Ben Larson, a San Diego County land use/environmental planner, discussed the proposed ordinance at the group’s May 7 meeting, saying it was the first of several planned presentations to unincorporated communities before the matter goes to the county Board of Supervisors on June 24.
“My goal today isn’t to persuade this group that this is the right thing for Ramona,” Larson said. “My job today is to explain what is going on and to take this feedback.”
Larson said the county’s required number of affordable units for the proposal is 5% to 20% of the total number of units or homes available. The exact percentage per project will be chosen by the Board of Supervisors and may vary by project type, he said.
The county defines affordable housing as costing no more than 30% of a household’s income. Housing costs include rent or mortgage, utilities, property taxes and insurance, Larson said.
The average household income in Ramona is $107,400, he said, and the average household size is three people. The county considers very low income $78,750; low income $125,950 and moderate income $149,250.
Projects that are less than the minimum project size, which has not yet been established, are not required to participate, he said.
Larson said developers that decide not to add affordable housing to their projects can choose one of four alternative forms of compliance: paying a price-per-square-foot fee based on the unit’s size directly to the county; donating land to the county for future affordable housing development; building affordable housing at an alternative location; or building an accessory dwelling unit.
Incentives are optional but encourage developers to build affordable units on-site, he said. They include a density bonus that allows developers to exceed current zoned density requirements, and priority review, in which the Supervisors may offer an expedited review on the permitting process for projects that include more affordable housing than the required number of units.
As an example, Larson highlighted three housing developments in Ramona built since 2017. Had the proposed inclusionary housing ordinance and a 10% low income inclusionary housing requirement been in effect, Village Place Apartments would have had three affordable units, Paseo Village three units and Nickel Creek Townhomes five units, he said.
Several Planning Group members said they worried that the proposed ordinance would worsen the current “protracted” review time for new housing developments. And any delayed timeline typically impacts final costs for consumers, they said.
Lauren Elyse Welty, the group’s chair, asked Larson to clarify what the county is proposing for expedited permitting review for the ordinance.
She asked how much time the county would take off the permit review process.
Welty referred to Larson’s three Ramona housing development examples. She said that it took the county “an average of nine years” to approve these projects, all between 25 and 45 units.
“When a project is designed, it is designed for the market at that time,” Welty said.
Developers are not dealing with the same numbers nearly a decade later, she added.
“We are trying to take some efforts to speed up that process because we also agree that timeline is unacceptable,” Larson said. “I think one of the things that we are trying to do, and it may be hard to believe, I know, but try to actually improve the process and make it faster so that kind of thing stops happening.”
Planning Group member Jonas Dyer said the county should “allow builders to build and do it quickly,” because fees increase when costs are passed down from the builder to the consumer due to extended county review times.
“There are so many roadblocks to get anything done,” Dyer said. “Housing is so important, and there are people in this town that are trying.”
The solution must be found with the people of Ramona, the boards, the builders and the county working together, he said, adding, “We are all linked in this together.”
Dyer said he believes the county is trying to work on a solution but he will vote against this proposed ordinance.
Planning group member Dawn Perfect said she is concerned that Ramona may lose local control over land development through the proposed ordinance’s alternative compliance mechanism. With land donations, property will be allocated to outside contractors “that don’t have community character in their heart the way some of our local people do,” she said.
She said the price-per-square-foot fee and land donation options “sound like a money grab — and a land grab.
“And a complicated land grab in that the county grabs that land and then does what they want, in their pace, in their style and we end up with stuff that’s just plunked down in Ramona that’s not necessarily Ramona compatible because we’ve lost our local developer’s ability to develop that land and it goes to bigger contractors.”
Basil Aruin said he was concerned that “inclusionary zoning requirements have been used to prevent development.” Parcels appropriate for dense, affordable housing often end up as single-family homes or one large home because that zoning carries fewer regulatory and planning hurdles, he said.
Paul Stykel said the proposed ordinance could extend already lengthy permit processes. He referenced Montecito Ranch, a project originally slated for homes nearly two decades ago.
After struggling for years to secure the necessary permits from the county, the developers ultimately abandoned the project, he said. Hundreds of acres of land were sold to a conservancy, turning the proposed housing site into open space that can never be built on, he said.
County officials will present the proposed inclusionary housing ordinance over the next few weeks to all area community planning groups: Valley Center on May 11, San Dieguito on May 14, Alpine on May 28 and Sweetwater on June 2.