By Francine Maxwell
San Diego’s push to add density through ADU incentives has landed hardest in Encanto — and the consequences are becoming concrete. A private developer-driven proposal to place 24 ADUs on the basketball court site in front of the Boys & Girls Club on Imperial Avenue (branded online as “Lisbon Vista Village”) is the latest example. That proposal arrives in a neighborhood already reporting serious infrastructure and parking stress, and without a public plan to add basic retail like a grocery store to serve new residents.
Facts on the table:
- Multiple news reports and community meetings show that Encanto has become a focal point for large bonus-ADU projects — scores of units proposed on a small number of parcels across the neighborhood.
- The City has been actively reconsidering the ADU Bonus Program and “Footnote 7” (the code provision that changed lot-size rules for southeastern neighborhoods), with council action and planning reports in 2025.
- Local residents have raised consistent concerns about traffic, parking capacity, stormwater/ infrastructure impacts, and loss of open recreational space — including the potential loss of the basketball court used by youth at the Boys & Girls Club.
Housing production matters. But building units without concurrent, site-specific plans for parking, grocery and retail access, youth space, and infrastructure creates real trade-offs. Encanto’s streets are narrow; curbside parking is already constrained. Adding 24 ADUs to a former community recreation footprint will intensify on-street parking demand, complicate street sweeping, and reduce safe play space for kids — unless mitigations are mandated and enforced before permits are issued.
Two policy points require immediate clarity from City Hall:
Will projects sited on public recreational parcels be permitted under the revised Footnote 7 and the City’s ADU rollbacks/limits? The Planning Commission and Council have signaled changes to the ADU Bonus Program; residents deserve a clear, written statement about whether proposals like Lisbon Vista Village meet current code and policy.
Who is this housing for? Much of the recent development rhetoric emphasizes unit counts over affordability. Young adults who grew up in Encanto increasingly report that rising costs drive them out — adding market-rate ADUs without affordability guarantees risks accelerating displacement rather than preventing it.
If the goal is equitable housing, the city must pair approvals with hard, measurable mitigations: guaranteed on-site parking or off-site parking plans, grocery/retail commitments or impact mitigation funding, preservation or replacement of youth recreational space, and enforceable affordability covenants tied to the units. Absent that, the result is predictable: more homes on paper, worse quality of life in practice.
Encanto residents support sensible housing solutions — but not at the cost of their parks, their kids’ safety, or basic neighborhood services. City planners and councilmembers need to show — in writing and with enforceable conditions — how any large ADU project on a community site will preserve quality of life and serve longtime residents, not just add units that are unaffordable to the people who grew up here.
Sources
Planning Commission report / City of San Diego on ADU program & Footnote 7 (2025)./ City of San Diego on ADU program & Footnote 7 (2025). NBC 7 San Diego, KPBS Public Media, Lisbon Vista Village, Axios)
NBC San Diego reporting on hundreds of proposed ADUs in Encanto (2024–2025 coverage).
KPBS coverage of Encanto residents’ infrastructure concerns and Council actions (2025).
Lisbon Vista Village project/branding information (project site).
Axios and other reporting on City Council actions to roll back or limit the ADU Bonus Program (2025).
According to the developer’s website, they said that Encanto residents can “Participate in the Gentrification of Their Own Neighborhood.” Gentrification doesn’t usually work out so well for the current residents, right?
For owner-occupants yes, but definitely not for renters.
This project 622368 was only selling 4 bedroom homes, did you see rental information?
It was not renting any homes.
23 homes and only 1 is affordable for moderate income one person earning less $110 000.00 a year. The purchasexagreement is online.
This is not a ADU Project.
4 bedroom homes, before ADU Bonus, was even approved.
OB rag was irrespobsible to post this arricle without verifying any relevant sources. A retraction is needed.
PTS- 622368, 7108- 7112 Lisbon St.
Is a Descretionary level 5 project, with CEQA Report and waivers, exceptions, mitigation.
It is not even located with Encanto Planning Group area let alone Encanto community. Its in Skyline- Paradise Hills Planning Area.
Its in the Jamacha Community.
Project is not even remotely related to Foot Note 7, which applied to RS 1-2 Zones in Encanto and Southeastern Areas.
The fact that the Newspaper OB Rag didn’t verify accuracy of this article is dissapointing. The Article about Lisbon Vista incorrectly refers to Encanto which is shameful and clearly shows ignorance of the 18 Communities within District 4.
The Boys n Girls Club and Marie Wideman Memorial Park are both legally located in the Skyline Community.
Encanto Community is west of the San Diego Railway ( Trolley Tracks) 1st street is Atkins St. The northern border of the O’farrell Community ( former South Encanto) is Woodman St, and the southern border of Skyline begins at Woodman St.
Skyline and Jamacha are definitely not part of Encanto!
