By Danna Givot
Too often, people who have opposed San Diego’s Bonus ADU (accessory dwelling unit) program have been miscast as one cohesive group of anti-development, anti-renter, anti-affordable housing NIMBYs. I’d like to take a few moments to dispel these stereotypes.
I oppose San Diego’s Bonus ADU program for a multitude of reasons. But I am 100% in favor of California’s requirement that single-family parcels be eligible for one ADU and one JADU (Junior ADU).
State law allows a tripling of density and a 200% increase in housing units in single-family neighborhoods. Until recent code changes, almost all of these ADUs and JADUs had to be rentals (unless owned and developed by non-profits).
My support for the original ADU/JADU concept is hardly the position of someone who is anti-development or anti-renter. It is the position of someone who wants planned growth that can be accommodated with existing infrastructure.
The City’s extreme Bonus ADU program is not giving our neighborhoods the responsible planned development we need. It ignores San Diego’s carefully considered community plans, and it incentivizes developers to cram 6 to 17 units into single-family backyards throughout San Diego without providing the necessary, supportive infrastructure.
Why do I consider these excessively dense ADU projects irresponsible development? Here are some hard facts.
• Approximately 40% of the Bonus ADU projects are being built in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. This poses serious risks to the projects’ residents and their neighbors, and it contributes to the difficulty and expense all San Diegans are having obtaining homeowners insurance.
• The Bonus ADU Program has not produced a single ADU affordable to low- or very low-income residents. It has only produced ADUs affordable to “moderate-income” households at 110% of San Diego’s area median income. Here’s what the “affordable” ADUs rent for:
- Studio $2300/month
- 1-bedroom $2629/month
- 2-bedroom $2958/month
• The Bonus ADU projects drop density bombs in neighborhoods that do not have the infrastructure to accommodate them. Both CA law and San Diego Municipal Code (SDMC) waive almost all development impact fees (DIFs) for these ADUs. That means taxpayers are left to pick up what developers don’t pay for – to absorb the costs of more street and pavement repair and more green space needed to accommodate a burgeoning population.
• SDMC allows ADU Bonus projects up to a mile from a major transit stop. This pretty much guarantees that the ADU residents will keep their cars and contribute to San Diego’s climate woes rather than spend time and energy trekking to transit stops.
The Bonus ADU Program is contributing to irresponsible growth in San Diego. It is encouraging random high-density development far from transit in high fire areas. It is producing virtually no housing affordable to low-income San Diegans. And it is leaving taxpayers to pick up the resulting infrastructure costs.
I strongly support planned higher density along transit corridors and reasonable transitions to single-family neighbors based on community plans. I believe every development and incentive program in San Diego should produce at least the 10% minimum low-income housing required by the City’s Inclusionary Affordable Housing Regulations.
I also believe that high-density development should be minimized in very high fire hazard severity zones and that San Diego, which is struggling to pay for infrastructure maintenance, should minimize DIF waivers and start requiring growth to pay for itself.
On the subject of renting versus owning property, I would like more people to have the opportunity to own property and accrue generational wealth, but obviously not everyone can afford to purchase a home. There are many renters on my block and in my neighborhood, and they are very much a part of our community.
Most of all, I have and will continue to support affordable housing in San Diego in the ADU program, in Complete Communities, etc. San Diego clearly has an affordable housing crisis. Encouraging developers to build market-rate rental units isn’t solving that crisis, and it never will.
Danna Givot is Vice President of Neighbors For A Better San Diego.
Editordude: Hey, don’t forget about our “Worst ADU in San Diego Contest”.
Thank you, Danna and everyone at NFABSD. This clearly lay out the facts about how the current policy is not working and why it should be changed.
I agree with the article. The ecosystem of housing is not a one size fits all. Multi-story, population compression, rental units at market rate without DIF, and little affordable units, is a sham. Turning SFR’s into investment properties removes ownership opportunities. Proposed areas like Fanita Ranch and Jamul, need to be pushed for. We have fire mitigation to contend with. Other places, it’s hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, ice storms, etc. That’s the world today that we deal with. I’ve brought up the old Fry’s, the Grantville area, redoing the Midway area, rehabbing dead commercial for some opportunities. The two main factors needed are affordable rentals and starter ownership IMO.
Very well said! Easy to understand. What the developers have said repeatedly is low income people can’t afford vehicles. That’s how they justify no parking. A total pile of compost! Goes to show how naive they are. Low income, and super low income people have vehicles, and friends or relatives keep them running. They have big screen TV’s and cell phones. The city apparently doesn’t give two hoots about the Climate Action Plan, proven by the fact, they keep reducing traffic lanes, causing traffic to jam up, and long lines of idling. Idling and stopped traffic produces more toxins, than moving vehicles. The current mayor needs to figure out IF the Climate Action folks should be a “reduction in force”, and stop paying salaries to those who can’t do their job, thanks to the mayor.
Hey,aren’t we running out of water?
“If everything was the way I want it I would not be a nimby,” says the NIMBY.
Did you come up with that all by your lonesome???
I think all the anti-ADU people are going to complain about ADUs until they finally build one themselves to cash in on what is obviously a lucrative trend. I suspect they won’t complain so much then….
Please read the article. The writer is not anti-ADU. State law requires all jurisdictions to allow 1 ADU and 1 Junior ADU in residential areas. She clearly states her support for that. Her issue is with the Bonus ADU Program (invented by the City of San Diego) that allows multiple (6-17) ADUs in backyards.
This comment is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears.
Everything about this very well-written commentary rings true. ADUs can be an excellent means of providing more affordable housing when built in such a way that they don’t invade the privacy of surrounding homes, take up all the available street parking and fit in with the context of the neighborhood. However, the City of San Diego has set such a low threshold for building codes and guidelines, just about anything goes. Most ADUs stick out like neighborhood eyesores. More often than not, they’re owned by wealthy property owners who see them as nothing more than an additional income stream and don’t care about the impact they will have on surrounding neighbors.
Right you are, Bonnie. I remember when they were pushing this through, and I pointed out that the zero setbacks they allowed beyond SB9 not only violated SDGE requirements for clearance to utilities, but also state laws regarding fire and rescue access. Their response was, “Well, but that would limit the ‘opportunities’ in the earlier-platted neighborhoods near downtown that have smaller lots, which are intended to ‘benefit’ the most from this.”
So, again: this was always about enriching developers going after the low-hanging fruit — the more “opportunity rich” (profitable to develop) areas — rather than the *still* grossly zoned as “agricultural-residential” McMansion areas (most able to absorb density) in North County.
Owen burke: When the San Andreas ‘Big One’ hits, you are going to see an incredible number of restrictions put in place about water after the pipeline from the Colorado River is destroyed as it supplies a bit over 1/3 of all water use in SoCal cities. And a majority of Central Valley agriculture water also comes from it so veggie & fruit prices are going to soar, too, I would guess.
___
Bonnie: I agree, it is very well written. Those wealthy property owners you mentioned have another title, sociopath. When one doesn’t give a spit about the people around your land, I think one qualifies for that description. As do the DINOs in SD’s government that allow such idiocy.
___
Mat, you’ve been dead on with this…to our regret. Big sigh. How does one end this madness? I have no suggestions.
sealintheSelkirks