California has adopted several housing laws in recent years that already provide multiple pathways for adding for-sale housing in single-family and low-density residential neighborhoods.  These existing laws should be fully evaluated before the City adopts another housing program through Neighborhood Homes for All of Us.

Rather than creating a new set of development regulations, Neighborhood Homes for All of Us could build upon existing state law by developing pre-approved plans for these housing types and partnering with Community Planning Groups (CPGs) to tailor those plans to the character of individual communities. It makes little sense to establish a new regulatory framework when the State has already created multiple mechanisms for achieving similar objectives.

Existing State Housing Laws

SB 9

SB 9 allows most qualifying single-family lots to be divided into two parcels, with the smaller parcel generally no less than 1,200 square feet. Up to two homes may be constructed on each resulting parcel, allowing as many as four dwelling units on what was previously a single-family lot.

The primary obstacle to widespread use of SB 9 has been the owner-occupancy requirement. Current legislation under consideration would eliminate that requirement, potentially increasing use of the law.

SB 1123

SB 1123 allows subdivision of up to ten lots on qualifying single-family properties that contain a "vacant" portion of the parcel. Existing homes may be placed on a remainder lot while the vacant portion is subdivided. Minimum lot sizes remain consistent with SB 9 at approximately 1,200 square feet.

These regulations were recently adopted into San Diego's 2026 Land Development Code as Items 40 and 41. Because the local regulations have only recently taken effect, implementation has barely begun, yet additional legislation has already been proposed that would further expand these development opportunities.

San Diego has also allowed small-lot subdivisions in multifamily zones since 2016, with minimum lot sizes of 1,000 square feet. SB 1123 reduces that minimum to 600 square feet. In my opinion, existing regulations have not yet been fully utilized before additional expansion is being proposed.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)

State Bonus ADU regulations now allow qualifying ADUs to be converted into condominiums, creating another pathway for producing for-sale housing.

If the proposed ownership changes to SB 9 are enacted, I believe developers may favor SB 9 over ADUs as the preferred mechanism for creating for-sale housing.

For rental housing, Bonus ADU developments remain available. While Bonus ADUs have been reduced in single-family zones, they have been expanded in multifamily zones under state law.

SB 79

SB 79 would permit buildings between 55 and 85 feet in height—approximately 80 to 140 dwelling units per acre—on qualifying properties located within one-half mile of trolley stations and certain bus stops.

Complete Communities currently allows substantially greater density with lower affordability requirements in commercial and multifamily zones exceeding 20 dwelling units per acre. In my opinion, SB 79 could shift redevelopment pressure away from commercial and higher-density areas toward low-density multifamily and single-family neighborhoods located near transit.

Housing Capacity

One justification for limiting additional housing programs is that San Diego already has significant residential capacity under existing state law.

There are approximately 200,000 single-family homes in the City. SB 9 alone creates the potential for as many as 600,000 additional dwelling units—more than six times San Diego's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) target.

Expanding development capacity beyond what is already authorized primarily redistributes where housing may be built and encourages property speculation, rather than substantially increasing the total amount of housing ultimately constructed.

Housing Economics

Allowing every single-family parcel to be redeveloped into four to ten units creates unintended economic consequences.

When redevelopment potential increases, property values may rise because parcels acquire additional value for future subdivision or redevelopment. This creates one market for homeowners seeking a place to live and another market for developers seeking redevelopment opportunities. I believe SB 1123 further reinforces this distinction.

Fire Safety and Setbacks

One key area of contention is the inconsistency between state zoning overrides and California's emerging Zone Zero wildfire regulations.

State zoning overrides generally require four-foot setbacks for qualifying developments, while Zone Zero regulations establish a five-foot ember-resistant zone around structures.

These standards should be aligned by requiring five-foot setbacks based on the expectation that wildfire hazards will continue to increase as San Diego becomes drier due to climate change.

Conclusion

Supporters of land-use deregulation often argue that exclusionary zoning prevents housing from being added to single-family neighborhoods.

That argument no longer reflects current California law. Multiple state housing laws—including SB 9, SB 1123, Bonus ADU legislation, and proposed legislation such as SB 79—already provide numerous opportunities to increase housing within single-family neighborhoods.

Rather than creating another housing program through Neighborhood Homes for All of Us, the City should first evaluate and build upon these existing laws, develop standardized plans, and engage Community Planning Groups as partners in implementing housing solutions that reflect the character of San Diego's individual communities.

For more details please visit Neighbors For A Better San Diego. 

Editor's Note: This article represents the views and policy analysis of Geoffrey Hueter, Chair of Neighbors for a Better San Diego. It is published by the Scripps Ranch Planning Group to encourage public understanding and discussion of housing legislation. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Scripps Ranch Planning Group