[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]Don’t quote me on this but i beleive the zoning in unicorporated areas of SD county is hugely restrictive. Something like 5 to 7 acre minimum lot sizes.[/quote]
More than half of Bonita is uninc. The average lot size in this area is about 17-18K. There are still a few subdivision opportunities of current owners in the Proctor Valley area of 91902 (Sunnyside). These lots are currently about 1-3 AC.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]Don’t quote me on this but i beleive the zoning in unicorporated areas of SD county is hugely restrictive. Something like 5 to 7 acre minimum lot sizes.[/quote]
More than half of Bonita is uninc. The average lot size in this area is about 17-18K. There are still a few subdivision opportunities of current owners in the Proctor Valley area of 91902 (Sunnyside). These lots are currently about 1-3 AC.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]Don’t quote me on this but i beleive the zoning in unicorporated areas of SD county is hugely restrictive. Something like 5 to 7 acre minimum lot sizes.[/quote]
More than half of Bonita is uninc. The average lot size in this area is about 17-18K. There are still a few subdivision opportunities of current owners in the Proctor Valley area of 91902 (Sunnyside). These lots are currently about 1-3 AC.

[bearishgurl]

Eugene, I’m not sure if this agrees with the zoning depts but for CA, I consider a measure of “density” as follows:

1 AC+ per unit (rural, semi-rural [even if located “suburban”])

.25 AC to 1 AC per unit (semi-rural, suburban or urban low density)

5000 sf to .25 AC per unit (suburban to urban mid density)

<5000 sf (for an SFR) exurban, suburban and urban high density (patio homes, PUD's, zero lot line, etc)

<=8 units on +/- 5000 sf lot (exurban, suburban or urban) mid density multifamily 8-12 units on +/- 5000 sf lot (exurban, suburban or urban) high density multifamily 13+ units on +/- 10,000 sf lot (incl mid rise/high rise bldgs) high density urban multifamily

[bearishgurl]

Eugene, I’m not sure if this agrees with the zoning depts but for CA, I consider a measure of “density” as follows:

1 AC+ per unit (rural, semi-rural [even if located “suburban”])

.25 AC to 1 AC per unit (semi-rural, suburban or urban low density)

5000 sf to .25 AC per unit (suburban to urban mid density)

<5000 sf (for an SFR) exurban, suburban and urban high density (patio homes, PUD's, zero lot line, etc)

<=8 units on +/- 5000 sf lot (exurban, suburban or urban) mid density multifamily 8-12 units on +/- 5000 sf lot (exurban, suburban or urban) high density multifamily 13+ units on +/- 10,000 sf lot (incl mid rise/high rise bldgs) high density urban multifamily

[bearishgurl]

Eugene, I’m not sure if this agrees with the zoning depts but for CA, I consider a measure of “density” as follows:

1 AC+ per unit (rural, semi-rural [even if located “suburban”])

.25 AC to 1 AC per unit (semi-rural, suburban or urban low density)

5000 sf to .25 AC per unit (suburban to urban mid density)

<5000 sf (for an SFR) exurban, suburban and urban high density (patio homes, PUD's, zero lot line, etc)

<=8 units on +/- 5000 sf lot (exurban, suburban or urban) mid density multifamily 8-12 units on +/- 5000 sf lot (exurban, suburban or urban) high density multifamily 13+ units on +/- 10,000 sf lot (incl mid rise/high rise bldgs) high density urban multifamily

[bearishgurl]

Eugene, I’m not sure if this agrees with the zoning depts but for CA, I consider a measure of “density” as follows:

1 AC+ per unit (rural, semi-rural [even if located “suburban”])

.25 AC to 1 AC per unit (semi-rural, suburban or urban low density)

5000 sf to .25 AC per unit (suburban to urban mid density)

<5000 sf (for an SFR) exurban, suburban and urban high density (patio homes, PUD's, zero lot line, etc)

<=8 units on +/- 5000 sf lot (exurban, suburban or urban) mid density multifamily 8-12 units on +/- 5000 sf lot (exurban, suburban or urban) high density multifamily 13+ units on +/- 10,000 sf lot (incl mid rise/high rise bldgs) high density urban multifamily

[bearishgurl]

Eugene, I’m not sure if this agrees with the zoning depts but for CA, I consider a measure of “density” as follows:

1 AC+ per unit (rural, semi-rural [even if located “suburban”])

.25 AC to 1 AC per unit (semi-rural, suburban or urban low density)

5000 sf to .25 AC per unit (suburban to urban mid density)

<5000 sf (for an SFR) exurban, suburban and urban high density (patio homes, PUD's, zero lot line, etc)

<=8 units on +/- 5000 sf lot (exurban, suburban or urban) mid density multifamily 8-12 units on +/- 5000 sf lot (exurban, suburban or urban) high density multifamily 13+ units on +/- 10,000 sf lot (incl mid rise/high rise bldgs) high density urban multifamily

[bearishgurl]

[quote=temeculaguy]BG-I used manahatan as an extreme example. There’s NYC and the midwest, everything else is on a sliding scale in between the two. Zoning plays a role too in that scale. Did you know that the city of poway is essentially built out and you cant knock down a house and build three condos there, like you can in San Diego. Even my own beloved Temecula is near build out. Zoning is what Shiller refers to as “land restricted.” It throws off the formula, much of So cal is strictly zoned, hence the silly prices and also why sdrealtor sees what he sees, not much land left for anyone to do what they please.[/quote]

TG, I could see the City of Poway now being built out but what about uninc Poway? Isn’t there land still left there or vacant lots (already subdivided) available for building (a SFR) on in that area?

