The Daily Journal (San Mateo County), Angela Swartz, 12/8/14. "Developer targets farmland: proposed project for 34 homes, some concerned it's not a fit for South San Francisco neighborhood."
 |
| Ugly house going, new development coming |
.... The proposed development is obligated to provide 20 percent of the dwellings as affordable to low- and moderate-income households. This means at least seven of the 35 units must be designated for this purpose. For the project’s affordable units, the applicant will work with the city’s first-time homebuyer administrator to select the buyers through an application and lottery process. In addition to income requirements, staff will establish other eligibility criteria in consultation with the City Council. In exchange for the affordable housing, the developer, City Ventures, is asking to be allowed to increase allowable building height from 25 feet to 35 feet and to allow the use of one architectural prototype. The other incentive the developer is requesting is building slightly denser units, according to a staff report." Read more.
Reference - Trulia, Google interactive view, 1256 Mission Road, South San Francisco. Zillow, Bing interactive street map. Note: photograph from Everything South City, "The housing and development conundrum in South San Francisco."
Posted by Kathy Meeh
12 comments:
At least South San Francisco has a plan in place that will actually get some affordable housing built.
Pacifica on the other hand traded away two acres of land and two B.M.R. units for a few hundred thousand dollars that will sit in a separate account until someone at City Hall decided to lend it to the General Fund.
I think it is clear what needs to be done.
We need to focus on council elections so we get our say (pro-development) going forward.
This is the only way the NIMBY's can be defeated.
"We need to focus on council elections so we get our say (pro-development) going forward."
um... lol... yeah... good luck with that one.
Next election 2 seats up: Nihart and Ervin. Need both seats to have a pro-development majority. If Ervin runs again she'll probably win. Can Nihart run again or is she termed out? Seems to be a difference of opinion about that. But neither one of them is strong pro-development. Both will respond to public pressure. For pro-development council, has to be strong support from the public - big numbers. It's not there.
"But neither one of them is strong pro-development. Both will respond to public pressure."
Totally agree. Another way of saying this is that they're both political milquetoast; neither of them holding a strong opinion about anything and they will bend which ever way the wind blows. And baby, the wind ain't changing direction anytime soon!
Heads up to Nihart: that photo of you and your out-of-state land barons grinnin' it up as you dig a grave for the Roberts Road ridgeline with your gold shovels will cost you many a vote in 2016!
Everyone over to Riptide. The Riptides are up in arms about a parcel that was just listed on Higgins Way.
614, what's the hurry? If Higgins Way is an area remaining that can be developed, Rippers will be against it forever. But here's an idea: maybe these same NIMBIES who affect all things development in weird ways will allow the developer to build 1 house per 2 acres and bring-in more $6 million houses.
Alternative "green" idea: turn that area into "mixed-use" dotted with failing coffee (or pot) houses. But whatever we do, don't build anywhere where it makes any sense for any reason, including housing density and mixed use. Then there's the quarry: don't let an evil developer build the quarry where it makes economic sense, because of "traffic". Don't fix the "traffic", because evil CalTrans will fix the traffic (its only logical). These city improvement developers will all make a profit and that's evil; whereas, "our environment is our economy" downtown Mori Point is a shining example of fixed forever (protected from evil developers, evil profit).
I walk my dog for free on Higgins. To top of mt. Lots of kids on mt bikes run various courses, for free. How dare anyone expect or permit this property to pay property tax... particularly with a valuable house on it. Cause Pacifica only gets about 11% of the property taxes, so zero is better then 11%. (big joke and the joke is on us)
If they can safely overcome the geology issues this time around, and that's a big if, it's a perfect area for expensive homes. Not really suited to anything commercial that would bring in more city revenue than homes so why not housing? Now, the location of Harmony would have made a great hotel site and that could have brought millions in annual TOT to Pacifica, but the city didn't use the tools at its disposal to make that happen so Pacifica will get virtually nothing (a lousy $75K annual share of property tax) from that proposed 50 million dollar development. Bet the enviros loved being able to dictate that extremely low-density project for such prime real estate. Hey, they didn't even have to put a sewer plant on this one! Nice we may soon have an EconDev Mgr. Better late than never? How much of his/her time will be devoted to getting that new library built or securing funding for the Pedro Point trail because staff is so over-worked? Both projects real big money makers, right? What looks like change in Pacifica, isn't. Toss a few bones and keep practicing the old ideology.
This is an outrage! So they are proposing some houses on this hill and want to tear it up just like Harmony? I'm fed up with the developmentization of Pacifica. How can we stop this development on Higgins!
442 You have no idea what the really big joke is.
539 Developmentization? ESL student or new to this galaxy? Surely, sir, your entire post is in jest.
Post a Comment