Key Takeaways
- San Diego County proposes an inclusionary‑housing ordinance that would require 5‑20 % affordable units in new residential projects, with the exact percentage set by the Board of Supervisors.
- Affordable housing is defined as costing no more than 30 % of a household’s income; Ramona’s median income is $107,400 (three‑person household), giving income thresholds of $78,750 (very low), $125,950 (low) and $149,250 (moderate).
- Developers who opt not to include affordable units on‑site can comply via four alternatives: paying a per‑square‑foot fee, donating land, building affordable units elsewhere, or constructing an accessory dwelling unit.
- Incentives to encourage on‑site affordability include a density bonus and priority (expedited) permit review for projects that exceed the required affordable‑unit share.
- Planning‑group members worry the ordinance will lengthen already protracted review times, raise costs for consumers, erode local control, and favor larger contractors over local builders.
- County officials say they are working to streamline the permitting process and will present the proposal to additional community planning groups before the Board of Supervisors votes on June 24.
The Ramona Community Planning Group voiced apprehension at its May 7 meeting that the county’s draft inclusionary‑housing ordinance could exacerbate development delays and increase costs for developers, renters, and homeowners. Ben Larson, a San Diego County land‑use and environmental planner, delivered the first of several presentations aimed at unincorporated communities before the matter reaches the Board of Supervisors on June 24. Larson emphasized that his role was to inform and gather feedback, not to persuade the group that the ordinance is the right solution for Ramona.
Under the proposal, new residential developments would be required to set aside 5 % to 20 % of their total units as affordable housing. The precise percentage would be determined by the Board of Supervisors and could vary by project type. Affordable housing is defined by the county as costing no more than 30 % of a household’s income, encompassing rent or mortgage, utilities, property taxes, and insurance. Using Ramona’s average household income of $107,400 (three‑person household), the county’s income brackets are $78,750 for very low‑income, $125,950 for low‑income, and $149,250 for moderate‑income households.
Projects that fall below a yet‑to‑be‑established minimum size would be exempt from the requirement. Developers who choose not to incorporate affordable units on‑site have four alternative compliance pathways: (1) paying a price‑per‑square‑foot fee directly to the county based on unit size, (2) donating land to the county for future affordable‑housing development, (3) constructing the required affordable units at an alternative location, or (4) building an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on the property.
To encourage on‑site affordability, the ordinance offers optional incentives. A density bonus allows developers to exceed the current zoned density limits if they include affordable units, and priority review can expedite the permitting process for projects that surpass the mandated affordable‑unit share. Larson illustrated the potential impact with three Ramona developments built since 2017—Village Place Apartments, Paseo Village, and Nickel Creek Townhomes—showing that a 10 % low‑income requirement would have yielded three, three, and five affordable units, respectively.
Planning‑group members raised several concerns. Chair Lauren Elyse Welty noted that the county’s average permit review for similar projects has taken about nine years, a timeline she argued renders designs obsolete by the time approval is granted. She asked Larson how much time the expedited review would shave off the process. Larson acknowledged the lengthy timelines are unacceptable and said the county is attempting to improve efficiency, though specifics were not detailed.
Member Jonas Dyer warned that extended review periods inflate costs, which are ultimately passed to consumers, and urged the county to “allow builders to build and do it quickly.” Dawn Perfect expressed fear that the alternative compliance mechanisms—particularly land donations and fee payments—would cede local control to outside contractors lacking community sensitivity, describing the options as a “money grab” and a “land grab” that could result in developments incompatible with Ramona’s character. Basil Aruin cautioned that inclusionary zoning often pushes dense, affordable housing toward single‑family lots because those face fewer regulatory hurdles, potentially undermining the ordinance’s intent. Paul Stykel cited the Montecito Ranch project, which collapsed after years of permit struggles, leaving hundreds of acres permanently off‑limits to housing.
Despite the reservations, Larson reiterated that the county is seeking collaborative solutions involving residents, planners, builders, and the Board of Supervisors. He indicated that the proposal will be presented to additional community planning groups in the coming weeks: Valley Center (May 11), San Dieguito (May 14), Alpine (May 28), and Sweetwater (June 2) before the final supervisor vote on June 24. The outcome will shape how Ramona balances the need for affordable housing with concerns over development speed, cost, and local autonomy.