Written by Michael Palomba
Mayor Faulconer and San Diego’s housing crisis received a victory this week when the Democratic-led City Council failed to overturn Faulconer’s recent veto. The amendments being vetoed, which were set to affect the city’s inclusionary housing regulations, were originally passed 5-4, but were one vote short of being veto proof.
These changes would’ve required developers to lease or sell up to 15% of a development’s rental and for-sale units at below-market rates, capped at certain percentages of the county’s area median income for a family of four.
Developers would also have the option to build the affordable units at a seperate site by paying an “in-lieu” fee. In the process, however, they would forfeit several incentives. The amendments would also have increased the current in-lieu fee of $12.72 per square foot to a whopping $22 per square foot, effective in 2023.
California already has a major problem with regulations stifling the housing market, and these amendments would’ve further added to that problem.
Local developers argued that the new regulations would lead to fewer new units being built. They also mentioned that all of the regulatory hurdles put up by California’s government may send developers packing. States like Texas and Iowa are getting more attractive because they impose far less intrusive regulations.
After the veto, an override vote was held in an attempt to convince a City Council member to change their vote. However, the override vote was unsuccessful and Mayor Faulconer’s veto was upheld.
Following the defeat, Councilwoman Georgette Gomez proposed a compromise. She said developers would be required to lease 10 percent of a development’s rental units at or below 60 percent of the county area median income for a family of four, rather than 50 percent—which was originally proposed. She also proposed the in-lieu fee cap move from $22 to $25, with a longer phase-in.
The compromise, however, did not make a meaningful difference. City Councilmembers Vivian Moreno and Mark Kersey voted against considering the tweaked amendment package at a future meeting.
Photo by Josh Esh
