On Thursday, August 3, the San Diego Planning Commission unanimously voted against Senate Bill 10. Although the Commission’s vote is only a recommendation for the city council, Mayor Gloria’s office confirmed after the vote that it will not be pushing for Senate Bill 10 to be part of the housing package going forward.
Other elements of Gloria’s sweeping Housing Action Package 2.0 were approved, such as converting unused land for housing, extending building permit times, eliminating parking requirements in many projects and making it easier to build off-campus housing.
Planning Commission chair William Hofman stated:
“In my opinion, SB 10 is not the right way to go. I think we are going down a wrong path that we won’t be able to retreat from.”
Sometime in September, the Housing Action Package will go to the Land Use and Housing Committee for recommendations, and then on to the City Council in October or November.
The six hour meeting included hundreds of speakers on both sides of the issue. Paul Krueger, a Talmadge resident and visible member of Neighbors for a Better San Diego said the only thing that matters to single-family homeowners is finding out their next-door neighbor sold their property and someone is building a small apartment building, without parking. He added:
“That matters to you, and every one of your neighbors. It happens one time without notice by a developer that refuses to engage the community in any discussion of design or mitigation.”
Former Planning Commissioner Jim Whalen told the Commission:
“I struggle with having 10 units on one lot, regardless of lot size. I can’t make that work in my head. Perhaps it might make sense to reduce the scope of SB 10 and retool it. Maybe drop to four units a parcel.”
Bruce Coons of Save Our Heritage Organisation, stated: “This would be the most sweeping change in San Diego history.”
Ron Askeland, vice chair of San Diego Sierra Club, also opposed SB10. He said that streamlining dense development within “one mile from real or imagined transit is ill advised and frankly unnecessary.”
Reporter Ben Christopher of CalMatters had the best blow-by-blow account of the hearing. He quoted Kathy McClelland with Neighbors for Better San Diego, the main opposition organization group, who said, “we don’t need more housing, we need more AFFORDABLE housing.” She said allowing more density on parcels will increase the value of those parcels.
Most of the people in the audience and attending the meeting through technology opposed SB10. Many argued that SB10 would alter the community character of neighborhoods that have existed for decades. Other arguments against SB10 included its impacts on the sewer system, destruction of trees, turning San Diego “into Los Angeles,” danger to pedestrians with more cars, abundance of trash cans and destruction of historic neighborhoods.
There were proponents, including YIMBY Democrats of San Diego, who pressed the issue that single-family zoning limited diverse housing options, such as apartments or townhouses. They said greater flexibility in zoning would create more affordable housing. Nothing in SB10 allows more affordable housing, however.
Here is Neighbors for a Better San Diego’s statement after the vote:
Planning Commission Rejects SB10, and Sends it Back to the Drawing Board
After reading thousands of “No on SB 10” emails and hearing from dozens of SB 10 critics, the Planning Commission unanimously rejected Mayor Todd Gloria’s effort to impose massive upzoning in our single-family neighborhoods. According to the San Diego Union Tribune, “the mayor’s office confirmed Thursday that it will not be pushing for Senate Bill 10 to be part of the housing package going forward.”
We delivered a powerful message at City Hall today, and the Planning Commission listened. The Commissioners heard from dozens of speakers who pointed out the serious pitfalls of adopting SB 10, including detailed presentations from Neighbors For A Better San Diego. These presentations, in front of an enthusiastic overflow audience of SB 10 opponents, highlighted the issues that we have been raising since the Housing Action Package was introduced in February, including its irreversibility, out of scale building allowances, and net loss of home ownership opportunities.
We couldn’t have achieved this important victory without the grassroots efforts of groups across San Diego, including the organizers of last weekend’s rally, San Diegans For Responsible Growth, and the many residents who posted signs, spoke or ceded time at today’s meeting, and contacted their Councilmembers to voice their opposition to SB 10.
Today’s recommendation against the current proposed implementation of SB 10 is great news and a testament to effective citizen action. Stay tuned for next steps.
The Planning Commission unanimously voting down SB10, along with every other city in the state, reflects how intellectually lazy Todd Gloria has been in regards to housing in our City. He seems to have an affinity for photo-ops and for passing anything that might sound or look like he is doing something.
The fact SB10 got this far and required so many people to get involved to stop this bad idea is unconscionable.
