State mandate could mean 490 more apartments here, reports county
The density increase on a 16th Street vacant parcel slated for an apartment complex can be blamed on the state-mandated Housing Element.
That was the gist of a county staff presentation at the Ramona Community Planning Group’s April 2 meeting as to how the property’s density increased from 7.3 dwelling units per ace to 24 dwelling units per acre.
In total, according to the 2011 General Plan Update, the county has identified the potential for 490 very low income to moderate income multi-family units in Ramona as part of the Housing Element. Of the designated areas, only a total of 4.8 acres have a density as high as VR-24.
County Planning Manager Joe Farace said the rationale in 2010 was to keep the Ramona Community Plan’s 7.3 density for parcels in the town center until the Ramona Village Center Form-Based code was adopted because the code would require a higher quality of design.
“We understood the community did not want higher densities,” said Farace.
However, he said, the county is required to identify sites to meet the state’s Housing Element. The state law mandates that local governments plan to meet existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments.
Lansing Companies is proposing a 62-unit apartment complex for the 2.87 acres on 16th Street. When representatives brought the project to the Ramona Design Review Board in 2013, they were told the Ramona Community Plan density of 7.3 units per acre would supersede the general plan designation of 24 units per acre at that site. After they resubmitted their plans in December 2014, the developers said the property is now designated VR-24 due to adoption of the Ramona Village Center Form-Based Code on July 30, 2014.
That caught members of the planning group, Ramona Design Review Board and Ramona Village Design Group by surprise. Village design members, who helped craft the form-based code, said density was never discussed. Piva and some village design members met with Farace for an explanation regarding the change in density.
Piva said the county clarified the situation. “This has been on the books for a long time,” he said.
Farace noted at Thursday’s meeting that Ramona was on the low end of potential residential units as compared to other unincorporated areas. Alpine has 802 potential units; Fallbrook, 658; and Lakeside, 1,119.
Planner Donna Myers said other areas are on major corridors.
“We have (Highway) 67 that’s clogged with traffic,” she said. “Ease up. Find your density somewhere else. We’re absorbing as much as we can.”
“We need infrastructure to match the density,” said planner Richard Tomlinson.
Also covered in the discussion was ownership of the 16th Street parcel as it has come into question by a few residents who were concerned about a possible conflict of interest.
Village design co-chair and Realtor Carol Fowler, provided sales information that showed 16th and Main Partners, LLC of San Diego, purchased the bank-defaulted property in April 2013 for $230,000. Gregory Lansing is listed as the agent for 16th and Main Partners.
Some still want to know who is involved in 16th and Main Partners. Casey Malone, a project manager for Lansing Companies, said they have a partner but that person has no relation to the county planning commission or the community groups.
In other business, secretary Kristi Mansolf said the grading permits for the Nickel Creek multi-family residential project for 14th Street has been pulled and the developers are working on the final map. The complex is proposed for 45 units at the north end of 14th Street.