Supervisor Horn and Supervisor Jacob ordered County staff to give a presentation on housing affordability. The following is a brief recap of the April 18th meeting which resulted in an order to delve deeper into the issue to be presented in 180 days (around October 15). The video is embedded above if you have about 45 minutes to spare. Editorial commentary is in italics.
County Planning Staff Presentation
County staff lays out some facts about housing affordability and does a decent job of showing how the average San Diego resident is “housing burdened.” They lay out the problem fairly well, but the solution is mostly related to regulatory fixes.
- ◆ 50% residents housing burdened
- ◆ under production of moderate level housing, the famous missing middle (finally acknowledged)
- ◆ 1 in 5 employees are commuting to Riverside. Grow the San Diego Way collaborator, Susan Baldwin (former SANDAG staffer) noted that many of the commuters are coming from southwestern Riverside to North County which can be as little as 20 minutes.
- ◆ County has a shortfall of 14K units RHNA
- ◆ Fails to note that majority of that shortage is in the moderate and lower.
- ◆ 13,000 units needs to be built. 2,200 per year for unincorporated.
Net net: they don’t really propose anything that will increase the actual building of affordable housing. They blame high prices on regulatory structure and their solution is to streamline processes, etc. I don’t necessarily disagree, but of course that is the only lever that County planning has. The Supervisors have a lot more tools they can use that aren’t planning related. Just one small piece of the puzzle, though. GrowSDWay angle: The industry simply cannot or will not deliver the type of housing needed, other interventions are needed).
Bill Horn comments:
- ◆ We want to streamline what we can do. Get rid of anything of slowing down process. I have 8 grandkids and want them to be able to live here eventually.
- ◆ We need more moderate income housing for the area (thank you!)
- ◆ Off topic, but “rent control will kill the housing market and get rid of affordable housing. Just look at SF.” Never mind that SF hasn’t produced any new rent control for years (thanks to Costa Hawkins). And, well, there is no affordable housing to get rid of so we have nothing to lose.
Wardlaw comment:
- ◆ middle income density bonus - expand incentives to middle income. expand the 140% requirement. Not a bad idea, but don’t forget about the lower income which is massively understocked.
Public comments:
Clifton Williams (Latham Watkins, representing Golden Door):
- ◆ GPAs should require 20% affordable housing, per General Plan policy. It’s legally permissible and the General Plan requires it.
- ◆ City of San Diego requires 20% of projects to be affordable housing: Del Sur, Santa Luz, Pacific Highlands Ranch, for example.
- ◆ Market rate and affordable housing can co-exist.
- ◆ There are 65K future dwelling units in the General Plan, more than enough.
- ◆ Pretty much right on.
Borre Winkel (President of the Building Industry Association):
- ◆ Attacks previous speaker sarcastically. “Represents the richest NIMBY in the county.” Blames them for the housing crisis. Not particularly professional. I say always respect your adversaries. This attitude has contributed to the unfair distaste the public has for the industry.
- ◆ Let’s reduce regulations / facilitate approval (agreed).
- ◆ County not able to permit more than 500 dwelling units for past 10 years. This is intentionally misleading as it includes the housing crash and the biggest recession since the Great Depression. If you look at more recent data, the past 4 years have averaged about 800. And the last Fiscal Year was projected to reach around 1,100. Waiting for final numbers from County.
- ◆ There’s a housing loss factor. 1/3 of units are lost during the discretionary process. Interesting and definitely worth looking into.
- ◆ Seniors are getting hosed. Seniors have nowhere to go. We’re facing an avalanche of people retiring. Agreed. (This is the latest of the BIA’s attempts to show they care about the little people. They tried with millennials / homeless / commuters to Riverside, now they’re concerned with seniors).
- ◆ Where are the 65K units that Clifton mentions? We request you direct staff to do an assessment of the reality of these units. Where are they and in what category? Clarity on viability of construction. Sure, why not. Be good to end the speculation.
Matthew Adams - BIA / Housing You Matters:
- ◆ Makes reference to Point Loma study which suggests that 40% of the cost of housing is due to regulation. While clearly regulation plays a role, no other study on the topic has shown such a high percentage. Furthermore, fees, regulations and permitting costs have not increased significantly in the past 10+ years, yet housing costs have risen massively in that time. The study (linked here) is entirely based on data provided to Point Loma’s lead economist, Lynn Reiser by the Building Industry itself. Even data that is publicly available was provided by the BIA. I give Ms. Reiser the benefit of the doubt, but there is a big problem with relying on data provided by a source whose livelihood depends on the outcome of the study. It is a huge red flag anywhere in academia. I don’t see UCLA or UC San Diego conducting research in this way. At best, it is a flawed study. At worst, it is a manipulation.
- ◆ We need to solve this problem through production, through efficiency. (sure, why not)
- ◆ Compress time to build (I agree), create cost savings (sure).
