By Macy Meinhardt, V&V Staff Writer, CA Local News Fellow
San Diego’s ongoing debate over how to regulate backyard housing, or Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), reached a milestone Monday as City Council narrowly passed 5-4 a series of code amendments in response to growing public backlash.
Proposed policy changes range from setting a cap on the number of units that can be built on a lot to mandating parking requirements and adding community impact fees that developers must pay.
Community backlash against ADU development, particularly in areas such as Encanto, Clairemont and North Park, has been significant in recent months.
Residents in these groups have been concerned with the side effects caused by “loopholes” in San Diego’s Bonus ADU code, allowing few developers to densely pack accessory dwelling units (also known as granny-flats) onto single-family lots.
A handful of outlier projects have showcased where the fullest extent of the program can go, evidenced by the permitting of dozens of units, resulting in the optics of “granny towers”. Councilmembers stated that such projects exploited the program and affirmed that the amendments they were voting on would make the impacts caused by developers like SDRE Homebuyers, who residents say are heavily involved in outlier developments, explicitly illegal.
“These changes ensure the ADU program stays true to its intended purpose: providing more homes, not full-blown apartment complexes in people’s backyards. No longer will our ADU program be a backdoor for large-scale projects that don’t resemble anyone’s idea of a granny flat,” said Councilmember Raul Campillo in a statement shortly released after the vote.
While the typical usage of the program is estimated to be around four units, concerns of overcrowding, parking, fire risks, and inadequate infrastructure and resources to support the influx of housing remain.
The contentious, seven-hour council meeting overhearing this item, underscored the complexity of this debate. While the opposition of ADU development is notable—699 speaker slips submitted in opposition versus 20 in favor, for example—the city’s housing affordability crisis is also pertinent. Further adding to this is a scathing letter from the California Department of Housing and Community Development warning against significant provisions to the program. Mainly, any actions taken that decrease affordable housing opportunities.
City leaders such as Councilmember Henry Foster and Marni Von Wilpert stated that they felt the letter from state officials did “not make sense,” as the bonus program in general goes beyond what is required by the state for affordable housing production.
Furthermore, councilmembers maintained the amendments made put the program closer in line with state provisions.
A glance at the proposed amendments includes:
- Sizing: Sets a minimum unit size to prevent cramped micro-units and a maximum size of 1,200 square feet, allowing up to six units within a two-story height limit.
- Moderate Income Requirements: Adjusting income restrictions to make bonus ADUs truly affordable.
- Parking Requirements: Requires one-off street parking for each affordable ADU and bonus ADU if not near public transit.
- Fire Safety Setbacks: Maintaining 5-foot setbacks in high fire severity zones to protect neighborhood safety, eliminating ADUs in cul-de-sacs in high fire zones.
- Community Enhancement Fees: Requiring developers to pay community enhancement fees to mitigate the impact created by new development in neighborhoods.
An entire list of the 25 amendments can be found here.
Councilmembers Stephen Whitburn, Sean Elo-Rivera, Vivian Moreno and Kent Lee voted against the amendments.
Pro-housing groups, including Yes in My Backyard San Diego (YIMBY), criticized the vote as a setback for working families struggling to stay in the city.
“ADUs (small backyard homes) were the one tool letting regular people live in these areas without expensive downpayments,” wrote YIMBY Democrats on their X platform. “Now council caved into pressure, adding caps and fees that make many of these homes impossible to build.”
The full scope of amendments requires a second reading and mayoral approval. If passed, the changes could be implemented by August.
