/>iOn June 16, 2025, the San Diego City Council voted 5-4 to cap the number of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) that can be built on single-family lots. The decision reverses the City’s 2020 implementation of a program allowing developers to build a nearly unlimited number of ADUs—a robust incentive previously heralded as a solution to the City’s burgeoning housing affordability crisis. This program rollback reflects local jurisdiction’s struggles in addressing the lack of affordable housing supply and meeting Housing Element requirements while facing stark community opposition to high-density development.
Background
On October 30, 2020, the San Diego City Council unanimously approved amendments to the San Diego Municipal Code regarding ADU and Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) development.[1] Several key provisions were included in the amendments, including allowing the construction of one bonus ADU for every deed-restricted affordable ADU, with no limit on the number of bonus ADUs in a transit priority area (within a half-mile radius of a transit station);[2] no minimum ADU/JADU lot size;[3] no ADU/JADU density limitations;[4] and no parking requirements for ADUs in a transit priority area.[5]
The City Council approved these new regulations to address housing shortages across San Diego County. The intention behind the Municipal Code amendment was to reduce the regulatory burden on individuals seeking to construct a small number of ADUs and JADUs attached to their primary dwelling units. Indeed, this goal was achieved, with City records showing that 5,182 of the 5,720 ADUs permitted between 2021 and 2024 were projects with three or fewer ADUs.[6] However, residents and the City Council took issue with the way that some developers took advantage of the incentive program.
Shortly after the amendments took effect, stories of ADU “apartment buildings” began to emerge across the city.[7] Savvy developers began taking advantage of the ADU incentive program to construct high-density, apartment-style structures that towered over nearby single-family residences.[8] In a recent instance, a San Diego developer sought permitting to build a 120-unit “ADU farm” in the scenic coastal community of Pacific Beach.[9] If approved, the project would comprise six three-story buildings, each with 18 to 20 units, located on two adjacent single-family lots.[10] The colloquial term for an ADU, the granny flat, very quickly received a new name—the granny tower.[11]
Over the next four years, neighborhood opposition to high-density ADU development began to intensify. Rallying under neighborhood advocacy groups like Neighbors for a Better San Diego and Neighbors for Clairemont, local residents began petitioning local elected officials to substantially limit the bonus ADU incentive program.[12] Many residents highlighted the adverse effects of the program on local communities, including the lack of available street parking, increased fire hazards, and issues with garbage collection, among other negative consequences. One columnist summarized the views of many San Diego residents in suggesting that the ADU incentive program was a “sneak effort to foist an intolerable degree of construction and density upon unsuspecting residents while only providing a token degree of affordability.”[13]
ADU Incentive Program Rollback
This community opposition came to a head at the San Diego City Council hearing on June 16, 2025. Of the more than 600 comments submitted to the City Council regarding the program, only 20 expressed support for continuing the existing program. At the conclusion of the seven-hour hearing, the City Council voted 5-4 to impose substantial limitations upon the ADU/JADU incentive program.
The new regulations cap the number of allowed units to a maximum of four ADUs/JADUs allowed on single-family lots up to 8,000 square feet, a maximum of five ADUs/JADUs on single-family lots between 8,001 and 10,000 square feet, and a maximum of six ADUs/JADUs on single-family lots 10,001 square feet or greater. The new regulations also limited the construction of ADUs in High and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones that are on cul-de-sacs or roads with a single point of ingress and egress. Additionally, the new regulations imposed additional setback requirements for all ADUs in High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, additional on-site parking requirements for ADUs outside the Transit Priority Area, and a two-story limitation on all detached ADUs in single-family zones, among other restrictions.
Among other things, the amendment prohibits the ADU Home Density Bonus Program in eight single-family residential neighborhoods,[14] which accounted for approximately 24% of the land eligible for the ADU Home Density Bonus Program.[15] The incentive will remain in effect in all multifamily zones and in certain single-family zones.[16]
These new regulations represent a significant rollback on ADU/JADU policy, with potentially substantial implications for California housing development. It should be noted the influence of community interest groups in raising this issue to City Councilmembers and garnering support from the community to change the laws. Specifically, interest groups representing certain neighborhoods that were more affected by the law, Pacific Beach and Linda Vista, were committed to raising awareness about how members of the community were negatively impacted by the law and identifying how even if with a “reining in” of the generous ADU laws, San Diego would not be at risk for a decertification of its Housing Element.
