Both Mayor Todd Gloria and Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera recently announced their support — with caveats — for one of the most interesting housing policies currently floating around City Hall.
A broad coalition of groups have backed the proposal, which would end the city’s requirement that homes be built on lots of a certain minimum size. That may sound about as exciting as a truckload of No. 2 pencils, but it actually has the potential to significantly change the city’s housing landscape.
Currently, homes must be built on lots of at least 5,000 square feet throughout most of the city — a requirement that ultimately restricts the type and number of homes that can be built. Ending minimum lot sizes would allow townhomes and row homes to be built on slices of ground 1,000 square feet or less.
Advocates say this has the power to make homes far more affordable for families who are currently being forced out of San Diego. A recent study showed the row homes created by the policy would be on average 42 percent cheaper than a typical single-family home.
The new row homes and townhomes would be about the same size in square footage as typical single-family homes. They just wouldn’t have yard space.
Some advocates want the mayor and City Council to end minimum lot sizes citywide, but Gloria and Elo-Rivera did not back that version of the policy.
“We are being very thoughtful and making sure we do this the right way,” Gloria said. “It’s not a hatchet approach.”
Gloria gave hints as to where minimum lot sizes might be abolished.
It would be “close to transit, close to jobs, where there’s existing infrastructure. I think that’s where we need to focus,” he said.
I asked one of the backers of the proposal whether that was a good idea.
Gary London, a development consultant, said that if he were king, then yes, he would end minimum lot sizes citywide. But barring that, he said, the city should not simply default to implementing the policy near public transit — which he called the city’s “darling policy approach” to housing.
What’s more important, London said, is concentrating the policy in places where the housing stock is getting old and needs revitalizing. He suggested Clairemont or other suburban neighborhoods north of Interstate 8 that were built in the 1960s, ‘70s and ‘80s.
“This is family housing,” London said. “You’re replacing old housing with today’s version of family housing for the demographic that originally occupied those communities.”
London’s firm, London Moeder Advisers, authored the report which showed that ending minimum lot size could reduce the price of new housing by 40 percent.
Ricardo Flores, executive director of the Local Initiatives Support Corporation San Diego, has been leading the coalition that wants to end minimum lot sizes. At Politifest, during a Solutions Showdown panel on housing, he pitched the policy to audience members. Flores’ proposal beat out two other housing proposals during audience voting.
He didn’t pitch ending minimum lot sizes as simply a good idea. He framed it as increasing private property rights for homeowners — who currently aren’t allowed to build multiple homes on their 5,000 square feet. single-family lots.
“So the solution here: lowering housing prices by increasing property rights for single-family homeowners,” Flories said. “It sounds like magic. It sounds like nobody loses there, right?”
But in essence, that was exactly Flores’ pitch — that ending minimum lot sizes is a win-win for all San Diegans.
Flores and London believe the policy will decrease the cost of housing for families who are currently getting pushed out of San Diego, revitalize the housing stock, increase private property rights and increase property tax revenues for schools and the city.
Density, density, density. More to the developer constituents. Downsizing to keep the same prices. If you’re converting dead retail, that’s one thing, targeting SFR’s by lot size is another. These type of developments generally require HOA’s and when you’re getting an automatic 2% property tax increase (outside of all the multi unit land improvements) and can’t balance the budget, lame duck politicians need to stop milking the homeowners.
Tokyo, Hong Kong. New York, San Francisco. These are some of the densest first world cities. Therefore, according to Gloria and Elo-Riveria, those should be among the most affordable cities, right? Just once I would like someone proposing these ideas to admit that San Diego is a very desirable place to live, which will always make it more expensive than less desirable places.
Where are the Aging in Place / Accessibility / Adaptability/ Visitability incentives in this proposal? Townhomes/houses are exempt from the minimal federal accessibility feature requirements of Fair Housing Accessibility Act (1998),last time I looked.
Strengthening San Diego ‘s ordinance incentivizing access (include zero-step entrances, wide doorways, powder rooms & other features on first floor), will allow families with mobility impaired members to live & visit new units, throughout their lives.
This doesn’t bring down costs. It allows developers to stuff 7 to 12 units in a single family neighborhood. The townhomes typically are 40% cheaper than SFH. The big push here is that developers get 80% return on investment. No savings to homeowners. Nothing is cheaper. it is just moving cheaper units into single family neighborhoods. I would think that would bring down the costs of the single family homes adjacent to these. Irresponsible news story and misleading.
Know what’s nice about townhouses where nobody has a yard? Never having to listen to your landscaping-obsessed loony neighbor’s lawn mower and leaf blower.
Nor your other neighbor’s screaming kids.
Embrace the opportunity.
There’s usually an HOA to take your money and still operate a lawn mower and leaf blower. And screaming kids wouldn’t happen in a townhouse? Get real.
These are nothing more than future crackerbox slums. No one wants to live imprisoned in that type of feudal housing. There is plenty of land to build on in San Diego county. Use it.
This is another way for developers to make more money just like the recent ADU situations that were proposed throughout the city and shot down by everyone but the politicians in San Diego. Same old story repeating itself with a few twists!
I currently presently not at any point figured out like it’s far even conceivable yet one in everything about partner buddy made $87,000 best (r4) inside about a month essentially completing this smooth chance and moreover she has provoked me to benefit. forward-thinking data on visiting following
site……….tab on my name
Did this person actually *say* anything?
Beware the liberal politicians who open their mouths to speak.
Question-has *anyone* in the current administration done ANYTHING to make life in San Diego cheaper, more convenient, considered infrastructure, like road repair, parking, traffic jams, a safe place for our children to play?
IMO: our current “leadership” are nothing but crooks, looking to grow even more wealthy at their constituents expense.
How do they define “close to transit”????