Neighborhood Activists Mobilizing Against Bonus ADU Program at City Council Hearing, Tues, March 4

The City of San Diego’s Bonus ADU Program will be on the minds of many as residents across the city will be attending the City Council meeting on Tuesday, March 4. They will be urging the Council to restore the vote to eliminate the ADU Bonus Density Program—a decision they unanimously supported on January 28, 2025 before later rescinding it due to a procedural problem involving the Brown Act.

Here is some background provided by the group Neighbors for a Better California:

On January 28, 2025, the City Council voted unanimously to end the San Diego ADU Bonus Density Program, but a [possible] Brown Act violation means it’s still in place. On March 4, 2025, Footnote 7 and Bonus ADUs will be discussed, but this Item 330 only impacts footnote 7 in Southeastern San Diego—not the full citywide bonus ADU repeal we want. We need to keep fighting to formally get the Stop Bonus ADU officially on the agenda!…

The ADU Bonus Density Program, championed by Mayor Todd Gloria, allows unlimited ADUs with no parking or setback requirements, leading to overdevelopment, skyrocketing rents, increased congestion, and loss of neighborhood character. These ADU developments also pay NO Development Impact Fees (DIF) which will effect the City’s crumbling infrastructure for decades to come. While the Council originally voted to end the program, they later erased their own decision instead of holding a required public vote.

They urge everyone to contact Council President Joe La Cava. That group will be voicing their concerns during agenda comments

Item #330 tackles the outrageous footnote 7, which is a step forward, but it does nothing to eliminate the City’s Bonus ADU program—a policy that’s wreaking havoc on neighborhoods across San Diego. These Bonus ADUs dodge Developmental Impact Fees entirely, leaving no plan for future infrastructure. NeighborsCA will be at Tuesday’s meeting to voice our concerns during agenda comments.

Item 330: PROPOSED ACTIONS:

1) Adopt a resolution rescinding the City Council actions on January 28, 2025, on Item 331introducing Ordinance O-2025-67 and requesting City staff to return with an action item to remove the City’s ADU density bonus program.

2) Introduce an ordinance amending Chapter 13, Article 1, Division 4 of the San Diego Municipal Code by amending Section 131.0431, relating to Development Regulations Table 131-04D for the RS-1-2 Residential Zone in the Southeastern San Diego and Encanto Neighborhoods Community Planning Areas and amending the Local Coastal Program. The amendment would remove footnote 7 which reduces the minimum lot size for the RS-1-2 zones from 20,000 feet to 5,000 square feet and applies the development regulations of RS-1-7 zones to subdivisions in the Encanto Neighborhoods and Southeastern San Diego Community Planning Areas.

City Council Meeting Details:

San Diego City Hall, 202 C St., San Diego, CA
Tuesday, March 4, 2025, 10:00 AM

SUMMARY OF THE STATE VERSES THE CITY BONUS ADU LAWS

The City of San Diego’s Bonus ADU program is notably more aggressive than California’s statewide requirements. While the state caps single-family properties at one ADU and one JADU (with additional units in Transit Priority Areas) and multi-family properties at eight detached ADUs or 25% conversions, San Diego removes numerical limits within Sustainable Development Areas, tying additional units only to affordability and FAR compliance. The state’s rules emphasize conversions and modest additions, whereas San Diego incentivizes large-scale ADU development through its bonus structure—especially near transit—making it a standout in California. The lack of parking and impact fee requirements aligns across all programs, but San Diego’s flexibility on unit counts and affordability options amplifies its scope beyond state mandates.

California ADU Requirements – Single Family

One ADU: Up to 1,200 sq ft, can be attached or detached.
One Junior ADU (JADU): Up to 500 sq ft, must be attached.
Conversions: Existing accessory structures (e.g., garages) can be converted into an ADU.
Parking: Lost parking does not need to be replaced.
Setbacks: No setback required for converted or rebuilt structures; otherwise, 4 ft.
Floor-to-Area Ratio (FAR): Must comply with zoning district FAR.
Approval: Ministerial (streamlined) process.
Impact Fees: None if ADU is under 750 sq ft.

California ADU Requirements – Multi-Family

SB 1211: Adopted 9/11/2024, effective 1/1/2025, expands prior rules.
Detached ADUs: Up to eight on sites with existing multi-family buildings, capped at the existing number of units.
Conversions: Non-livable spaces (e.g., basements, storage) in existing multi-family buildings can be converted, up to 25% of existing units.
New Projects: Up to two detached ADUs allowed in proposed multi-family developments.
Setbacks: No setback for converted structures; otherwise, 4 ft.
FAR: Must comply with zoning district FAR.
Impact Fees: None for units under 750 sq ft

San Diego Bonus ADU Program

Bonus Units: One additional bonus ADU for each “affordable” ADU provided.
Quantity: Unlimited bonus units within Sustainable Development Areas (within 1 mile of existing or planned major transit stops or routes); outside these areas, limited to two.
Affordability Levels: Developer chooses Very Low Income (max rent $1,420 for one-bedroom), Low Income ($1,704), or Moderate ($2,629), per San Diego Housing Commission rates.
Restrictions: Low and Very Low Income units restricted by covenant for 10 years; Moderate for 15 years.
Parking: No replacement required.
Impact Fees: None required.
FAR: Must comply, but this has not significantly limited development.

 

Author: Staff

8 thoughts on “Neighborhood Activists Mobilizing Against Bonus ADU Program at City Council Hearing, Tues, March 4

    1. Please do not string a huge link at the beginning of your comment; I’ve asked readers and commenters countless times not to do it. The option: delete the entire thing.

  1. The push to make it easier, cheaper and faster to build more housing has positioned itself as a progressive effort combating older, whiter and richer communities opposed to growth.

    A completely false statement by this article. This is a return to state rules.

    1. REally confusing comment CS. What exactly are you talking about? This article did NOT make the statement that you allege it did, so WTF?

      1. At the end of the article is a “between the lines segment” where I quoted what the author said.

        1. Help me out here. There was no “author” and I cannot find anything in the text that mirrors what you say is in it.

Leave a Reply to Honesty Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *