Pro-housing advocates say reducing San Diego’s residential lot sizes could lower home prices and increase tax revenue for the cash-strapped city.
A coalition of housing groups last week said that denser developments are needed in San Diego. They presented research from housing analysts London Moeder Advisors that they say s their claims.
There is a 5,000-square-foot minimum lot requirement across more than 80% of the city — a rule that’s been on the books since 1923.
If the City Council takes up the proposal, there may be opposition from neighborhood groups who have argued the current infrastructure is not meant to handle all the new residents.
Question: Should San Diego reduce its 5,000-square-foot minimum lot requirement for most residential lots?
Economists
Norm Miller, University of San Diego
YES: Smaller homes and townhouses with some parking are one of the few market-based alternatives to subsidizing ever more households. Home builders have been reducing unit sizes due to the demographic trend of fewer people per household, many more single person households and as they attempt to strive for more affordability. Allowing smaller lots does not mean all development will be dense and it seems to be a better path than unlimited ADUs without parking.
David Ely, San Diego State University
YES: This is one more approach San Diego should pursue to expand housing and address the serious shortage of homes. Since construction would take place on smaller lots, the new stock of homes would be relatively more affordable. The change in minimum lot size could be coupled with parking requirements or other restrictions to manage the increase in density. These controls could be guided by successful practices in cities that have lower minimum lot sizes.
Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy
YES: The benefits from affordable housing for many families outweigh the gains from privacy and open space for a few folks. The 5,000-square-foot minimum lot requirement leads to inefficient use of space, urban sprawl, long commutes and high prices. Other cities, such as Houston, Minneapolis, and Portland, have reduced the minimum lot size and successfully expanded the housing supply. Reducing or eliminating the lot-size requirement would growth and allow more San Diegans to prosper.
Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research
YES: Smaller lot sizes may not be appropriate for every neighborhood, but all-encoming requirements should not be imposed everywhere. San Diego’s household sizes are increasingly smaller with fewer children being born and not necessarily requiring as much livable space. San Diego’s birth rate fell from nearly 20 per 1,000 residents in 1990 to 10.9 in 2024. Affordable housing necessitates higher density building within existing developments or further suburban expansion requiring more infrastructure and greater commuting.
Alan Gin, University of San Diego
YES: The region needs more housing. One constraint on building more housing is the lack of developable land. Reducing the minimum lot size would allow more housing units to be built on the land that is available. The idea of multi-story homes with small footprints is a more desirable approach to density for some people than apartments. One desirable impact is that the smaller lot would make housing more affordable. Another is the extra revenue that would come to the city due to increased development.
James Hamilton, UC San Diego
YES: But I would like to see two higher priorities addressed before we do this. First, higher population density would put even more burdens on basic infrastructure like roads, water and police. The city needs to move to a more transparent budget to make sure that money gets spent where it is most needed. Second, the city should review the many taxes, fees, regulations and delays on new development. These play a major role in our high cost of housing.
Executives
Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth
YES: San Diego’s housing supply is short roughly 100,000 homes. Shrinking the 5,000-square-foot lot rule encourages smaller footprint homes that produce more affordable units, increase density, shorten commutes and reduce sprawl. In turn, this reduces the strain on transit and planet. To guard against abuse, pair the change with impact fees, higher design standards and targeted zoning or first-time-buyer requirements. Done right, smaller lots can be a big win for affordability and sustainability.
Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health
NO: I’m concerned government is in a reactionary mode with taxes, density, ADUs, housing and other issues. The city recently voted to roll back its ADU bonus program. We should focus on budget imbalances and hold off on significant changes in regulations until we design and agree on a thoughtful development strategy that maintains the city’s unique beauty and appeal. And the community needs to be more involved in the process, earlier than it is today.
Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere
NO: Increasing density isn’t the solution and could cause unintended consequences, such as overburdening infrastructure, eroding property values and diminishing community character. Instead, local and state officials should reform legislation to reduce labor and material costs, and red tape (fees/taxes/regulations). Also, quickly processing permits, ing CEQA reform, and repurposing underused land for more homebuilding could all help. Thoughtful community planning and quality of life must be key considerations before reducing lot sizes to accommodate greater density.
Phil Blair, Manpower
YES: Any and every rule or law that affects 80% of San Diego and has not been reviewed since 1923 definitely needs attention. Any change could have a major effect on residential communities, current and future. Each community may have input on any changes. The differentiation between condos, apartments, townhousing and single-family homes seems to be blending. A change could have an affect on affordability of housing, but at what price?
Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates
YES: Reducing this requirement will likely increase housing availability and promote affordability, especially in areas where larger lots make homeownership cost-prohibitive. The city has explored reforms to small lot subdivision to encourage single-family homeownership in underserved communities. If San Diego were to reduce the minimum lot size, it could open the door to more housing options. Balancing density, infrastructure, and community needs is crucial to achieving this win-win.
Not participating this week:
Gary London, London Moeder Advisors
Ray Major, economist
Have an idea for an Econometer question? Email me at [email protected]. Follow me on Threads: @phillip020
