Ramona officials and residents question a county inclusionary housing plan, warning it could slow approvals, raise costs, and shift land control.
A county plan aimed at boosting affordable housing is facing pointed pushback in Ramona, with residents and local officials arguing that the proposal could make an already slow housing pipeline even harder to navigate.
The Ramona Community Planning Group raised concerns about the county’s proposed inclusionary housing ordinance. which would require a portion of affordable units in certain new residential developments.. The feedback comes as the county prepares to take the proposal to the Board of Supervisors. with the matter scheduled to reach that panel on June 24.
At the group’s May 7 meeting. Ben Larson. a San Diego County land use and environmental planner. laid out how the policy would work and said the session was designed to explain the proposal and gather local input rather than persuade the community in the room.. County officials indicated the presentation is part of a broader outreach effort to unincorporated communities before the ordinance is considered by the supervisors.
Under the proposal, the required share of affordable units would be set between 5% and 20% of a development’s total homes, depending on the project. Larson said the exact percentage would be selected by the Board of Supervisors and could differ by project type.
Larson also clarified how the county would define “affordable.” Housing costs. he said. would be capped at no more than 30% of a household’s income. with housing costs including rent or mortgage payments as well as utilities. property taxes and insurance.. He told the group that the average household income in Ramona is $107. 400. and described the county’s income categories used for affordability calculations. including thresholds for very low income. low income and moderate income.
The presentation further emphasized that not every project would be subject to the requirement. Larson said developments smaller than a minimum project size—an element he said had not yet been established—would not be required to participate.
A key part of the ordinance. Larson said. is that developers would have options besides building affordable units on-site if they choose not to include them directly in the project.. The alternatives described at the meeting included paying a fee calculated on a price-per-square-foot basis to the county. donating land for future affordable housing development. building affordable housing at an alternative location. or constructing an accessory dwelling unit.
Incentives would also be available, though Larson said they would be optional.. The county’s plan would encourage projects to include affordable housing on-site through tools such as a density bonus that could allow developments to exceed current zoned density requirements. as well as a priority review process in which supervisors could offer an expedited permitting approach for projects that include more affordable units than the required minimum.
Members of the Planning Group repeatedly returned to one central worry: whether the ordinance would deepen the “protracted” review time they say already affects new housing proposals.. They argued that delays can ripple outward into higher final costs for renters and homeowners when timelines stretch.
Planning Group chair Lauren Elyse Welty pressed Larson for specifics on any expedited review component. including how much time the county expects to cut from the permitting process.. Welty also pointed to examples Larson discussed from within Ramona—three developments built since 2017—that she said took the county an average of nine years to get approved.
Those examples were used in the discussion to illustrate what the ordinance’s requirements might have meant had the policy been in place earlier.. Larson said Village Place Apartments. Paseo Village and Nickel Creek Townhomes would have included affordable units under a hypothetical scenario based on a 10% low income inclusionary housing requirement.
Welty argued that the planning numbers and realities developers face today are not the same as they were nearly a decade earlier. and she tied that mismatch to her broader skepticism about how delays affect project feasibility.. Larson responded by acknowledging that the county is trying to improve the process and reduce the length of approvals. with the goal of preventing the kind of timeline outcomes the group described as unacceptable.
Other members also focused on the cost mechanics tied to time.. Jonas Dyer said the county should allow builders to “build and do it quickly. ” arguing that extended county review can increase fees and contribute to expenses being passed along to consumers.. Dyer described housing as important to the community and said the solution should be pursued through cooperation among Ramona residents. local boards. builders and county officials.
Dyer added that, despite believing county officials are working toward a solution, he planned to vote against the proposed ordinance.
Dawn Perfect voiced a different concern, questioning whether alternative compliance routes could reduce Ramona’s local control over land development.. She said that land donation mechanisms could route property toward outside contractors who. in her view. may not share the community’s character or priorities.. She also characterized certain alternatives—especially the fee and land donation options—as sounding like a “money grab” and a “land grab. ” arguing that the county could determine outcomes on a timeline and in a style that may not match local compatibility.
Meanwhile. Basil Aruin said his worry centers on how inclusionary zoning requirements have. in some cases. been used to discourage development.. Aruin argued that parcels suited for denser. affordable housing can end up being redeveloped into single-family homes or larger homes because those projects can carry fewer regulatory and planning hurdles.
Paul Stykel raised concerns that the ordinance could extend already lengthy permit pathways.. He pointed to Montecito Ranch. a project originally slated for homes nearly two decades ago. saying developers eventually abandoned it after years of trying to secure permits from the county.. Stykel added that the land was later sold to a conservancy. turning the proposed housing site into open space that cannot be built on.
While Ramona’s Planning Group discussed the proposal in May. county officials indicated they plan to present the inclusionary housing ordinance to other community planning groups in the weeks ahead.. Valley Center is listed for May 11. San Dieguito for May 14. Alpine for May 28. and Sweetwater on June 2—before the Board of Supervisors considers the measure on June 24.
Ramona affordable housing inclusionary housing ordinance San Diego County affordable unit requirements expedited permitting housing costs