On June 17, Dave Schwab — now of Times of San Diego and formerly of the Beacon-aligned newspaper group — quoted a bunch of coastal residents about the City Council’s vote to amend the controversial Accessory Dwelling Unit Bonus Program. In the course of his article, Schwab continued the false narrative that the ADU program was meant “to create more affordable housing without over-development” — but completely doesn’t. And he found many residents were not sure the benefits outweighed the disadvantages. Schwab ended up quoting many of our friends and members of the new San Diego Community Coalition.
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 and also a member of the coordinating committee of the Community Coalition is concerned about overdevelopment, and 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. Grundland is also a member of the Community Coalition steering committee.
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?” Judi has been the long-time restaurant reviewer for the Rag.
“Eliminate all ADU bonuses,” concluded Eric Law of Fleetridge in Point Loma. “One ADU per lot. No more.” Law is a founder of Protect Point Loma, which is a member group of the San Diego Community Coalition.
I would like to see an ADU map superimposed over a STVR map. An extra layer could be corporate REIT type owned rentals. So many reasons for ‘ruined neighborhoods’ in such a high-demand city. https://www.niceneighbors.org/
I checked the completed ADU projects in Ocean Beach, and approximately half of them have a short term vacation rental on site, in the main house. Note that you can now build an ADU larger than the existing house, or you can label the front house as an ADU and build a home behind it.
This is 100% legal under the STRO ordinance. It receives a development subsidy and yet does not provide a new housing unit. Councilmembers showed no interest in changing it to ban STVRs from any premises that contains an ADU.
Also, the city is now going to allow short term rentals in Junior ADUs.
It is interesting. Very briefly in the City Councilmember discussion, our Councilmember Campbell briefly stated, “it isn’t necessary to limit Vacation Rentals for ADUs because their control is in a different part of the Municipal Code.” This was an issue raised in our objections, but it was not discussed elsewhere during the hearing, which lasted until 9:00. I have also heard (not sure) that projects which have an application in but not yet approved will still be processed under the old laws.
We need to follow Barcelona’s lead and ban STRs. Send short term visitors to hotels. That change would stop investors from putting money in ADUs.
I do hope we don’t “Throw out the baby with the bathwater”. We built one ADU on the back of our lot so that our son and his family could afford to live here. We included one parking space but their other car is on the street. We are hoping in the near future that they will get rid of one of their cars because they both now have electric bikes. We help with the babysitting and they help with the yard work. It’s wonderful having our grandson playing in our backyard. I can’t imagine have 4 units back there , especially without parking. If most people put on one ADU with parking on their lots and kept the rents reasonable, we would be able to fit twice the population.
Most of us who have trying to get the city to reform its ADU policies love the original concept of an ADU.
There’s a near zero chance they are going to be able to raise a child without having a car.
Anyhow, your 1 ADU unit is protected by state law, the city cannot write regulations more restrictive than the state on this.
When I saw who authored this piece, I was surprised to see Dave Schwab was with The Times of San Diego now. Schwab has been at the Beacon News forever. I decided to check something and my hunch was correct. The San Diego Community Newspaper Group is now part of NEWSWELL, the same group that The Times of San Diego became a part of last year, around the same time when The Times ended its comments feature. As of the last correspondence with The Times at the end of February, they are still reviewing the situation.
The Times has been a respectable paper and a remarkable achievement in electronic journalism. The San Diego Community Newspaper Group has a long history of focusing and very local news. It just seems odd to me that both are now part of a non-profit group in Arizona. Perhaps no harm done but it sets the antenna twitching.