By Kate Callen
San Diego’s widely-abused Bonus ADU policy lost more ground May 15 when the City Council’s Land Use & Housing (LU&H) Committee voted 3-1 to chip away at its most egregious aspects.
But even in the face of overwhelming testimony about the misery caused by saturation density, three of the four committee members doggedly stuck to the Todd Gloria script: If we build more and more housing, an infinite number of people can afford to live in a coastal city with a mild climate.
The proposed changes to the Bonus ADU program look good on paper. And they might work if developers and corporate lawyers don’t find devious ways to slip through cracks in the policy.
The committee voted to limit the number of ADUs per property and to cap units at two stories. Cul-de-sacs and high-fire risk areas would be off-limits. Some on-site parking requirements would be restored.
But these good intentions could easily collide with political reality. The City is brazenly redrawing fire maps to push high-risk areas into low-risk categories. The “Transit Priority Areas” have eliminated parking requirements in neighborhoods that don’t currently have bus lines and probably never will.
“Community Enhancement Fees” meant to replace developer impact fees (DIFs) for Bonus ADU projects seem flawed. It isn’t clear how the City can force builders to pay a new fee that rests on shaky legal ground. And it’s a good bet that the resulting “Community Enhancement Fund” will turn into just another City Hall slush fund.
After five hours of staff presentation, public comment, and committee discussion, two things stood out.
Communities across San Diego are joining forces like never before to fight City Hall’s destructive policies. And at least one Councilmember has clearly taken notice.
Three committee members – Chair Kent Lee (District 6), Sean Elo-Rivera (District 9), and Vivian Moreno (District 8) – expressed some dismay about how “outlier” and “monstrosity” ADU projects have decimated neighborhoods. But that didn’t stop them from stubbornly supporting massive densification.
Lee, earnest and somber, stayed focused on the fabled “housing crisis.” But he also raised a key point that is rarely mentioned: For-profit development in San Diego will never be priced for low-income people. As long as rich people around the world keep getting richer, a city this beautiful can never meet the demand for affordable housing.
The ever-virtuous Elo-Rivera finally called out the “corporate profiteers” behind the worst Bonus ADU abuses. But he broke ranks with his colleagues, who want less complexity in the policy, by insisting on units smaller than 475 square feet. Even with a cap on number of units, wily developers could exploit smaller sizes to commit further abuse.
Morena, clearly bored, showed up late, left for long stretches (as did Elo-Rivera), and seemed more interested in checking her cell phone than listening to public testimony. Like Elo-Rivera, she expressed indignation over a few chance remarks that tiny ADUs don’t seem home-like. They both conjured up a disparagement of ADU residents that no one ever expressed.
Then there was Raul Campillo (District 7). Like Henry Foster III (District 4), who boldly launched Bonus ADU reform on March 4, Campillo stunned the audience by saying a lot of sensible things no one expected to hear from a politician. A few excerpts:
“The key issues I hear about are fire, parking impacts, safety, and scale within a neighborhood. These are reasonable and smart concerns. Residents say, ‘What’s stopping someone from tearing down the house next door and building a ton of apartments?’ People want a regulation that maintains the structural integrity of their neighborhood because unchecked density degrades the common infrastructure shared by all. The [DIF] costs that get avoided by development end up becoming the social costs for all of us.”
“I’m looking to understand how separate sales of ADUs could affect long-term affordability, especially if developers price these units to maximize profits. Home ownership is hugely important. I’m not sure if this policy accomplishes that goal in practice. Investment strategies might be just what we’re seeing now, which is to maximize rents.”
“I’m grateful to the Community Planners Committee for the work they do. I value the community planning groups. I was the lone Councilmember who voted against planning group reform because it made it harder for planning groups who are staffed by volunteers to continue to advocate. The attitude shown toward community planning groups diminished their status. I appreciate that they are stewards of their communities.”
Campillo is reportedly considering a run for mayor in 2028. If so, he did himself a lot of good at the hearing.
Kate, I’ve been reading OB Rag for years and I enjoyed this article. One problem I have a problem with though while it’s true that adding housing stock can help ease price pressure, basic economic theory reminds us that prices are set where supply meets demand: if demand continues to outpace supply—driven by factors like job growth, wages, and investor speculation—simply “building more” won’t automatically translate into affordability for average earners, especially when new units cater to higher-end markets or when land and construction costs keep rising. In fact, constraining development shifts the supply curve left, which, all else equal, pushes prices up, not down. We shouldn’t build more of these bonus ADUs but you make it sound like building more housing at all doesn’t do anything. Remember, we are RIMBYS, “responsible in my backyard”. I’m afraid some of what you said in this article just makes us look like we don’t want any building of housing at all.
