Pacifica

In Compliance
Out of Compliance
Unincorporated Area
Unincorporated Area
Unincorporated Area

Overview

Population
38048
Density
3005
Avg. Household Income
$
151849
Experiencing Rent Burden
47
Providing adequate housing options is a key function of local governments. To help residents ensure their local government is meeting this need, we’ve compiled important information about this jurisdiction’s housing efforts below.
Housing Element is In Compliance
This city is currently working on implementing its housing element.
Housing Element is Out of Compliance
This city is currently working on implementing its housing element.
Good Progress
This city is currently on track to meet their RHNA housing targets.
Making Slow Progress
This city is falling behind. It is not on track to meet its housing targets.
Housing Targets
Every 8 years California assesses housing need and assigns each city with a target they must hit. If 
Pacifica
 repeats its efforts from the previous cycle 
it will only meet 58% of the identified need.
Current RHNA Target
2022
 
-
 
2030
On Target
Behind
Hit Target
Missed
23
 / 
1892
 units
Very Low Income
Low Income
Median Income
Above Median Income
State Statutes
Organizers fighting for fair housing can use many state laws to ensure that jurisdictions meet their housing targets.
Builder’s Remedy
When a city’s Housing Element is out of compliance, the Builder’s Remedy allows developers to bypass the zoning code and city general plan for qualifying affordable housing projects. If a Builders Remedy project application was submitted prior to 1/1/2025, there are virtually no limits on the size and density of a project proposed. Subsequent to 1/1/2025, in exchange for more certainty in the entitlement process, AB 1893 limits the density for Builders Remedy projects.
Applies
Applies
Applies
SB 423
When cities lack a compliant housing element or are behind on RHNA, this statute streamlines approval of projects that meet a threshold of affordable units.
10% Affordable & 20% Moderate
10% Affordable & 20% Moderate
Conditions in 
San Mateo County
HE Compliance
How does
 
Pacifica
 
compare to its neighboring cities?
This city is currently doing a worse job than its neighbors at meeting housing needs.
Progress
-3
-3
Income
1
1
Density
-11
-11
Pacifica
's Plan
Add Policy
Key parts of
Pacifica
’s housing element are currently being worked on. Get involved to hold them accountable for meeting their deadlines.
Impactful Housing Element Policies:
No prioritized policies
There are no prioritized housing element policies for this jurisdiction which are currently being tracked. If you'd like to submit a policy to be tracked, please fill out the policy submission form.
Other Tracked Housing Element Policies:
Removing Constraints

Reduces off-street parking requirements, increases height limits, and reduces setbacks

​

13. Amend zoning code to remove constraints to housing production including:

a. Reduce the off-street parking requirement for studio and one-bedroom units to one parking space per

unit (covered or uncovered), and to require no guest parking.

b. 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.

c. Increase height limits where necessary to achieve RHNA capacity on sites as indicated on Table 4.

d. Reduce setbacks where necessary to achieve RHNA capacity on sites as indicated on Table 4

Proposal:
Link to Proposal
Resources:
Required (not introducted)
Due
Dec 31
, 
2026
Promoting ADUs, Including Preapproved ADUs

Commits to preapproved ADU design and "building permit ready" ADUs

Proposal:
Link to Proposal
Resources:
Required (not introducted)
Due
Dec 1
, 
2026
Special Needs and Extremely Low Income Housing

Local density bonus, fee deferrals or waivers, streamlined review for affordable housing, reduced parking requirements, and other incentives for deeply affordable housing

Proposal:
Link to Proposal
Resources:
Required (not introducted)
Due
Jan 1
, 
2026
Join the Fun!
Join
Our volunteers, watchdogs, push cities to enact good housing policy and keep tabs on the city’s policy progress. Sign up to help push
Pacifica
 reach its housing targets.
San Mateo County
's Volunteers
32
Current Watchdogs
  
Level III
32/40 Volunteers
Upcoming Opportunities
Add Event
These upcoming events and tasks are great opportunities to make a difference in your community.
Event Name
Date
Type
Stop by Drinks & Agendas
Each Friday at 12:00PST our team gets together via Zoom to monitor local agendas so we can direct watchdogs to key meetings where decisions are being made about housing.
Become a Volunteer
Watchdog Reports
Add Report
Our watchdogs are on the ground observing and taking part in the fight for fair housing. Read their reports below.
Pacifica
's Reports
Anonymous
Leora Tanjuatco Ross
  
11
/
24

HCD told them that they didn't do their re-zoning correctly, but only required small changes. They should get re-certified soon.

