‘Granny Flats’ Are Destroying San Diego Neighborhoods

Increases in population density must also consider infrastructure, such as sewer limitations, traffic conditions and water supply.

By Annalisa Berta / San Diego Union-Tribune OpEd / Aug. 31, 2021

Single-family zoning — made popular more than 100 years ago — is challenging, and few would dispute that a thriving city must address the housing needs of all of its residents. Yet cities differ demographically and in how they approach building homes. Like many cities in California, San Diego has a housing shortage that has contributed to skyrocketing rents and home prices. But its response is making matters worse.

At issue is San Diego’s adoption of its accessory dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance in October, purportedly to help the housing crisis by changing zoning in transit priority areas (TPAs) and allowing the construction of unlimited multiple ADUs or backyard “granny flats” — more like “granny towers” — if the property is within a half mile of a TPA. For reference, 60 percent of San Diego residents live in a TPA.

Since 2016, approvals of ADU construction in San Diego have increased at an alarming rate of more than 965 percent, with little concern for their long-term effects on neighborhoods. Among the zoning giveaways for these backyard “granny towers” are no setbacks on side and rear yards, no parking required and green space replaced with concrete. The “towers” can be 30 feet high (two-to-three stories) and house up to six families crammed next to mostly single-story family homes.

The new zoning policy is destroying our neighborhoods. Increased density comes with limitations on the “carrying capacity” of the land. Existing zoning policies that allow housing at any cost are not the solution. Increases in population density must also consider existing infrastructure, such as sewer limitations, traffic conditions and water supply. Moreover, the loss of open green spaces in neighborhoods already lacking parks adds to greenhouse gas buildup.

City planners hope that local zoning regulations in San Diego will result in more residents biking, walking or using public transportation to get to work. But this is an aspirational goal, rather than a realistic one. Most San Diego residents own at least one car and drive to work. According to 2016 data, only 6 percent of residents lack a vehicle. And even before the pandemic sharply reduced ridership on public transportation, it decreased by nearly 5 percent in San Diego from 2000 to 2016. Rather than assume increased population density in TPAs is the solution, we should acknowledge that public transportation is not a better choice for various reasons, including lack of express trains, slow travel speeds, etc.

San Diego leaders also hope that the current zoning policy will result in an increase in the housing supply, thereby decreasing housing prices and increasing affordability. But is this true? The experiences of other cities that have tried this suggest that neighborhood multistory units become investor-owned properties that are, in fact, not more affordable and are not homeowner projects. Nor are developers invested in the community. In addition, with average rents in San Diego exceeding $2,300 a month, these multistory ADUs do not help our “affordable housing crisis.” Assuming average housing costs of 30 percent of family income, even area median income families in San Diego making $95,100 a year would have their household budgets stretched to afford to live in these ADUs.

Bottom line: Yes, these ADUs provide more housing, but not “affordable housing.” There is a housing shortage in San Diego but not at the income level that these ADUs will supply. Instead, proposed market-rate ADUs will add surplus housing units to the moderate income category, not to the income levels where there is a housing shortage.

As a Mid-City resident, I am aware of numerous available commercial land parcels and vacant lots on El Cajon Boulevard and University Avenue much closer to public transit than residential single-family neighborhoods. Why not build multistory units on this land first before permanently altering single-family neighborhoods?

Along with creative approaches to the housing crisis, we also need city leaders willing to work with residents to provide details on their intentions, and assurances that their policies will produce their intended outcomes. More distressing than the current local zoning policy is Senate Bill 9, written by Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, that has passed both the Senate and Assembly and now goes to the Senate for concurrence and then onto Gov. Gavin Newsom for signature into law. Senate Bill 9 is the next step in the agenda of moving all city zoning and planning decisions to Sacramento, allowing existing single-family parcels to be divided and then filled with multiple housing units on each new parcel.

Clearly, we need fairness and equity in housing while maintaining our excellent parks, schools and neighborhoods. San Diego’s housing crisis is an opportunity for innovative thinking and communication between both residents and policy makers to develop thoughtful solutions to this complex issue.

The creation of sustainable housing — while maintaining the surrounding natural environment — is a worthy goal that must be incorporated into our urban planning process. The urgency of the housing crisis requires careful planning and citizen participation in the process, not housing decisions pushed on us!

Annalisa Berta is a professor emerita of biology at San Diego State University, lives in Talmadge and is a proponent for Neighbors for a Better San Diego.