You said: “three of the four committee members doggedly stuck to the YIMBY script: If we build more and more housing, an infinite number of people can afford to live in a coastal city with a mild climate.”
So tell me please, and anyone here: can you name a single city that succeeded in making housing more affordable by building less? Find a reputable source, a study, a research paper (no blogs).
can you name a single city that succeeded in making housing more affordable by building less? How about the opposite? Cause SD hasn’t figured it out with rampant random development either.
Theo, thanks for writing. The critical point is that San Diego is a uniquely desirable place to live (coastal city, mild climate). Growing numbers of increasingly rich people will pay top dollar for vacation homes here. My friends who live in a downtown condo tower tell me more of the units are empty much of the time because their owners have primary residences elsewhere.
That’s the price we pay for living in a beautiful place. San Diego does not have a “housing crisis.” We have an “affordable housing crisis.” Building more market-rate units — which is what developers build — won’t fix it. When demand remains strong and constant, prices do not go down.
And what if we use public money/land to build affordable housing? It’s a heartache that so many young adults who grew up in San Diego can’t afford to live here. My niece is one of them. Could we legally restrict new affordable housing to people who come from here? Would they have to produce birth certificates?
Hope this makes sense. These are tangled issues. It’s good to think them through.
Thanks go out to council members Lee and Campillo who stayed the entire marathon hearing to hear the voices of their constituents. Moreno and Elo Rivera (who’s my councilman) stay consistent in their lack of interest in the community.
A correction and an apology to Vivian Moreno: Her last name ends with an “o’,” not an “a.” She’s a person, not a boulevard.
Thank you Kate!
Active public action is effective in promoting constructive positive change. As Kate tells it, (I paraphrase) it takes a very large presence from residents to fight back against over-reaching development. Join your San Diego neighborhood coalition and participate in preserving San Diego, “Americas Finest City”! We can do this!
The elephant in the room: Vacation rentals. Quote: “(8) An ADU shall not be used for a rental term of less than 31 consecutive days. JADUs are not subject to rental term limitations.” Which do you think will be built?
I was alarmed to see city staff remove this requirement simply because it was not a state-mandated restriction. Our bonus “Acessory Apartment Building” program isn’t mandated and yet they didn’t cross that out.
What is the difference between a JADU and an ADU anyways? The definitions seem to overlap. All they’ve done here is add an oppotunity to provide (2) Airbnbs on every ADU speculator property, the JADU and the main house.
CPC specifically asked them to prohibit all STR uses on properties that benefit from the ADU density subsidies, but was ignored.
Half of the ADU projects built in Ocean Beach to date have another unit on premises dedicated to year-round STVR operation, and it’s perfectly legal under the current code.
Excellent Kate. Yes, there is a shortage in housing for singles and families, who earn less than $40,000 per year. If anyone does the math, and there are thousands who are paid $20 per hr. or less. That’s $3,200 GROSS per month, then subtract Fed., State, Social Security, and State Disability Tax, there is no way that employee can afford to pay $2,800 a month for a 400 Sq. Ft. studio. A 400 sq. ft. studio equates to a 20 X 20 room, with a bathroom within that room. And it’s not conducive for room mates unless they’re a couple, and not for those with kids. This is the housing the City of SD needs. And the going rate for a family with kids, a 3 bdrm. rents for $4,500 a month +. Social Services say if a couple have a son and a daughter, they must have separate bedrooms. I think there are only 2 Council members who have kids, so the voting majority seemingly are not thinking about a “family” dwelling unit. The mayor’s “affordable” units of 2 bedrooms, require an income of $110,000.00. He’s playing a word game by calling those “affordable” units.
I am disappointed and dissatisfied with our council members and Mayor who are continually “surprised” at the projects approved and built under the Bonus ADU program (which I still believe is illegal). The DSD has approved multiple 10 plus units on single family lots in Clairemont on high fire risk canyons, some in narrow culdasacs (challenging for residents and first responders in emergency situations), with no parking, and only small one bed units at affordable moderate income rate (basically market rate rent), along with many other egregious projects in other San Diego neighborhoods.
For two years the citizens and neighborhood planning groups have brought this to the Council and Mayor’s attention through televised news stories of neighborhood protests, in detailed letters directed to the City outlining the codes broken by these ADU builders, numerous calls to City inspectors, emails and letters to City officials, public comment at City Council meetings, meetings with DSD raising concerns about building code violations, site visits by Councilwoman Jen Campbell who said how wrong the project on Jicarillo was and yet the City Council is just now realizing what is happening around the City. Oh Please! – please tell me why you City officials are qualified to run a multi billion dollar business we call San Diego.