I agree that CA, in general, has far more restrictive zoning than say, Texas, with huge swaths of nothing but flat land as far as the eye can see. Don’t you feel that CA’s restrictive zoning benefits every resident here? I don’t think the zoning is restrictive enough in the coastal counties, mostly due to recent “boom time” greed of cities and counties who saw new property tax dollars coming in to enable them to “hire up” (and then lay off when tax bills were all lowered due to the (more recent) bust :={

[bearishgurl]

[quote=temeculaguy]BG-I used manahatan as an extreme example. There’s NYC and the midwest, everything else is on a sliding scale in between the two. Zoning plays a role too in that scale. Did you know that the city of poway is essentially built out and you cant knock down a house and build three condos there, like you can in San Diego. Even my own beloved Temecula is near build out. Zoning is what Shiller refers to as “land restricted.” It throws off the formula, much of So cal is strictly zoned, hence the silly prices and also why sdrealtor sees what he sees, not much land left for anyone to do what they please.[/quote]

TG, I could see the City of Poway now being built out but what about uninc Poway? Isn’t there land still left there or vacant lots (already subdivided) available for building (a SFR) on in that area?

I agree that CA, in general, has far more restrictive zoning than say, Texas, with huge swaths of nothing but flat land as far as the eye can see. Don’t you feel that CA’s restrictive zoning benefits every resident here? I don’t think the zoning is restrictive enough in the coastal counties, mostly due to recent “boom time” greed of cities and counties who saw new property tax dollars coming in to enable them to “hire up” (and then lay off when tax bills were all lowered due to the (more recent) bust :={

[bearishgurl]

[quote=temeculaguy]BG-I used manahatan as an extreme example. There’s NYC and the midwest, everything else is on a sliding scale in between the two. Zoning plays a role too in that scale. Did you know that the city of poway is essentially built out and you cant knock down a house and build three condos there, like you can in San Diego. Even my own beloved Temecula is near build out. Zoning is what Shiller refers to as “land restricted.” It throws off the formula, much of So cal is strictly zoned, hence the silly prices and also why sdrealtor sees what he sees, not much land left for anyone to do what they please.[/quote]

TG, I could see the City of Poway now being built out but what about uninc Poway? Isn’t there land still left there or vacant lots (already subdivided) available for building (a SFR) on in that area?

I agree that CA, in general, has far more restrictive zoning than say, Texas, with huge swaths of nothing but flat land as far as the eye can see. Don’t you feel that CA’s restrictive zoning benefits every resident here? I don’t think the zoning is restrictive enough in the coastal counties, mostly due to recent “boom time” greed of cities and counties who saw new property tax dollars coming in to enable them to “hire up” (and then lay off when tax bills were all lowered due to the (more recent) bust :={

[bearishgurl]

[quote=temeculaguy]BG-I used manahatan as an extreme example. There’s NYC and the midwest, everything else is on a sliding scale in between the two. Zoning plays a role too in that scale. Did you know that the city of poway is essentially built out and you cant knock down a house and build three condos there, like you can in San Diego. Even my own beloved Temecula is near build out. Zoning is what Shiller refers to as “land restricted.” It throws off the formula, much of So cal is strictly zoned, hence the silly prices and also why sdrealtor sees what he sees, not much land left for anyone to do what they please.[/quote]

TG, I could see the City of Poway now being built out but what about uninc Poway? Isn’t there land still left there or vacant lots (already subdivided) available for building (a SFR) on in that area?

I agree that CA, in general, has far more restrictive zoning than say, Texas, with huge swaths of nothing but flat land as far as the eye can see. Don’t you feel that CA’s restrictive zoning benefits every resident here? I don’t think the zoning is restrictive enough in the coastal counties, mostly due to recent “boom time” greed of cities and counties who saw new property tax dollars coming in to enable them to “hire up” (and then lay off when tax bills were all lowered due to the (more recent) bust :={

[bearishgurl]

[quote=temeculaguy]BG-I used manahatan as an extreme example. There’s NYC and the midwest, everything else is on a sliding scale in between the two. Zoning plays a role too in that scale. Did you know that the city of poway is essentially built out and you cant knock down a house and build three condos there, like you can in San Diego. Even my own beloved Temecula is near build out. Zoning is what Shiller refers to as “land restricted.” It throws off the formula, much of So cal is strictly zoned, hence the silly prices and also why sdrealtor sees what he sees, not much land left for anyone to do what they please.[/quote]

TG, I could see the City of Poway now being built out but what about uninc Poway? Isn’t there land still left there or vacant lots (already subdivided) available for building (a SFR) on in that area?

