ADUs in University Heights: A Realtor’s Call for Smart, Responsible Growth

For more than 25 years, I’ve had the privilege of serving the University Heights community as a Realtor, homeowner, neighbor, and long-time resident invested in the future of our neighborhoods. Beyond helping buyers and sellers, I’ve personally built several Accessory Dwelling Units—ADUs—including one on my current home, one on my previous home, one that’s under construction for my sister, and plans for one at my mother’s property. I know the benefits of ADUs not just through paperwork, but through lived experience.

San Diego is facing an acute housing crisis, and families are being priced out of the communities they love. But the core issue is not simply a lack of homes—it’s a lack of affordable homes. This is where ADUs have traditionally been an excellent solution. 

Because the land already exists, the homeowner’s primary expense is construction. ADUs are typically more affordable to build and can be rented or used for family at a lower cost than large-scale projects. When built responsibly, ADUs provide flexibility, generate income, and support multigenerational living without altering the character of the community.

But in recent years, this well-intentioned law has been stretched beyond its intended purpose. 

The original spirit of the ADU legislation was to encourage small-scale, affordable housing options that complemented existing neighborhoods—not to enable dense, profit-driven development behind single-family homes. Yet today we see projects adding eight, ten, or more units behind a single home, often without adequate parking and without regard for neighborhood capacity or infrastructure. 

There is a vast difference between one or even several well-designed ADUs with off-street parking and ten units squeezed into a backyard with no parking, relying solely on the hope that residents will take public transit.

Some argue that public transit eliminates the need for parking. But anyone who lives in California knows that is not today’s reality. 

Californians love their cars, and many residents simply need them—whether for work, caregiving, or errands. Even in places where public transit is excellent, people still rely on vehicles.

My own experience living in Flushing, Queens in the 1990s taught me this firsthand. At the time, we paid $600 a month for our apartment and $1,200 a month for parking. When parking becomes scarce, it becomes expensive. That imbalance created frustration and inequality, and it’s a warning sign for what can happen when development outpaces infrastructure. If San Diego allows large-scale density without requiring parking, we risk recreating exactly that dynamic.

Looking internationally, Europe offers a useful comparison. Most European cities have world-class public transportation systems, yet they still provide significant parking accommodations for residents. Many Europeans use public transit for work but still rely on cars for grocery shopping, family obligations, or weekend travel. Balanced planning acknowledges this reality. Here in University Heights, pretending that everyone can or will rely solely on buses or trolleys is unrealistic and unfair.

Urban planning in major cities also offers guidance. In New York, single-family and low-to-mid-density neighborhoods remain intact, while dense apartment buildings are placed along major corridors. This zoning distinction maintains livability, mitigates congestion, and respects residents’ expectations. Mixing large apartment structures directly into single-family streets stresses already inadequate infrastructure, increases density where it was not planned for, and creates chaos.

For years, San Diego’s local planning groups provided thoughtful input to the City Council on neighborhood-specific needs. Community voices were part of the decision-making process. Today, however, much of that process has been removed. A single planner now determines whether a project is viable, and their only obligation is to consult with the developer—not with the residents who will live with the consequences. Neighborhoods have effectively been removed from discussions about their own future.

This needs to change. Updating ADU laws to reflect infrastructure, livability, and community priorities is not anti-housing—it is pro-community.

Some may ask, “Roxanne, you’re a Realtor. How can you oppose development?”

My response is simple: I’m not against development—I’m against irresponsible development.

I believe in ADUs. I have built them, supported them, and helped countless clients understand their benefits. But every ADU my family has built has included proper parking, appropriate scale, and a clear respect for our neighbors. Our projects have been based on need and family functionality—not profit maximization.

University Heights deserves development that is thoughtful, balanced, and aligned with what our infrastructure can support.

One ADU—even several—per household is a great idea. Ten ADUs per household is chaos and driven by greed, not community need.

Growth is essential, but it must be responsible. As a community, we must restore the neighborhood voice in planning and ensure that development supports—not overwhelms—the University Heights we all love.

Roxanne Govari is a 25-year University Heights Realtor, homeowner, and community advocate. She is the Broker/Owner of Pemberley Realty, where she specializes in residential sales, investment properties, and property management throughout San Diego.