California Housing Element Violation Risk
On June 13, 2025, just three days before the City Council hearing, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) sent a letter to the City of San Diego Planning Director informing her of the HCD’s concerns regarding a rollback of the City of San Diego’s ADU Home Density Bonus Program.[17] Among other concerns, the letter warned the City that the proposed amendments to the City’s ADU ordinance may result in the City’s failure to construct at least 40 deed-restricted affordable ADUs per year in accordance with the State’s 6th Cycle Housing Element requirements.
Since the San Diego ADU Home Density Bonus Program was implemented in 2021, the City has averaged construction of 92 deed-restricted affordable ADUs per year.[18] In constructing over two times as many required affordable ADUs per year, HCD awarded the City a Prohousing Designation to reflect its “praiseworthy prohousing policies.”[19] The June 13th letter to the City warned that the ADU incentive program rollback may jeopardize not only the City’s ability to construct the required 40 deed-restricted affordable ADUs per year, but its Prohousing Designation and associated benefits as well.
At the June 16th City Council hearing, City Staff addressed HCD’s concerns regarding the San Diego Housing Element commitment to provide 40 deed-restricted affordable ADUs per year. First, City Staff conceded that the ADU incentive rollback may result in fewer deed-restricted ADUs being constructed in the single-family zones that are now prohibited from utilizing the incentive. However, City Staff pointed to data showing that between 41 and 50 deed-restricted affordable ADUs per year have been built in multi-family zones since 2021. As mentioned previously, the amendments to the City’s ADU ordinance do not affect multi-family zones and only eliminate the incentive in certain single-family zones. Thus, at the current rate of deed-restricted affordable ADU development in multi-family zones, the City would not need to construct additional deed-restricted affordable ADUs in single-family zones to meet the city’s Housing Element requirements.
During the public comment portion of the June 16th City Council hearing, residents expressed concerns over the City’s efforts to exceed the ADU Housing Element threshold, which is the state law housing minimum, of developing 40-unit deed-restricted affordable ADUs per year. Many questioned why the City would incentivize high-density development in low-density single-family areas, risking the jeopardization of community character, in order to drastically exceed the State-imposed Housing Element requirement.
Implications
In recent years, San Diego has emerged as a leader in pioneering streamlined housing policies, setting a “gold standard” for cities across California.[20] In some instances, successful local San Diego housing policies have led to similar legislation being introduced and adopted by the California state legislature with similar success.[21] Thus, San Diego’s rollback of its ADU/JADU incentive program may have a ripple effect on local jurisdictions across the state.
When the San Diego ADU/JADU Bonus Program was first implemented, the State heralded the City as a leader in prohousing development and a possible model for local jurisdictions throughout the state seeking to incentivize affordable housing development. However, given the City’s rollback of its ADU incentive program in light of substantial neighborhood concerns and public outcry opposing the construction of deed-restricted affordable ADUs beyond the 40-unit Housing Element threshold, local jurisdictions may be hesitant to enact policies mirroring San Diego’s 2020 ADU incentive program.
The first major implication of this rollback on aggressive ADU policy is that cities may consider being more cognizant of community impact before enacting substantial prohousing incentives. In order to avoid such a drastic rollback, cities may consider taking inventory of widespread opinion amongst stakeholder groups regarding community concerns, such as a program’s impact on parking availability, fire safety, transit proximity, waste disposal and pickup, height limitations, and other density-related concerns.
As indicated by the San Diego City Council’s 2020 ADU incentive program and subsequent rollback, community advocacy groups may pressure the city to reconsider the incentive program and create new, more reasonable regulations to address community housing needs. Cities must strike a balance between state and local housing requirements, taking into account stakeholder feedback and general community concerns.
Additionally, the San Diego ADU incentive program and subsequent rollback illustrated the extent of local opposition to a city’s efforts to construct more affordable units than required by the city’s Housing Element allocation. As the June 16th City Council hearing’s public comment period indicated, local community representatives may object to a city’s efforts to construct a large number of affordable housing units far exceeding the Housing Element threshold when such efforts jeopardize community interests related to high-density development in low-density areas. Such fierce local opposition to a city’s efforts to streamline affordable housing development could effectuate a substantial rollback of the city’s incentive program, stifling local housing objectives beyond the minimum State requirements.
As a pioneer in novel housing policy implementation, the San Diego City Council’s decision to roll back its ADU incentive program may also have a chilling effect on similarly situated local jurisdictions. Local jurisdictions around the state may be hesitant to enact similar programs without properly addressing local concerns and engaging with community stakeholders. In summary, cities and counties in California may be reluctant to create incentive programs that exceed their Housing Element requirements, fearing public opposition to such programs.
