From Neighbors for a Better California
Neighbors for a Better California Pushes for a Pause
San Diego’s Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Bonus Program, a key initiative to increase housing supply, is under scrutiny due to safety hazards, particularly fire risks, and community concerns about its impact on neighborhoods.
On June 16, 2025, the City Council voted 6-3 to revise the ADU Bonus Program, with changes including:
- Restricting large lots: The program will be repealed in single-family zones with lots of 10,000 square feet or greater to limit oversized projects.
- Unit caps: As of June 2025, ADU limits are set at 4 units for lots under 8,000 sq. ft., 5 units for 8,001–10,000 sq. ft., and 6 units for lots over 10,000 sq. ft.
- Safety and infrastructure: Reforms propose stricter fire code standards and new infrastructure fees for ADU projects.
The very some meeting, Councilmember Joe La Cava addressed the City Council, highlighting public unease about the ADU Bonus Program’s effects. At the 5:16:14 mark of the meeting’s video, La Cava stated:
“One of the things that I’ve heard from the public and I’ve heard from others and so I’m going to ask our city attorney’s office, I think the council would benefit from a legal opinion whether or not, in fact, we have any options to shut down an application that’s on file that has been deemed complete or even a permit that’s been issued. I’m very skeptical that we can, but clearly what we are hearing from a lot of folks is not necessarily the focus on what the ordinance is in front of us is today but what they’re seeing happening in their neighborhoods or what is currently being allowed under the existing ordinance. So I don’t want to put you on the spot and ask you to opine on that, but if you could get back to the council, I think it would be a benefit. Again, I’m a little skeptical.”
This request for a legal opinion reflects tensions between the program’s housing goals and its real-world consequences, especially in single-family neighborhoods. Residents, particularly in areas like District 4 with larger lots, are alarmed by large-scale ADU projects—often called “backyard apartment buildings”—that alter neighborhood character and raise safety concerns, including fire hazards and infrastructure strain. As of July 1, 2025, the city attorney’s office has not yet provided a response to La Cava’s request, leaving the council and public awaiting clarity on whether projects can be paused or modified.
Neighbors for a Better California Pushes for a Pause
Today, Neighbors for a Better California will formally requests a pause in the City’s Bonus Density Program for projects with clear health and safety concerns. In a letter to Councilmember Joe La Cava, the we emphasized the urgent need to halt projects that pose risks, such as those exacerbating fire hazards or straining infrastructure, until safety measures are strengthened. This call aligns with broader community sentiment and La Cava’s push for a legal review, amplifying the demand for immediate action to protect neighborhoods.
La Cava’s call for a legal opinion focuses on whether the city can halt applications or permits already in process, a complex issue given state housing laws enforced by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). In June 2025, HCD cautioned that proposed reforms could violate state law, risking San Diego’s “prohousing” designation and state funding. As of yet, the City Attorney Heather Furbert has made no public opinion or document reflecting the City’s position on a “pause.”
Take Action Today
The second reading of the ADU Bonus Program revisions is on the City Council’s consent agenda this morning, July 1, 2025, at 10:00 AM or submit comment here. Attend the City Council meeting in person or virtually to share your perspective and support Councilmember La Cava’s efforts to prioritize community safety. This is a critical opportunity to voice your concerns about the program’s safety risks and advocate for a pause on projects with clear health and safety issues.
Push for a pause?! Comical. NFABSD advocates 4 is fair. Yet, for example, 4955 baja ct by SDSU is a 3 unit property, main house, converted garage, and two story ADU, with 13 beds and 6 baths at the end of a cul de sac with little parking. This will continue to be a problem, by this example, overbuilding neighborhoods despite what NFABSD says.
Your article raises a question: How much of the State Funds that are “at risk” go directly to the housing projects (think Ash Street)? Maybe the problem is a solution.