One item that did pass and mentioned in your summary is dormitory “student” housing. Something tells me we are going to see more of this and it won’t be just for students. Mini SROs coming to a neighborhood near you.
DiegoK,
Thanks for the “heads up” about the so-called dormitory student housing.
I think you’re right this will be the next give away to developers.
Todd Gloria always seems to have an angle to get what he wants. Remember how eliminating the 30’ height limit was brought back again and again until it passed? Gloria is not to be trusted.
Our neighbor is acting as a de facto developer since he owns the construction company that will be using SB 9 to split a lot in two and build two units on each lot. Turning a single-family lot into multi-family density. This is just outside the Transportation Priority Area so it does not justify increased density. Additionally it is within the Coastal Overlay Zone and Peninsula Community Plan. My dad will be reading the following speech at Thursday’s Peninsula Planning board:
I’m here to ask for your help opposing the proposed coastal development next door to me at 1855 Guizot Street (PRJ-1134704). This project is using the SB 9 lot-split pathway to partially demolish an existing single-family home, split a 0.16-acre lot in two, increase allowable floor area across the new lots, and build two houses, each with an attached ADU, creating four units where one home stands today.
SB 9 is often described as a law meant to expand housing opportunity, with guardrails to prevent displacement and abuse. But what’s happening here is the exact kind of “loophole” outcome that working coastal neighborhoods fear: a project that functions like a multi-unit infill development on a street that was planned, built, and historically regulated as single-family.
And it matters who’s doing it. The owner of 1855 Guizot is also the CEO of ECO Home Builders, Inc., the company building the project. That means this is not a typical homeowner adding a modest unit. This is a professional developer operation working through a homeowner-shaped opening in the law. Not to mention his two management companies registered to that address.
Even the courts are still wrestling with SB 9. A Superior Court judge previously ruled SB 9 unconstitutional as applied to certain charter cities, the State appealed, and the Court of Appeal later reversed and sent it back for reconsideration after the Legislature amended SB 9 language. Regardless of where that case ultimately lands, the point is simple: this law is still being argued over because its real-world impacts are not small, especially in well-established single-family neighborhoods like ours.
We also live in the coastal overlay zone. In 2022, the California Coastal Commission issued guidance emphasizing that SB 9 does not supersede the voter-approved Coastal Act and that, aside from public-hearing requirements, Coastal Act and Local Coastal Program protections still apply. In other words: SB 9 doesn’t wipe away coastal neighborhood protections, it must be harmonized with them.
That brings me to the plans this Board helped shape. The Peninsula Community Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan adopted in 1987 reflect the Coastal Act’s purpose in places like ours. Figure 7 and Figure 7A identify protected single-family areas and low-density expectations.
And here’s the back-of-the-napkin math: the Community Plan designates roughly 5–9 dwelling units per acre in this single-family area. On a 0.16-acre lot, that’s basically one home. A simple lot split that produces two homes is about 12.5 units per acre. If SB 9 is used to push to four units, that’s 25 units per acre. That is not “consistent with the plan.” That is a fundamental change in intensity.
Finally, the real-world impacts: our streets weren’t designed for this scale. The parking impacts alone will be horrendous, especially on a corner lot where daylighting restrictions already remove 40 linear feet of curb space on this corner lot. Add another driveway, add three more units, and the problem compounds. The proposed project doesn’t lie within the Transportation Priority Area where the City claims this kind of density belongs.
So here is my ask: even if it isn’t required, I’m asking this Board to do what it can do, formally urge the City to deny this project or require substantial changes so it does not create a walling effect, exceed single-family intensity and density by allowing a lot split, or break the visual rhythm and character of the block. And I’m also asking you to press the City to use every tool still available in the coastal zone, including insisting on consistency with the adopted Community Plan and Local Coastal Program.
Because if anyone here thinks this won’t reach them, they’re wrong. If a single-family house can be partially demolished, split in two, and turned into four units next door to me, it can happen next door to you. Stand up for our protected single-family neighborhoods now or maybe this same developer will buy a single-family home on your block three years from now.
Here is the City’s link to the notice: https://docs.sandiego.gov/citybulletin_publicnotices/LandUseAndDevelopment/PN%201300%20PRJ-1134704%20NFD%2012-15-2025%201855%20Guizot%20Street.pdf.pdf
Please in confidence, send the Rag editor your personal info; it is for us only and will not be shared; send to obragblog@gmail.com