Without local jurisdictions voluntarily exceeding the State Housing Element affordable housing threshold, the State may seek to reassess its role in incentivizing local affordable housing production. Instead of relying on local jurisdictions to construct additional affordable housing beyond the requirements imposed by the State, the State may seek to impose additional Housing Element requirements on local jurisdictions to incentivize affordable housing development. Any increased State housing requirements, however, would likely burden the many jurisdictions already struggling to meet existing Housing Element requirements.[22]
San Diego’s rollback of its ADU incentive program reflects the broader challenge cities face in balancing housing production with community concerns over density and the preservation of neighborhood character. The decision serves as a cautionary tale—without early and meaningful stakeholder engagement, even well-intentioned housing policies risk being dismantled before achieving lasting impact.
FOOTNOTES
[1] San Diego Mun. Code ch. 14, art. 1, div. 3.
[2] San Diego Mun. Code § 141.0302(c)(2)(H).
[3] Id. at § 141.0302(b)(2)(A).
[4] Id. at § 141.0302(b)(2)(B).
[5] Id. at § 141.0302(b)(3)(A).
[6] See David Garrick, Developer Pursuing 120-Unit ADU Farm in Pacific Beach Just as City Prepares to Roll Back Controversial Incentive, San Diego Union Trib. (June 16, 2025, at 06:25 PT), https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2025/06/13/developer-pursuing-120-unit-adu-farm-in-pacific-beach-just-as-city-prepares-to-roll-back-controversial-incentive/.
[7] See Ben Christopher, How San Diego Ended Up With ADU “Apartment Buildings”, CalMatters (Nov. 29, 2023), https://calmatters.org/housing/2023/11/adu-san-diego/.
[8] See Shandel Menezes, Encanto Neighbors Push Back Against Proposed ADUs, NBC 7 San Diego (Jan. 30, 2025, at 22:38 PT), https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/encanto-neighbors-push-back-against-adu-program/3739732/.
[9] See Garrick, supra.
[10] Id.
[11] See Menezes, supra.
[12] See The Bonus ADU Program, Neighbors for a Better San Diego, https://www.neighborsforabettersandiego.org/bonus-adu-program.
[13] See Christopher, supra.
[14] The ADU Home Density Bonus Program is now prohibited in the RS-1-1, RS-1-2, RS-1-3, RS-1-4, RS-1-8, RS-1-9, RS-1-10, and RS-1-11 base unless the premises is in a High or Highest California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) Opportunity Area when the development application is deemed complete; and the lot is identified as residential in the applicable community plan.
[15] City of San Diego Plan. Dep’t, ADU Home Density Bonus Presentation, San Diego City Council Hearing, at 22 (June 16, 2025).
[16] The ADU Home Density Bonus Program will remain in effect in the following single-family zones: RS-1-5, RS-1-6, and RS-1-7.
[17] See Letter from David Zisser, Assistant Deputy Dir. of Loc. Gov’t Rel. and Accountability, Dep’t of Hous. and Cmty. Dev., to Heidi Vonblum, Plan. Dir., City of San Diego (June 13, 2025), https://cdn.kpbs.org/6a/1e/488b75df4d8d84c1f586fd814030/san-diego-adu-bonus-program-ta-061325.pdf?.
[18] See ADU Home Density Bonus Presentation, supra.
[19] Id.
[20] See Todd Gloria, From the Mayor’s Desk: Advancing Housing Solutions for a Stronger San Diego, Inside San Diego (Jan. 27, 2025, at 16:05 PT), https://www.insidesandiego.org/mayors-desk-advancing-housing-solutions-stronger-san-diego; see also Todd Gloria (@MayorToddGloria), X (Nov. 19, 2024, at 11:55 PT), https://x.com/MayorToddGloria/status/1858962439972549070.
[21] See Assembly Bill 1287, Circulate San Diego (Feb. 20, 2023), https://www.circulatesd.org/ab1287.
[22] Indeed, just a few miles north of the San Diego city limits, the coastal community of Del Mar is struggling to meet its Housing Element obligation to construct 15 deed-restricted affordable units per year. See Sheila Pell, Affordable Housing Laws Descend on Del Mar, San Diego Reader (Jan. 10, 2023), https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2023/jan/10/stringers-affordable-housing-laws-descend-del-mar/; see also Letter from Melinda Coy, Senior Hous. Accountability Manager, Dep’t of Hous. and Cmty. Dev., to Ashley Jones, City Manager, City of Del Mar (Aug. 25, 2022), https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/del-mar-HENC-LOI-082522.pdf.
Landon Hill also contributed to this article.
