By Neighbors for a Better San Diego / June 11, 2025
According to San Diego’s fire codes, new development in San Diego requires at least 20 feet of unobstructed street width and a 50-foot turning radius for fire engines.
This applies EVERYWHERE in San Diego, not just in high-risk fire zones.
Yet, San Diego’s Bonus ADU program has allowed 15+ Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to be packed behind homes, such as the project shown below in Rolando, which sits on a narrow cul-de-sac.
It is concerning that we are still discovering regulations that the Development Services Department (DSD) has not been enforcing.
The City should not be piling on density in existing residential neighborhoods that are already ill-equipped to meet the City’s current fire code requirements.
How is the City going to ensure the emergency passage of fire engines when narrow roads are clogged with parked cars and fleeing residents? — Red-curb our streets and eliminate parking from entire blocks as a favor to Bonus ADU developers?
This is an important question for your City Councilmember AND the Planning Department to answer before the June 16 City Council meeting.
The full implications of the Bonus ADU program weren’t fully known when it was approved by the City Council in 2020, but the chance to correct this is at the City Council meeting on Monday, June 16.
Please SAVE THE DATE and look for our forthcoming Call To Action.
Editor’s Note: A discussion of Bonus ADU amendments to the Municipal Code is Item 202 (the third of three items) on the agenda for the City Council’s 2:00 p.m. afternoon session on Monday, June 16. Look for more Rag coverage in the days to come.
Small correction. This project is in Redwood Village, not in Rolando. The same developer has submitted an application to build 13 ADUs next to this one.
The city’s proposed amendments #11 (setbacks) and #15 (evacuation routes) seem to address the concerns above prohibiting Bonus ADU program on properties in High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones if they are on a cul-de-sac or have only one road in and out.
Also, 98% of ADU (4,308 of 4,388) have 1-3 ADU units and another 1% are 4-6 units. Other amendments appear to reign in out-of-scale projects, so seems like win / win for everyone?
I disagree. The City is creating rules that are subject to interpretation and cause more problems than they solve.
The one road in an out in a severe fire zone is a case in point. What does that exactly mean? Will it be up to individual homeowners to get a lawyer if they disagree with how the rule is being interpreted and applied?
If 2% of ADU projects are causing all the problems, then dump the rule entirely that allows for them. All these one off rules based on lot size and other variables create an opportunity for manipulation and abuse.
How much time and money has the Planning Department spent fiddling with ADU rules trying to fix the major mistakes they put in place? They’ve done enough damage already and should be focusing on real planning along transportation corridors?
Keep it simple.
Well, the city has yet to propose limiting ADU projects to 1-3 units. So… these ADU apartment buildings are going to keep happening, albiet less on these culdesac lots. The limits they’ve proposed so far are hardly limiting.
If we can provide nearly all of these units without allowing out-of-scale projects that wreck a neighborhood block, then we should do so. That would require limiting the ADU laws to the state minimum requirement, which is already very generous.