Michael Smolens: Will San Diego Refocus on Preserving Neighborhoods Amid Reforms to ADU Policies?

Former top city planner Michael Stepner says more housing is needed but it should be compatible with existing communities

By Michael Smolens / San Diego Union-Tribune / May 9, 2025

The city of San Diego is downshifting on its permissive rules encouraging backyard apartments.

That raises the question of whether a desire for more “gentle development” will spread to some of the city’s other aggressive housing policies.

Last week, the city Planning Commission strongly supported an effort to roll back some of the extreme aspects of the backyard apartment program.

Several years ago, when the city began loosening restrictions on building accessory dwelling units, as they’re officially called, the idea seemed to be one or two apartments on a single-family-home property, possibly three in some cases.

Projects with double-digit units allowed under the laws aren’t what people had in mind. For example, one ADU development in Clairemont has 17 apartments, and even larger projects are in the pipeline, particularly in Encanto.

“This is not the way I envisioned ADUs would work,” Commissioner Ken Malbrough said, as reported by David Garrick of The San Diego Union-Tribune. “I want housing, but I don’t want to ruin neighborhoods.”

“The intent of the bonus ADU program was to encourage gentle development,” added Commissioner Jeana Renger, “but as we’ve seen in examples, that’s not really the reality,”

That must have been music to Michael Stepner’s ears. A former longtime top city planner and architect, Stepner is a professor emeritus at the NewSchool of Architecture & Design and has been a keen observer of the push-pull over development in San Diego for decades — and was directly involved in much of it.

Not surprisingly, he has some thoughts.

Like most everyone, he says more housing is needed in the region. But unlike some, Stepner puts a premium on making the scale and design compatible with where it is being built. He’s not just talking about backyard cottages but the overall push to increase housing density pretty much everywhere.

“We’re focused on getting numbers on a spreadsheet,” he said in an interview. “. . . It should be done more sensitively.”

“Architecturally, let’s not make it look like Mission Valley and plop it down on your neighbor’s lot.”

Last month, he wrote a column in the Daily Transcript with Mary Lydon, principal of Lydon Associates and a former San Diego planning commissioner, with a headline that made their perspective clear: “Building neighborhoods not just housing.”

Stepner noted that view is somewhat reflected in current San Diego community plans — and was part of various planning strategies in the past — but said it largely has been left by the wayside in the rush to encourage development amid an affordable housing crisis.

“The city needs to get into a little more detail in the community plans and follow them,” he said.

The San Diego Planning Commission discussed placing caps on ADUs, but directed the city planning department to come up with options, with a decision ultimately by the City Council and Mayor Todd Gloria, all of whom appear committed to reforming backyard cottage policies.

It was clear the commission was not looking to slam on the breaks. That almost happened in March when the council stopped short of Councilmember Henry Foster’s proposal to do away with the ADU bonus incentive, which allows for additional market-rate apartments in return for ones restricted for lower-income residents.

The frustration over out-of-control ADUs and some upzoning has percolated across the city and spurred activism. The relatively new Neighbors for a Better San Diego has been a leader in the public debate over whether the city’s ADU rules — the most permissive in the state — are too much. The group has often urged that the city simply follow state law, which generally allows up to a few ADUs.

Stepner faulted city and state laws for not taking a more targeted approach on increased housing density. “Anything can go anywhere,” he said regarding ADUs, duplexes and larger multi-unit buildings.

He cited New York City’s new “City of Yes Plan” as a potential model approach for creating more housing. The plan has a goal of adding 80,000 housing units over 15 years “with thoughtful, subtle design changes that incorporate neighborhood character,” Stepner and Lydon wrote.

Single-story commercial buildings are allowed to add a few more stories for housing in certain areas and, similar to San Diego, heavy density is encouraged along major transportation corridors. Notably, additional development is restricted in existing low-density neighborhoods that include single-family homes under the New York City plan.

In the interview, Stepner pointed to what he considered some successes in San Diego where increased development fits the neighborhood, such as in Mission Hills and along El Cajon Boulevard and 30th Street.

For all the positives he sees in the New York City plan, he noted there’s been some backlash.

He said Minneapolis didn’t experience much blowback for its efforts to boost housing and address inequity. The city made national news when it eliminated single-family zoning, which was followed by increased apartment production and reduced rents. However, some analysts also credited other factors, such as eliminating minimum parking requirements.

The Minneapolis region saw a recent slowdown in construction permits, which has been attributed to an array of familiar market conditions — increased costs of materials, labor and financing — but also to declining builder interest because of a more plentiful housing supply and lower rents.

Stepner said the Minneapolis concept has been “more acceptable because it’s to the neighborhood’s scale.” Not only has much of the development been focused on three to four units, but they have been limited in size.

In San Diego, he said some buildings “overpower neighborhoods” and specifically mentioned a proposed 22-story residential and hotel tower in Pacific Beach, along with large ADU projects.

The flurry of laws to encourage more housing results may have gone too far, in part as a reaction to successful community opposition to additional housing projects, broader no-growth movements and sometimes onerous government development restrictions over the years.

The pendulum has been swinging back and forth for decades. It’s time to shave off the extremes.