​

Read More
   
/
 Loss
/
 Pro Housing
   
/
 Win
/
 Pro Housing
   
/
Deferred
/
 Pro Housing
Anonymous
  
07
/
23

County grand jury has recently found that ADU-heavy housing-element strategies are bad. TBD whether the grand jury finding will matter to HCD.

Read More
   
/
 Loss
/
 Pro Housing
   
/
 Win
/
 Pro Housing
   
/
Deferred
/
 Pro Housing
Anonymous
  
06
/
23

Three general policy changes were discussed:

​

  1. Rezoning: previous draft relied on rezoning primarily in the North Fair Oaks to meet the county's RHNA affordable quota. Housing advocates provided public comment urging the board to expand rezoning to also include higher opportunity neigborhoods. Supervisor started the conversation in firm support for this effort, and Pine and Corzo backed him up. Mueller suggested the Board not weigh in on the issues and essentially let the planning department work it out, which was met with criticism

​

  1. Tenant protections: Corzo and Pine have been working on a tenant protection ordinance to strengthen just cause standards and explore options of a rental registry, etc. Advocates called on the county to incorporate these updates into the housing element. The county attorney provided clarification to the board that the housing element would have supremacy over an ordinance, and any future ordinance would need to comply with the element. The board generally agreed that since the ordinance is already in the works, there was no need to further slow down the element drafting process by incorporating tenant protections

​

Housing for special needs: Board discussed a number of options that would strengthen the element's language regarding supportive/accessible housing. One such revision they seemed in favor of regarding lowering minimum parking requirements for housing for disabled individuals. The board agreed that that policy "made sense." 

​

The Board ultimately pushed final decisions on these measures to the next meeting. The Board also discussed how the supervisors intended to allocate their Measure K money, but I didn't stick around for that. 

Read More
   
/
 Loss
18
/
20
 Pro Housing
   
/
 Win
18
/
20
 Pro Housing
   
/
Deferred
18
/
20
 Pro Housing
   
/
 Loss
13
/
20
 Pro Housing
   
/
 Win
13
/
20
 Pro Housing
   
/
Deferred
13
/
20
 Pro Housing
Anonymous
  
04
/
23

It was a general public study session where feedback was provided to support more affordable housing in our city in support of state laws

Read More
   
/
 Loss
15
/
30
 Pro Housing
   
/
 Win
15
/
30
 Pro Housing
   
/
Deferred
15
/
30
 Pro Housing
Anonymous
magpie
  
10
/
22

William Gibson - presented on (reduced) constraints, concerns from community re housing, HE goals, # of pipeline projects and ADUS. Commissioner comments. Inappropriate parcels should be identified directly to him. 

​

Comments by Green Foothills, community members, including advocate for senior housing and advocates against sprawl. Commenters focused on the numbers being high and incorrect assumptions (e.g. ADUs = housing and all vacant SFH lots will be built out).

​

Commission voted to submit as-is to the Board of Supervisors (did not respond to any of the public comments). 

Read More
San Mateo County Planning Commission - Oct 12, 2022
   
10
/
22
 Loss
3
/
6
 Pro Housing
San Mateo County Planning Commission - Oct 12, 2022
   
10
/
22
 Win
3
/
6
 Pro Housing
Planning Commission
   
10
/
22
Deferred
3
/
6
 Pro Housing
Be a Part of Change
As a watchdog you’ll join other volunteers pushing cities to address their housing needs.
Sign up to Volunteer
Working on a Project?
Are you working on a project in this jurisdiction and need assistance getting it approved?
Get YIMBY Law Support