 752,209 - - - - - -
319 Planned Local Drainage 2,369 2,100 - - - 2,100 -
322 General Capital Improvement 7,999,044 1,610,180 - - - 1,610,180 - 323 Frontierland Remediation 280,000 - - - - - -
326 Parks and Playfield 127,693 - - - - - -
331 Pacifica Library 26,897 - - - - - -
Total Special Revenue & Capita 18,738,019 9,263,848 2,482,102 30,000 2,512,102 11,775,950 27.1%
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
440 Debt Service Fund 2,478,030 2,522,941 - - - 2,522,941 - Total Debt Service Funds 2,478,030 2,522,941 - - - 2,522,941 -
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
518 Sewer Utility 19,296,272 33,848,994 189,252 399,000 588,252 34,437,246 1.7% 535 Beach Parking 613,116 593,632 - - - 593,632 -
Total Enterprise Funds 19,909,388 34,442,626 189,252 399,000 588,252 35,030,878 1.7%
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
665 Self Insurance - Dental Plan 210,225 184,800 - - - 184,800 - 666 Self Ins - Workers Comp 991,512 1,112,000 - - - 1,112,000 - 667 Self Ins - General Liability 2,051,871 2,808,400 - 50,000 50,000 2,858,400 1.8% 671 Motor Pool - Operating 1,191,524 1,184,459 - 751,000 751,000 1,935,459 63.4% 672 Motor Pool - Replacement 793,640 750,000 - - - 750,000 - 674 Fire Equip Replacement 358,824 - - - - - -
Total Internal Service Funds 5,597,594 6,039,659 - 801,000 801,000 6,840,659 13.3% Total Other Funds (non-Genera 46,723,032 52,269,074 2,671,354 1,230,000 3,901,354 56,170,428 7.5% Total All Funds $ 92,652,217 $ 99,185,145 $ 2,973,354 $ 1,683,000 $ 4,656,354 $ 103,841,499 4.7% Attachment 5
City of Pacifica
FY 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget
Summary of Expenses & Transfers by Fund
10.d
Packet Pg. 1667 Attachment: Attachment 5 - FY 2024-25 Summary of Expenditures and Transfers by Fund (5886 : FY 2024- Fund Name Fund Balance
6/30/2024
Revenues &
Transfers In
Revised Budget
Expenditures &
Transfers Out
Revised Budget
Revenue Over
(Under)
Expenditures
Projected
Fund Balance
6/30/2025
101 GENERAL FUND $ 18,740,450 $ 48,239,667 $ 47,671,071 $ 568,596 $ 19,309,046
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
207 Supplemental Law Enf Serv 409,510 150,000 109,100 40,900 450,410 209 Measure A 1,431,622 1,400,000 1,938,926 (538,926) 892,696 210 Gas Tax (390,167) 2,442,000 2,180,755 261,245 (128,922) 211 Measure W 623,334 560,000 1,486,392 (926,392) (303,058) 213 Street Improvement 1,563,207 655,000 1,348,302 (693,302) 869,905 216 NPDES Stormwater 183,452 193,000 266,000 (73,000) 110,452 221 Housing Action Fund 1,747,870 1,650,000 473,000 1,177,000 2,924,870 224 Housing In-Lieu 265,702 - - - 265,702
225 Parking In-Lieu 126,465 20,000 - 20,000 146,465
227 Davies Trust 2,397,961 - 100,300 (100,300) 2,297,661 228 PB&R 2,030,012 - 216,474 (216,474) 1,813,538
229 Tree Replacement (51,167) - - - (51,167)
238 Disaster Accounting 7,103,135 1,650,000 2,008,455 (358,455) 6,744,680 293 Housing Successor 372,513 - - - 372,513
312 Highway 1 Improvement 648,508 5,000 35,966 (30,966) 617,542 314 Manor Drive Improvement (499,125) 107,947 - 107,947 (391,178) 315 Aircraft Noise Project 448 - - - 448
319 Planned Local Drainage 309,785 25,000 2,100 22,900 332,685 322 General Capital Improvement 441,873 1,279,800 1,610,180 (330,380) 111,493 323 Frontierland Remediation 139,997 75,000 - 75,000 214,997 326 Parks and Playfield 244,458 100,000 - 100,000 344,458 331 Pacifica Library 53,363 - - - 53,363
Total Special Revenue & Capital Funds 19,152,756 10,312,747 11,775,950 (1,463,203) 17,689,553
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
440 Debt Service Fund 2,658,075 483,226 2,522,941 (2,039,715) 618,360 Total Debt Service Funds 2,658,075 483,226 2,522,941 (2,039,715) 618,360
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
518 Sewer Utility 34,687,980 20,310,000 34,437,246 (14,127,246) 20,560,734 535 Beach Parking 45,208 592,000 593,632 (1,632) 43,576 Total Enterprise Funds 34,733,188 20,902,000 35,030,878 (14,128,878) 20,604,310
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
665 Self Insurance - Dental Plan 279,587 255,000 184,800 70,200 349,787 666 Self Ins - Workers Comp 1,022,526 1,112,000 1,112,000 - 1,022,526 667 Self Ins - General Liability 676,389 2,808,400 2,858,400 (50,000) 626,389 671/2 Motor Pool 1,953,593 1,960,459 2,685,459 (725,000) 1,228,593 674 Fire Equip Replacement 74,852 133,000 - 133,000 207,852 Total Internal Service Funds 4,006,947 6,268,859 6,840,659 (571,800) 3,435,147 Total Other Funds 60,550,966 37,966,832 56,170,428 (18,203,596) 42,347,370 Total All Funds $ 79,291,416 $ 86,206,499 $ 103,841,499 $ (17,635,000) $ 61,656,416 *
**
Attachement 6
City of Pacifica
FY 2024-25 Revised Budget (Mid-Year)
Summary of Fund Balances
Negative balances will be reviewed during the budget development process and at year-end to reduce and/or eliminate deficit in these funds Enterprise Funds and Internal Service Funds include capital investments and depreciation, the above does not represent cash balance
10.e
Packet Pg. 1668 Attachment: Attachment 6 - FY 2024-25 Fund Balance Summary by Fund [Revision 1] (5886 : FY 2024-25