- ◆ How best can we do this? Clear communications at County to resolve delays. dispute resolution. Interesting comment. Wasn’t aware that this was a big problem.
- ◆ NIMBYs like the Golden Door are the problem. Again, the level of defensiveness coming from the BIA is alarming. If we’re really interested in solving this problem, attacking people who disagree with you will not make you friends. Respect your opponent. You might find some common ground. Otherwise you are continuing to create a divide and are doing your industry no favors.
Jim Whalen (land use lobbyist, tries to see both sides):
- ◆ It’s all about supply. We don’t have any crappy housing (he’s exactly right about that) we don’t have many bad areas.
- ◆ Good example is San Antonio, same size city, no homeless, $165K median price (GrowSD response, no one wants to live there, no amenities, jobs and the median income is low, plus weather is horrible—nobody’s flocking to SA like they are to SD–horrible comparison, no offense, Jim) .
- ◆ Alpine is a good example of a good project. Would like to know how, not well versed in this one.
- ◆ I don’t think CEQA is the problem (I’m listening). We have the fastest Major Use Permit in the county — because there’s no community opposition. Good to know.
- ◆ Rent control is not the answer: Santa Monica, Berkeley all their housing is falling down. Well, their rent controlled housing is decades old because Costa Hawkins outlaws RC in new housing. (my smart ass response, maybe we actually need some crappy housing… actually, more like entry level housing).
- ◆ Fees for a 800-1200sf unit is the same as as a 3500sf. So there’s more incentive to build the 3500. Agreed.
- ◆ Need to build to the full density of the zoning, which not all project in City San Diego do (doesn’t pencil out due to the fee disparity).
- ◆ NIMBYs will vote out those running for re-election. You guys who are leaving are lucky… you can vote to approve and not face consequences!
- ◆ “No growth” initiative isn’t helpful (referring to Save our San Diego Countryside). Actually it is helpful because it incentives developers to build to the General Plan rather than the exact opposite.
- ◆ Relationship with the local governments and wildlife agencies is complicated. Conservation takes housing off the market so therefore more GPAs are needed (Otay Ranch). Maybe if we were running out of lots, but we’re not.
Follow up conversation:
Dianne Jacob:
- ◆ We’ve approved a lot of tentative maps. Sitting idle. Why aren’t they being built? I’d like to see a study of all TMs in the County. This is a very interesting point. There are approvals. Land is sitting idle. With this housing crisis, why aren’t they being built? Are they waiting for the market to be more favorable? Can it get more favorable? Wow. Had no idea.
- ◆ How many legal lots are vacant in the unincorporated area? What’s the potential right now today, to put a stick in the ground? Good question. Would love to see the answer.
- ◆ Maybe offer subsidies for people to build on their own property? Let’s be creative. Agreed!
- ◆ Explore ministerial building permit process and fees, granny flats, additions. What it takes to build on a property? Yup!
- ◆ Break down every impact fee: house, remodel, building a room, increase bedrooms, ADUs. Grandparents move in with kids, etc. going back to the old days… everyone lived together in a house. Multigenerational housing is on the rise.
- ◆ Lots of potential right now today… to build, if it were easy to do that.
Cox:
- ◆ “Whalen says we need more crappy housing!” (sarcastically) Maybe we need rent control after all? Laughter. Actually, maybe we do.
- ◆ Dismal numbers: 4,000 built in the last 8 years in the unincorporated area. We need 18K units by 2020.
Horn:
- ◆ looking forward to staff response. They’ll know how to make it faster. True.
- ◆ I voted against the GP (1 home per 160 acres). Your biggest mistake.
- ◆ Density bonuses are good. Could be.
- ◆ I used to be a builder. Best things we built (Escondido) we were given density bonuses. City had architectural control. Extra units due to city control. Good incentives. What can County do? Agreed.
Gaspar:
- ◆ Naval fleet is expanding fleet in San Diego anticipating 10-15K additional san Diegans. No way to accommodate them. expedite these things. by 2023.
- ◆ Referring to SOS as the “no growth initiative.” Comparisons with Encinitas Prop A. Millions in lawsuits. 11K voters passed it. 5 years and look at the impact. Last city to pass a GP update. What is this cost? Impact: millions in court costs. Not what we need right now. Going to compound an existing crisis. She is very misinformed about the SOS Initiative. It is nothing like Prop A. First it excludes amendments that are required to comply with State Law including affordable housing requirements. Secondly, it excludes agricultural land. Thirdly, it doesn’t include a height limitation as Prop A did. The lawsuits in Encinitas pertain to violating state law requirements (brought by the BIA, incidentally, so there’s that). With all due respect, Supervisor Gaspar, you are sorely misinformed. The SOS Initiative will help incentivize development in the smart growth areas of the General Plan. Right now, the opposite is happening.
-JP and the team at GrowSDWay
