VISTA — The Vista City Council is seeking additional review before moving forward with a proposed ordinance that would allow movable tiny homes within the city.
In a unanimous vote on Feb. 10, the council directed the Planning Commission to evaluate the concept and return with recommendations. Movable tiny homes are dwelling units designed to be towed and typically differ from accessory dwelling units, or ADUs, because they sit on wheels rather than a permanent foundation.
“I just don’t think that we have enough consensus and or enough information at this point,” Council Member Corinna Contreras said. “So I think the planning commission could review this discussion in a more thorough fashion and utilize their professional expertise to kind of help us craft something that maybe would have more consensus once it comes back.”
The council last discussed the issue in October, when it directed staff to conduct additional research and return with more information, according to city documents.
Patsy Chow, the city’s assistant director of community development, said staff examined regulations in other jurisdictions statewide, toured a movable tiny home and met with experts, stakeholders and members of the public.
Chow said the goal was to identify common practices and policies across jurisdictions so as “not to reinvent the wheel.”
A staff report for the Feb. 10 meeting compared requirements and timelines for ordinances implemented between Dec. 2019 and Sep. 2025 in the cities and counties of San Diego, Los Angeles and San Jose, as well as Santa Clara County.
All require units to be registered with the state Department of Motor Vehicles. All but Santa Clara County set maximum floor areas between roughly 400 and 430 square feet, and three also established minimum sizes of about 150 square feet.
The city of San Diego requires units to be one story, while other jurisdictions allow up to two stories or heights of about 16 feet.
All cities except San Jose prohibit units from self-propulsion, or moving under their own power.
Among the more significant differences were standards governing where the homes could be placed on a property and how they must be designed. Rules for building materials, windows and setbacks vary by municipality. Staff also noted that under state law, movable tiny homes can be classified as either primary residences or ADUs.
Last year, San Diego County planning officials determined that tiny homes on wheels could be permitted in unincorporated communities under its existing zoning ordinance, which sets building standards in those areas. The units must sit on paved pads with barriers to prevent movement.
Tiny homes cannot be used for hotels or boarding houses, per county guidelines.
Councilmember Jeff Fox said he was concerned that regulating movable tiny homes as ADUs could leave the city vulnerable to future state laws that might override local rules. On the other hand, Fox said, classifying them as primary residences could also allow property owners to add an ADU.
Regardless, well-intentioned policies could create unintended consequences if not fully vetted, Fox said.
“There are enough concerns and complications that I’d like our planning commission — people who are more knowledgeable than I am — to look at the potential externalities before I make any strong recommendations,” he said.
Contreras raised separate concerns about a staff recommendation to allow movable tiny homes in areas where single-family housing and ADUs are permitted, but to exclude specific plan areas, saying that the approach could create inequities.
“I really believe in property rights and I will always stand firm that folks have purchased this property and they also deserve to have free market options,” Contreras said. “And seeing that the market has provided such a limited amount of options, I would hate that government comes and kind of over reaches and says, ‘I’m sorry but you’re not going to be able to have the same option that your neighbor across the street has simply because you are within an artificial boundary of a specific zone.’”
She asked that residents in the Townsite Specific Plan area be given the option to participate in whatever ordinance is ultimately adopted.
Deputy Mayor Dan O’Donnell, pointing to the relatively small number of movable tiny homes permitted in other cities compared with ADUs, questioned whether easing regulations would significantly boost housing supply.
O’Donnell said he also worried about the units being used primarily as short-term rentals and about their impact on infrastructure.
“I’d be open to making sure that these don’t end up in a bunch of front yards all over the city — I think that defeats the purpose of what we’re trying to accomplish with these,” O’Donnell said. “But I agree we need to be exploring every option.”
1 comment
Guaranteed blight.