I agree that CA, in general, has far more restrictive zoning than say, Texas, with huge swaths of nothing but flat land as far as the eye can see. Don’t you feel that CA’s restrictive zoning benefits every resident here? I don’t think the zoning is restrictive enough in the coastal counties, mostly due to recent “boom time” greed of cities and counties who saw new property tax dollars coming in to enable them to “hire up” (and then lay off when tax bills were all lowered due to the (more recent) bust :={

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Eugene][quote]I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.[/quote]

Strictly speaking, I would consider even a standard SFR on a 5000 sf lot "low density". Since that's immensely less dense than even building 3-story apartment buildings, let alone downtown-type high-rises.

That said, I think that you misunderstood my statement.

We filled all land _here_in_San_Diego_ with low density housing. Out here in North County, there's an enormous amount of space zoned 1-2 acres & up per dwelling. Valley Center and Bonsall together take 43 square miles (27,520 acres = enough room for something like 200,000 SFRs at typical density). If all this land were vacant, we'd have enough land left over to accommodate future development for decades ahead. But it's not vacant, it's built out at 2 acres per dwelling, total population between the two is somewhere around 12,000, and there's massive red tape involved in rezoning even a single lot to high density.

And, since there's no buildable land left here, people create demand for exurbs.

Also, 4S Ranch and Ramona are NOT exurbs of San Diego. The two primary exurbs of San Diego are Temecula and Murrieta. To a lesser extent, further outlying cities such as Lake Elsinore and maybe even Hemet.[/quote]

Eugene, I understand the zoning restrictions in Valley Center and Bonsall (and even parts of Fallbrook). However, most of the SFR's in these areas are customs, not on tract. None of those areas suffer from "urban sprawl." Only a minority of Valley Center SFR's are even hooked up to a sewer! I never stated Ramona (even though it has several tracts within SDCE) was an "exurb." It DOES fit some of the criteria, but in actuality, Ramona is well-established and historically significant in its own right. 4S is not. 4S is ALL NEW(ER), ALL or NEARLY ALL on tract and entirely freeway dependent (except maybe into RB).

I don't believe "people" create a demand for exurbs. "People" would buy existing resale housing if there were no exurbs. There's always plenty of resale housing on the market. That's what "people" did when there were no exurbs. That's what "people" do in the state of Washington where urban sprawl has long been restricted (to preserve open space and natural resources).

Temecula, Murietta, Lake Elsinore and Hemet are NOT exurbs of San Diego County. They are a different market entirely. They are not located in San Diego County. If they are "exurbs," they would be exurbs of Riverside. Just because residents of these areas may choose to live there, yet commute to Diego County to work doesn't make these areas in any way connected with San Diego. They're not. They're in Riverside County (RIV) and RIV is a different animal entirely than SD County. There is no comparison between the two markets.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Eugene][quote]I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.[/quote]

Strictly speaking, I would consider even a standard SFR on a 5000 sf lot "low density". Since that's immensely less dense than even building 3-story apartment buildings, let alone downtown-type high-rises.

That said, I think that you misunderstood my statement.

We filled all land _here_in_San_Diego_ with low density housing. Out here in North County, there's an enormous amount of space zoned 1-2 acres & up per dwelling. Valley Center and Bonsall together take 43 square miles (27,520 acres = enough room for something like 200,000 SFRs at typical density). If all this land were vacant, we'd have enough land left over to accommodate future development for decades ahead. But it's not vacant, it's built out at 2 acres per dwelling, total population between the two is somewhere around 12,000, and there's massive red tape involved in rezoning even a single lot to high density.

And, since there's no buildable land left here, people create demand for exurbs.

Also, 4S Ranch and Ramona are NOT exurbs of San Diego. The two primary exurbs of San Diego are Temecula and Murrieta. To a lesser extent, further outlying cities such as Lake Elsinore and maybe even Hemet.[/quote]

Eugene, I understand the zoning restrictions in Valley Center and Bonsall (and even parts of Fallbrook). However, most of the SFR's in these areas are customs, not on tract. None of those areas suffer from "urban sprawl." Only a minority of Valley Center SFR's are even hooked up to a sewer! I never stated Ramona (even though it has several tracts within SDCE) was an "exurb." It DOES fit some of the criteria, but in actuality, Ramona is well-established and historically significant in its own right. 4S is not. 4S is ALL NEW(ER), ALL or NEARLY ALL on tract and entirely freeway dependent (except maybe into RB).

I don't believe "people" create a demand for exurbs. "People" would buy existing resale housing if there were no exurbs. There's always plenty of resale housing on the market. That's what "people" did when there were no exurbs. That's what "people" do in the state of Washington where urban sprawl has long been restricted (to preserve open space and natural resources).

Temecula, Murietta, Lake Elsinore and Hemet are NOT exurbs of San Diego County. They are a different market entirely. They are not located in San Diego County. If they are "exurbs," they would be exurbs of Riverside. Just because residents of these areas may choose to live there, yet commute to Diego County to work doesn't make these areas in any way connected with San Diego. They're not. They're in Riverside County (RIV) and RIV is a different animal entirely than SD County. There is no comparison between the two markets.

[Author]

Posts