SAN DIEGO – On June 16, the San Diego City Council voted 5-4 to amend the controversial Accessory Dwelling Unit Bonus Program. The program attempts to create more affordable housing without over-development, but residents we heard from via email and social media were not sure the benefits outweighed the disadvantages.
We asked the people if they agreed/disagreed with the ADU amendments, whether those amendments went far enough – or too far – in reining in the ADU proliferation. We also asked what they felt about the ADU Bonus Program.
Here are the received responses:
Mike Frattali of University City felt ADU amendments “do not go far enough in reining in ADUs. Residential neighborhoods don’t have the infrastructure to support the additional density. There are better places to build housing (starting with downtown).”
Bonnie Kutch, founding member of UC Peeps, a coalition of residents and taxpayers in University City concerned about overdevelopment, believes ADU regulations are insufficient. “The City’s proposed amendments to the disastrous ADU Bonus Program don’t go far enough,” she said. “They still allow for too many units per parcel in single-family neighborhoods, fail to meet the need for affordable housing for families, and leave loopholes for profiteers.”
Kutch said UC Peeps recommends the following ADU changes: Allow just one bonus ADU, deed restricted for income, for each lot in single-family zones, and no more than four units total; require onsite parking for all ADUs farther than ½ mile from Transit Priority Areas; place two-story limits of 16- to 18-feet on ADU height; prevent bonus ADUs from being built in very high Fire Hazard Severity Zones or on cul-de-sacs, or streets with limited access; limit ADU square footage to 8,000 square feet for calculating the number of ADUs allowed, regardless of lot size; mandate adequate fire safety setbacks from neighboring properties; and provide a permit-ready Accessory Dwelling Unit Program offering property owners a selection of pre-approved ADU building plans that can be downloaded from the City’s website that are attractive.
Bill Zent of Pacific Beach agrees that more needs to be done to regulate ADUs. “I have read the amendments and I feel they leave the door open on excessive units on a property,” he said. “There should only be one unit allowed. It should be single-story with parking provided on the parcel. No two stories are allowed, as it impacts backyard privacy. No one would have a problem with a single ADU. However, these build-outs change the neighborhood and can affect a home’s value.”
“They’ve (City’s) gone too far,” argued Sara Hickmann of Point Loma Heights. “There should be ‘one’ ADU allowed on ‘one’ property. That’s the name: additional dwelling unit. Not an apartment complex. It cannot be in the front yard; it cannot be taller than their current home. They need proper permits to meet fire codes, and they need to provide parking, and you can’t have every house on the block building them at the same time; they need to manage how much construction is going on in one area at one time. The ADU program has been abused and must be stopped. They are threatening the quality of life, the safety, and sanity of our residents.”
Trudy Grundland of Bird Rock took her ADU comments a step further. “My new website about San Diego has a page devoted to ADUs. WeAreSanDiego.org,” she noted.
De Stevens of Point Loma Heights sees ADUs as being community-busters. “ADUs will bring the end of San Diego being a nice place to live,” she argued, adding, “We hear two million people want to come live in San Diego. Did anyone tell people that most of the time you live where you should find somewhere without disturbing a whole city; that’s what the ADUs are doing. It is pure greed on the contractors’ side. Let them build 16 units in their backyard, and no parking. Enough is enough.”
ADU proliferation needs to be guarded against, warned Karen Magnuson of Bay Ho. “It’s one thing to have a ‘granny flat’ for someone’s elderly parent to live close to family, but multiple ADUs do nothing but destroy a neighborhood,” she said. “Either there is zoning for single-family dwellings or there isn’t. Seems like someone is lining their pockets with graft and bribery to make things happen that will only destroy San Diego.”
“They are building six ADUs next door,” noted Judi Curry of Sunset Cliffs. She asked, “Where are those people going to park? What will happen to the water shortage? What will the noise be like? That’s in addition to making the one-story house a two-story house with a sundeck on top. It was allowed to happen. How? Why? Who benefits?”
“Eliminate all ADU bonuses,” concluded Eric Law of Fleetridge in Point Loma. “One ADU per lot. No more.”
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Coastal residents say too many ADUs ruin neighborhoods )
Also on site :
- In Q1 2025, enterprise SaaS M&A deal count hit 210, according to PitchBook
- Downtown Lincolnton on lockdown after 'credible threat,' police say no active shooter
- EU state pledges funds to help aspirant counter ‘Russian threats’