They are both located within the Skyline- Paradise Hills Planning Area. Not within Encanto / Chollas View Planning Area, which is a completely separate planning Group. The 18 Comunities in District 4 are in four separate Community Planning Areas.
The matter of mislabeing Encanto is made worse by the fact that the Lisbon Vista, Bayview company claims to be a part of the community. Yet, is so ignorant of the community that it claims to be helping that it inaccurately lists the project as located in Encanto!
This shows that this company has not even viewed the District 4 Community map, and that it has such disregard for the residents of the Communuty that it has failed to even review the Skyline- Paradise Hills Community Plan, nor the map.
The Lisbon Vista project on 7108 Lisbon St. is in the Jamacha Community. It is a unwanted project vehenently opposed by the community before and after it changed companies. This project graded prior to permit, and the Campo Band Indian Triibe stated in Memo that mechanical clearing occurred prior to their Cultural Inspectors arrival to locate and protect Native American Artifacts .
Jamacha is not part of the Encanto Community. It is not a included Community in the Southeastern Community Planning Area, nor is it included in the Encanto Community Planning Area. But Jamacha is a Community of Concern and low income semi- rural area.
Therefore the geography is clear that Footnote 7 did not ever and does not apply to Jamacha. As footnote 7 only listed Southeastern and Encanto planning areas.
Footnote 7 did not list the Skyline-Paradise Hills.
The City is derelict in its duty it knowlingly usrs inaccurate GIS maps not matching legal boubdaries and names of communities. The City fails to enforce Developmental Services, Storm Water , Planning Department, and Transportation to review maps included in the approved Community Plans for the legal boundaries of Planning Areas.
The San Diego County Realitor mapping systems Northern, Central and Southern, do not use accurate names of communities in District 4 due to decade of poor representation by leaders who never insisted on accuracy and respect for District 4 Communities.
Disgusted in Jamacha
Great job for the boundary clarification — Lisbon Vista is in Jamacha within the Skyline–Paradise Hills Planning Area, not Encanto. Accuracy matters.
Hopefully you didn’t miss the purpose of the article as a whole.
The bigger picture cannot be missed: regardless of whether it’s Encanto, Jamacha, or Skyline, District 4 communities are consistently where the City directs density projects, while basics like grocery access, parking, and youth space remain neglected.
You bring up the reliance on outdated GIS maps and confusion around Footnote 7 only underscores a deeper problem: the City has created conditions where developers can exploit technicalities, while residents are forced to fight project by project for quality of life.
This isn’t just about a mislabeled map — it’s about a pattern of inequity in how District 4 is planned, resourced, and respected. That is the core of the editorial, and that is what residents deserve answers on.
I most definitely did not miss the purpose of the article and have spoken about the same issues at City Council meetings, ” Preaching to the choir”
It’s not possible to claim to advocate for responsible housing while simultaneously being disrespectful of the same communities and promoting the offensive and inaccurate community names that help the irresponsible housing developers mislabel Jamacha as Encanto or Skyline to harm my community or nearby areas not in Encanto.
As well as hypocritical to promote “stopping the irresponsible housing developers” When the so called grass roots responsible housing advocates, are being just as harmful and irresponsible as the developers.
Its harder to fight developers using the wrong names when residents, elected officials, reporters, realitors, ADU Bonus group are just as foolish and don’t review the community plan maps before commenting, emailing and speaking.
STOP using the name Encanto for any community south of 94.
STOP referring to and/or comparing Jamacha to Encanto. They are very different Communities. All ethnically balanced communities are not the same.
The current “catch all” use of Encanto by ADU Bonus protesters is just as offensive of a stereotype as stating ” Those People” referring to African Americans.
Incase you want facts vs this ficticious unsourced article go to the City, DSD website # 622368
This is not even a ADU project. Aside from being approved before ADU Bonus was even created.
By the way obviously unbeknowst to the Encanto residents, in EChollas View CPG area, the Skyline- Paradise Hills Community Planning Committee voted Yes, 12 to 0, supporting this crap 23 home project with 4 bedrooms.
Update
I stand corrected this 24 single family home project on Lisbon St. in Jamacha, approved by S-PH CPG in 2018, has added 11 ADUs on the ground on same lot as the single family homes.
No notice of the 11 ADUs was provided to Jamacha residents living within 300 feet, as ministerialky approved unlike the 24 homes that required a vote by Skyline- Paradise Hills CPC, which unfortunately Approved ans Approved without listing conditions of approving without future exceptions, and waivers.
After 2022 CP 600-24 update, Community Planning Groups no longer approve, they merely recommend if the developers voluntarily decide to bring a project.
The Lisbon Vista Village website inaccurately states Encanto. The area is legally Jamacha as show on the District 4 Community map
You have a lot of time on your hands hopefully you are this productive irl…also the sign in front of the property clearly states ADU’s but go off.