San Diego County adopted a General Plan in 2011 that incorporates exhaustive studies on land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, safety, environmental justice and air quality. Together, these components outline the growth pattern for our unincorporated areas of San Diego. The General Plan adopted a village concept, contrary to sprawl development we might have seen in the past. A village concept incorporates growth in the village cores. Think Fallbrook, Valley Center, Lakeside, Ramona, Spring Valley – village centers with services, jobs, and through the county’s General Plan, the corresponding housing.
Housing built in the unincorporated areas has traditionally provided an opportunity for first-time homebuyers to get into the housing market. The county has reported that the average cost of home in the unincorporated area is about $650,000 compared to the regional average of more than $900,000. This General Plan encouraged much more small lot development, making homes even more affordable and accessible. And, as mentioned, it discouraged sprawl development throughout the backcountry with a deliberate approach to growth focused on villages.
Then came state legislation from Sacramento lawmakers in the form of Senate Bill 743 which included provisions for cities and counties to measure vehicle miles traveled, or VMTs, when considering a development project. Our county essentially shelved its General Plan and instead implemented the most stringent guidelines for VMT implementation. In the county’s own words, it said this new VMT mitigation would cost home builders $60,000 to $2,000,000 per unit. This effectively cut off all housing development in the unincorporated areas of the county in the middle of a housing crisis. The only way around the VMT mandates: Build less than 11 units, or 100 percent affordable housing. Home builders responded by pulling out of the county.
“The county,” the Building Industry Association said, “is dead to us.”
What has been the effect of these rigid anti-housing regulations? Our county has prevented families from purchasing homes in their own region, forcing many to move to Riverside County and commute back and forth from their jobs in San Diego County. All of those long commutes in no way help reduce climate change. San Diego County lost 31,000 residents last year. Temecula increased their population by 13,000. We can all guess why that happened – the cost of housing in San Diego is unaffordable to all but a few on the wealthier end of the spectrum. Worse, the county’s regulations are a form of redlining. When families have no access to an opportunity to purchase a home, we are widening the wedge between the haves and have nots in San Diego County, fueling segregation, exacerbating our homeless crisis, and forcing middle-income individuals and families to make difficult choices.
Working together with Supervisor Joel Anderson, the BIA highlighted how the county’s interpretation of SB 743 prevented the General Plan from being implemented, depriving families of the opportunity to purchase a home. Supervisor Anderson pushed county counsel to review case law and report back on the General Plan’s status as the leading document for land use.
The County recently reversed course. If a project is consistent with the General Plan, it does not have to mitigate for VMT, the county says.
This is an important policy change on a number of fronts:
- The County’s General Plan is forward thinking, encouraging village development over sprawl.
- It keeps families in San Diego County instead of commuting to and from Riverside County.
- It makes more homes available and affordable, especially to the people who fuel our local economy: teachers, first-responders, office workers and others.
The county has taken a positive step for our region. Clearing the way for housing in villages is much more environmentally friendly than exporting our residents to Riverside. We should cheer the county’s decision and encourage more policy changes that make sense for our environment and for the people who live and work here. Our region should be home to a broad and diverse population, not a place just for the wealthy and the service workers who serve them.