Pleinexcusable in my opinion.
Thanks, Kate, you nailed it. Campillo’s thoughtful remarks made it clear that he actually listened to and respected city residents and their representatives. Encouragingly, he also stated he would be open to additional changes beyond what the committee recommended.
Moreno conveniently justified the ADU practices that she continued, misleadingly, to dismiss as “outliers” by manufacturing outrage over an isolated comment about the political semantics of housing policy. Her ridiculous claim that ADU tenants were under “disgusting” attack (lecturing us, melodramatically, “they have dreams, they have family fights”) had nothing to do with the development issues at hand. She did not even pretend to address the relevant evidence and reasoning presented by so many speakers.
Lee and Elo-Rivera still seemed afraid to make any changes beyond baby steps. So it’s on us to persuade the rest of the Council that they might better follow Campillo’s example, rather than the Mayor’s dictates.
Listening to (all six hours!) online, I could not see the distracted behaviors and absences of the Councilmembers present that you report. But I could hear and applaud the cogency of the arguments made by representatives of the Community Planners Committee, Neighbors for a Better San Diego, and many individuals who commented in opposition to the Planning Department’s proposal. Sincere thanks to all who participated and helped move the needle.
This is not an affordibility crisis, it’s “give me, give me, whine, whine” crisis, it’s absolutely possible “TO BUY A HOUSE” I did it, so can you, cut back on the $15/beers, car payments, fancy iphones, nike shoes, fancy haircuts, there are 24 hours in a day, work 8, take break and work 8 more, i sacrified, scrimped, saved on a 5 year plan and got me a beater starter home in linda vista, I rented a room for 5 years by THE BIG KITCHEN, paid $700/month to a crazy old bat, on-time, everytime! I’m a car mechanic did my 40 at a dealer, then was a shade tree mechanic afternoon/weekends for another 30, saved $40,000/ year-hit my $200,000 year 5, got a great lender guy/girl (long story), BOOm, I.m a homeowner (2 great roommates), I have over $200,000 in EQUITY, I still struggle, chili and beans, hot dogs, hello $1 McDonalds coffee, I have my eye on a beater in lemon grove as a rental, stop whininng, make some sacrifices, save,save,save, skip eating out, fancy beers! I can do it you can too.
While I appreciate the City’s efforts regarding the ADU amendments, I would like to provide the following information, which is discussed in the CA Department of Housing and Community Development ADU Handbook.
1. The ADU bonus program is completely optional – There is no requirement, and no consequences for not taking part.
2. CA Govt Code Section 65583(c)(7): Develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of ADUS that can be offered at affordable rent.
Based on this information, I propose the following changes to SDMC Section 143:0302:
1. Cap the number of ADUS to a maximum of 2.
2. Cap the number of JADUs to 1.
3. Cap the number of stories to 2.
4. Encourage affordable ADUs by providing incentives such as fee waivers, favorable loan terms, free expedite review, assistance with the building permit process, etc.
According to the Staff Report, 7 ADUs can be developed on an 8,000 SF lot.
Please respect and protect single-family neighborhoods.
And then the add on fees like property taxes, trash, and water, then what for ADU’s vs affordable ADU’s. And then defining affordable. You can build say a 1000 sq ft ADU and elect to keep a rent affordable/ below market rate, how do you reconcile sq footage vs rent price? Too many worms in the can.
Even more comical, Ego-Rivera’s response to our area lakes and usage. I say it’s another anti-affordable stealth tax brewing here.
First, we have to have a critical evaluation of the current fees assessed to use the lakes and the policy limitations to addressing structural shortfalls. As Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera aptly stated in the budget review committee, “We’re hearing that this is really an item of concern to the council and the community. If we could be creative and really put our thinking caps on and recover as much costs as possible… that might be helpful and close the gap.”
https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2025/05/20/restore-san-diego-lakes-collaborative-vision/
Last summer I had a problem with ants in my kitchen, so many ants trying to get at a tiny amount of crumbs on my counters. I’m well aware of the laws of supply and demand, so I left out more food to satisfy their food shortage. Yet even more ants came. I thought they’d just bring it back to their nest and be stocked for awhile but they just keep coming. I’m not sure where to go next, maybe if I provide 12 inches of dirt on the kitchen floor so they can build their ant nests closer to where they need to be.
Pretty soon your aunts will be moving in, looking in your fridge, and pulling items out, saying, expired, expired.