Many state and local officials want to increase housing density in Oceanside. However, high density is one of the factors that increases the transmission (and thus incidence) of this year’s SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Recent epidemiological research suggests that the rate of covid-19 contagion has been fueled by how much people live in close proximity, and that such high-density urban living and travel explained why New York City was harder hit than So. California. As the New York Times wrote
Density Is New York City’s Big ‘Enemy’ in the Coronavirus Fight
New York is more crowded than any large city in the country. That helps explain why it is the U.S. epicenter of the outbreak.
By
New York has tried to slow the spread of the coronavirus by closing its schools, shutting down its nonessential businesses and urging its residents to stay home almost around the clock. But it faces a distinct obstacle in trying to stem new cases: its cheek-by-jowl density.
New York is far more crowded than any other major city in the United States. It has 28,000 residents per square mile, while San Francisco, the next most jammed city, has 17,000, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
All of those people, in such a small space, appear to have helped the virus spread rapidly through packed subway trains, busy playgrounds and hivelike apartment buildings, forming ever-widening circles of infections and making New York the nation’s epicenter of the outbreak.
Based on today’s latest reports, the per capita infection rate of San Diego is 180% greater in San Diego, and 3.8x as high in San Francisco — both cities with higher population density. More dramatically, the per capita infection rate of New York City is 46 times that of Oceanside.
| City | Cases | Population | Per capita | Ratio |
| Oceanside | 30 | 176,830 | 1:5,894 | 1.0 |
| San Diego city | 686 | 1,425,976 | 1:2,079 | 2.8 |
| San Francisco | 568 | 881,549 | 1:1,552 | 3.8 |
| N.Y. City | 64,995 | 8,336,817 | 1:128 | 46.0 |
State Efforts to Increase Density
Now some are speculating whether this lesson will slow efforts by state legislators (particularly those from the Bay Area) to force rural and suburban government to not only allow — but encourage San Francisco-style high density housing.
This push to destroy community opposition — through the Manhattanization of suburbia— is epitomized by the SB50, proposed by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco). The bill (currently on hold) could force the city to allow 85‘ residential towers next to Sprinter stations (including Coast Highway @ Oceanside Blvd, and Crouch @ Oceanside Blvd.) But it is also reflected in other state-mandated increases in housing density (claimed to facilitate affordable housing) by forcing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) everywhere.
The California Globe reported Saturday:
Many California lawmaker plans to increase the number of high-density building to alleviate the housing crisis have lost much support in the last month due to the effects of COVID-19 coronavirus in populated areas.
“We’ve seen the reports of buildings in New York that have been flooded with people infected by the coronavirus because of how many people were inside,” explained Dr. Arthur Chatterjee, a housing density expert who has been monitoring the number of coronavirus cases in dense buildings in the US, UK, and India. “It’s what led to higher numbers in Iran as well. And we’ve been finding them to be time bombs inside each one.”
“Door handles are touches, lift buttons are pushed, people pass by closely, live next to each other closely, and also share things such as laundry facilities. In a public area, with precautions, it’s spread much more thinly if it all. But in a flat or an apartment complex, we’ve seen story after story like that.”
“California dodged a huge bullet. If they had them, cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles might have been like New York by now. We’ve all seen the curves by this point. Buildings with a lot of people have been a large factor in that.”
As the New York Times put it, ‘Density is really an enemy’ in situations like this. And experts agree that California’s spread and lower density buildings helped diminish the coronavirus spread.
“Out here, we’re spread out,” said Dr. Lee Riley, professor of infectious diseases at the University of California Berkeley in an interview. “People use cars, the public transportation system is terrible. Whereas in New York City, you have the subways, the buses, Times Square, people living in your small apartment buildings.”
Proposed density bills in the California legislature such as the recently defeated SB 50 and the new housing density bill SB 902 have also been criticized by disease experts.
