{"id":24730,"date":"2025-06-29T14:47:08","date_gmt":"2025-06-29T14:47:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/24730\/"},"modified":"2025-06-29T14:47:08","modified_gmt":"2025-06-29T14:47:08","slug":"did-san-diego-make-the-right-call-scaling-back-its-adu-program-san-diego-union-tribune","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/24730\/","title":{"rendered":"Did San Diego make the right call scaling back its ADU program? \u2013 San Diego Union-Tribune"},"content":{"rendered":"

San Diego capped the number of backyard apartments<\/a> that can be built on single-family lots after a large backlash over accessory dwelling units, known as ADUs.<\/p>\n

Rollbacks include forcing developers to pay infrastructure fees, mandating parking spots for ADUs that aren\u2019t near transit and requiring ADUs to be farther away from property lines.<\/p>\n

The new rules set a maximum of four ADUs on lots of less than 8,000 square feet, five ADUs on lots of 8,001 to 10,000 square feet and six ADUs on lots of 10,001 square feet and larger.<\/p>\n

Critics argued that the city\u2019s ADU program had gotten out of hand with no regard for infrastructure or community character. Pro-housing voices, across the state, had previously praised San Diego\u2019s ADU stance.<\/p>\n

Question:<\/strong> Did San Diego make the right call scaling back its ADU program?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Economists<\/p>\n

David Ely, San Diego State University<\/strong><\/p>\n

YES:<\/strong> The City Council needs to find an acceptable balance between creating more housing and residents\u2019 tolerance for increased housing density. A scaled-down version of the ADU program moves the city toward that balance. Accepting less restrictive caps as proposed by the City Planning Department would have been a better outcome. However, even with the changes, ADUs can continue to be built and to play a role in expanding the supply of affordable housing.<\/p>\n

Ray Major, economist<\/strong><\/p>\n

YES<\/strong>: Even with its good intentions, the current ADU program proved to be disastrous to communities affected by the program. The program might be a boon to developers and technically move the region closer to its housing goals, but San Diego\u2019s infrastructure cannot support the densification the current rules allow. Furthermore, the ADU projects are ruining the characteristics of many of San Diego\u2019s most beloved neighborhoods, and offers no compensation to longtime residents who are negatively impacted by the development. Moderating the current plan is a win for the region.<\/p>\n

Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research<\/strong><\/p>\n

YES: <\/strong>Compromise is necessary for ADU units. Helping ease the housing shortage by increasing the supply of small, relatively affordable homes within established neighborhoods, ADUs help slow the rise in housing prices and provide flexible living arrangements for changing family needs. ADUs should balance privacy, accessibility and integration among established properties. Obviously increasing housing density, they should not significantly alter the character of neighborhoods while making better use of existing infrastructure, land and increase housing affordability.<\/p>\n

Alan Gin, University of San Diego<\/strong><\/p>\n

YES:<\/strong> The city needs more housing. The city\u2019s ADU policy was a good way to get more housing built as it would allow more density, which is vital given the lack of developable land in the region. But people were abusing the program by putting up massive projects that were far out of character in the neighborhoods in which they were built. The projects also stressed infrastructure, particularly parking. The new plan addresses those issues.<\/p>\n

James Hamilton, UC San Diego<\/strong><\/p>\n

YES: <\/strong>Using the ADU allowance to build a dozen new units on a single lot is clearly going too far. That kind of development imposes costs on everyone else in the neighborhood without compensating them. The core principle the government should keep in mind is consent of the governed. The City Council was correct in listening to community concerns and responding to them constructively. We need to plan growth for San Diego in a way that benefits everyone.<\/p>\n

Norm Miller, University of San Diego<\/strong><\/p>\n

YES: <\/strong>While I said \u201cno\u201d in February<\/a> fearing unworkable hurdles that would kill the program, I stand corrected, as the modifications seem reasonable with scaling ADU additions to lot size and also increasing parking requirements. The ADU impact on supply is positive, but very modest. We need to see large-scale projects like the Sports Arena project move forward, but taxpayers don\u2019t yet know the price tag.<\/p>\n

Executives<\/p>\n

Phil Blair, Manpower<\/strong><\/p>\n

YES:<\/strong> The ADU loopholes were out of control. My concerns are if ADUs are really additional dwelling units for low-income residents or extra bedrooms for homeowners, with no criteria for additional parking of ADU residents it causes excessive street parking, and the setback from neighbors was minimal. Yes, ADUs needed scaling back.<\/p>\n

Gary London, London Moeder Advisors<\/strong><\/p>\n

YES:<\/strong> An ADU should be a single unit behind a home. It should not be a sneaky subdivision. That said, the ADU issue is much \u201cadu\u201d about nothing. Only 875 permits have been issued under the city\u2019s bonus program. Many of these ADUs aren\u2019t even about adding housing, just extra square footage. We need homes for families. ADUs don\u2019t get us there. Let\u2019s eliminate minimum lot size and turn the focus on high-density family housing.<\/p>\n

Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health<\/strong><\/p>\n

YES:<\/strong> I appreciate the City Council and staff responding to constituents\u2019 concerns over density, privacy, traffic and parking issues created by allowing too many ADUs into historically single-family communities. I know our elected leaders are trying to find solutions to our housing crisis; this will come from multiple initiatives to reduce regulation to make building more affordable. In this case, I am glad to see adjustments to the policy to avoid creating more negative consequences.<\/p>\n

Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere<\/strong><\/p>\n

YES:<\/strong> While the intention behind the program was to alleviate housing shortages, allowing too many ADUs had noticeable negative effects on quality of life, public safety and neighborhood character. Loopholes in the program were exploited, resulting in overdevelopment. To avoid such unintended consequences, effective community planning and meaningful public input must be priorities before permitting rapid development.<\/p>\n

Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates<\/strong><\/p>\n

NO:<\/strong> All San Diego needed to do was close a loophole that allowed developers to build mini-apartment complexes in single-family neighborhoods. The rollback could worsen the housing shortage, and the changes might violate state law and jeopardize its \u201cpro-housing\u201d status. The reforms will make it more challenging to build affordable housing and may lead to higher rents.<\/p>\n

Not participating this week:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and StrategyAustin Neudecker, Weave Growth<\/p>\n

Have an idea for an Econometer question? Email me at phillip.molnar@sduniontribune.com<\/a>. Follow me on Threads: @phillip020<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"San Diego capped the number of backyard apartments that can be built on single-family lots after a large…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":24731,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5134],"tags":[5229,64,1582,276,79,1370,3549,7264,7289,67,586,132,5230,68,2969],"class_list":{"0":"post-24730","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-san-diego","8":"tag-america","9":"tag-business","10":"tag-ca","11":"tag-california","12":"tag-economy","13":"tag-latest-headlines","14":"tag-san-diego","15":"tag-sandiego","16":"tag-top-stories-sdut","17":"tag-united-states","18":"tag-united-states-of-america","19":"tag-unitedstates","20":"tag-unitedstatesofamerica","21":"tag-us","22":"tag-usa"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/114767203234415527","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24730","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24730"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24730\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/24731"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24730"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24730"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24730"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}