Councilwoman Lancelle alluded to several developments they have approved (I think it was 4 developments over the last 8 years. Ayup, that's not no growth.) yet only the Connemara project has broken ground after over 5 years of contentious work with the planning department and the city.
It seems Mayor Jim Vreeland was gearing up the fight against development in the quarry by stating that houses in the quarry would have put more of a burden on the city's Calera Creek Waste Treatment Facility, thus raising sewer rates even more. This argument is too ludicrous to debate, except to say 355 simultaneous flushes in a city with 14,000 homes would have about the same effect of frog flatulence.
However, I recalled that I had run a column in the Pacifica Tribune that deserves to be revisited, detailing our commitment to "not no growth" under the current City Council (AUTHOR'S NOTE: I'm not sure of the exact date of this column, but it was written in October 2007 and, to date, the developers of both The Prospects and Harmony@1 have yet to break ground due to continued obstruction from the "not no growth" elements of Pacifica, despite City Council wink wink approval):
After my last column on the local need for housing, I was rebutted by a few people who felt we had “built out” and didn’t need any more residential units in Pacifica. I was challenged to produce a number of houses that would fulfill my theoretical “need” and create a sustainable economy for Pacifica. Though I haven’t reached a definitive number, I did discover a good start: 487.
According to the ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation figures from 1999 to 2006, this is the number of AFFORDBALE homes Pacifica fell short of its obligation for that time frame. In fact, Pacifica batted a woeful 0 for 120 in permits for Very Low Income housing (less than 50% of average median income, or AMI) and 0 for 181 in permits in the Moderate category (between 80% and 120% of AMI). According to ABAG’s data, Pacifica only granted 179 permits during this time frame out of a RHNA affordable housing obligation of 666 homes. 169 of these were in Above Moderate category (over 120% of AMI) and 10 were in the Low category (between 50% and 80% of AMI).
We fell short by 487.
http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/housingneeds/pdf/resources/A_Place_to_Call_Home_2007.pdf
So as City Council voted to participate in the ABAG RHNA for 2006-2013 at its September 24, 2007 meeting, Pacifica had obligated itself to 275 homes out of the 15,738 designated for the San Mateo County subregion, or a mere 1.75%. Do we still owe for the 487 we failed to build for the last 7 years?
While we have recently passed an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance which mandates a certain percentage of all new approved development proposals to accommodate affordable housing, will we have enough to meet our obligation this time around? Will the city and the adamant no-growthers who bend our ears on the opposition to any further population growth continue to stand in the way of meeting these obligations?
I do see a positive trend in the latest development proposals to be approved. The Prospects on Fassler has been approved by City Council and Harmony @ 1 has just passed muster with the planning commission, with unanimous support. I feel both projects are groundbreaking in their commitment to LEED quality standards (a measure of their environmental sensitivity), and I would encourage the city to view all future residential, commercial, and civic developments through the same “green” lens as these projects.
But both projects combined only bring in 42 housing units to a community that has eschewed its responsibilities to the growing Bay Area population for decades. As other cities grow and flourish, Pacifica sees its economy stagnate, propped up by property taxes, the sale of city property, and intergovernmental transfers for the last 4 years.
Also consider that there has been a tremendous slowdown in the housing market in Pacifica, with closed sales dropping from a peak of 423 in 2003 to 281 in 2006, and only 231 units sold in the last 12 months. The market for existing homes cannot be as competitive or lucrative as newer developments, especially developments that are as innovative and energy efficient as the Prospects and Harmony @ 1.
Affordable housing needs are geared towards community and civic professionals such as police, firefighters, emergency response personal, teachers, and city staff. A community flourishes by having its infrastructure personal able to afford living within its boundaries.
But a balance must also exist where new developments cater to the affordable elements AND the sustainable elements that can drive the local economy. Both of these elements are especially profitable to a city if they are located within a redevelopment zone, where the city realizes he most benefits from secured property taxes for the duration of the redevelopment designation. In conjunction with a revitalized commercial base, Pacifica can start making choices on how to spend our surpluses, and not on how to continually avoid our deficits.