“Like I said before, you really dodged a bullet there,” continued Dr. Chatterjee. “If these had been in effect and those buildings were built, cases would be up. I cannot give you an estimate, but based on the fact that they would draw poorer people, who are much more likely to use public transportation and who have been hit particularly hard by Coronavirus, California would have had a lot more deaths by now and would be on track for a New York level of crisis.”
“I understand you have a housing crisis, but these are very disturbing ‘what if’ scenarios here. I agree you need more housing, but these are contagion traps in what was proposed here. I’d be shocked if people still thought this would be a food idea moving forward.”
The story continues
“We’ve lost about half of our members since St. Patrick’s Day,” lamented Carlos Gomez Ochoa, who leads a Los Angeles group to pass denser-housing laws. “It’s not that they are out with the coronavirus. They’ve seen what the coronavirus has been doing to buildings we held up as models of what should be built.”
“One of our members has a sister in New York that lives in a high-density, low-cost building that was built only a few years ago. We always used this as to what LA should build.”
“We found out a few days ago that there are dozens of cases in that building alone now. And that’s just one example.”
“A lot of people left because they saw things like that… Every reason has been because of ‘seeing what a disease can do to these places’ or something similar.”
“Our sister group in Oakland saw a 40% drop, and another LA group we share things with is debating whether to continue on now because they lost so many members. Everyone is just seeing these denser buildings as death traps for them and their children.”
Oceanside’s Planned Density Increases
At the same time, the idea of increased density is baked into the state polices that have been forced on regional and municipal government. For example, SANDAG (which plans regional transporation funding) has proposed “5 Big Moves” to spend public money on mass transit rather than highways — despite widespread opposition by North County and East County leaders.
Similarly, in the General Plan update nearing completion, the City of Oceanside is proposing mandating higher density and transit use in the city to meet state “Climate Action” goals. Under the euphemism “Smart Growth”, the new General Plan would mandate higher density, as page 3-25 of the April 2019 “Climate Action Plan” summarized:
The term “smart growth” refers to a compact, efficient, and environmentally sensitive urban development pattern. Smart growth focuses future growth and infill development close to employment, services, and public facilities to maximize the use of existing infrastructure and preserve open space and natural resources. Smart growth is characterized by more compact, higher density development in urbanized areas throughout the region.
…
SANDAG performed previous studies of land use, housing, employment, and transit system densities to identify seven types of Smart Growth Opportunity Areas (SGOA) throughout the County of San Diego. Types of SGOAs include metropolitan centers, urban centers, town centers, community centers, rural villages, mixed-use transit corridors, and special use centers. Existing SGOAs within Oceanside include:
- The town center generally located north of Seagaze Drive, south of Harbor Drive, and west of Interstate 5;
- The mixed-use transit corridor along South Coast Highway between Mission Avenue and the Buena Vista Lagoon (west of Ditmar Street and east of the North County Transit District [NCTD] Coaster line); and
- The mixed-use transit corridor along Oceanside Boulevard between Interstate 5 and Canyon Drive.
SANDAG’s Smart Growth Concept Map also identifies three potential SGOAs in Oceanside:
- A community center centered within 1⁄4-mile of the intersection of Oceanside Boulevard and El
Camino Real;- The community center centered within 1⁄4-mile of the intersection of Oceanside Boulevard and Rancho Del Oro Drive; and
- The community center centered within 1⁄4-mile of the intersection of Oceanside Boulevard and Melrose Drive.
(The last three locations are tied to nearby Sprinter stations.)
After the the council’s rejection of the Coast Highway density increases south of Morse Street last summer, we believe the description of the Coast Highway SGOA is now obsolete. At a minimum, the city should modify the description to define this SGOA as being between Mission and Morse Street.
More generally, the city needs to re-evaluate whether NYC-style (or even SF- or SD-style) density increases are appropriate for a low-density suburban community tyat
Comments on the propose Climate Action Plan of the General Plan update can be submitted to Russ Cunningham, ideally by April 6.
Save South O 