By Kate Callen
In a packed May 1 five-hour meeting, three San Diego Planning Commissioners refused to rubber-stamp Mayor Todd Gloria’s slippery revisions to his Bonus ADU program. Their unexpected show of independence marked a turning point in the 4-year battle to stop predatory developers from unleashing more hell in neighborhoods across San Diego.
The Commission officially voted 5-0 to endorse the Bonus ADU amendments proposed by the Planning Department. Our ever-brazen mayor quickly declared victory in a press release: “Gloria Administration’s ADU Program Reforms Advance to Land Use & Housing Committee.”
Not so fast, Mr. Mayor. Yes, the “reforms” will be on the agenda at the committee’s May 15 meeting. But they will be wrapped in caveats and choices.
The three board mavericks, led by Kenneth Malbrough, would not support a blanket approval motion from Ted Miyahara. At their insistence, the Planning Department must present more options for critical ADU specifics: number of units, height limits, and floor-area ratio density.
The same city planners who concocted Gloria’s “reforms” will reshuffle the package before it goes to the Council. But now they’ll be running into a headwind.
An astonishing community turnout at the hearing, and tough questions from frustrated commissioners, may signal that City Hall’s YIMBY hegemony has crested. Some takeaways:
Community Activists Are Upping Their Game
Two leading sensible growth advocates, Neighbors for a Better San Diego and the Chatten-Brown Law Group, gave their customary powerful presentations. But at this meeting, an impressive number of individual speakers came with detailed and compelling evidence, including from the San Diego Community Coalition.
Leaders from Linda Vista, Jamacha, Encanto, Clairemont, and other communities brought maps, photographs, and charts to show how Bonus ADU abuses have decimated their neighborhoods. City Hall’s arrogance has mobilized an army of citizen-investigators. And they’re just getting started.
Sometimes We Follow the State. Sometimes Not.
You know those movies where the same actor plays twins with opposite personalities? That’s how the Planning Department came across. At times, city planners clung to the primacy of California law. At other times, they saw no reason San Diego shouldn’t upend state ADU policies.
In their opening presentation, planners kept emphasizing that the City is “in compliance with state law.” So why doesn’t San Diego comply with the state’s limit of 4 ADUs on a single-family lot? And why do our Transit Priority Areas impose longer treks to transit stops than the rest of California?
If a Wildfire Erupts, We’ll Try to Put it Out
The devastation of the Palisades and Eaton fires has intensified anxiety in San Diego neighborhoods choked with ADU complexes. The City has responded by redrawing fire maps to move nearly 30,000 acres from “very high” fire risk zones to “high” and “moderate” zones. This opens up more land for building. And it puts more people in danger.
The Development Services Department shrugs off concerns about wildfire evacuation in dense areas. That’s not in their job descriptions. The Fire Marshall, which does have that responsibility, has offered this reassurance to residents: If fire breaks out where you live, we’ll get there as fast as we can.
What Happened to the YIMBYs?
A few YIMBY leaders spoke briefly toward the end of the meeting. They showed all the vigor of the Kansas City Chiefs in Super Bowl LIX. This may have been the strongest sign that the Bonus ADU program is on life support.
What Happened to Boomhower?
Vice Chair Matthew Boomhower, the board’s most combustible member, abruptly announced after non-agenda public comment that he was recusing himself. He left without giving an explanation. Had he stayed, Boomhower would certainly have joined Miyahara in fighting to salvage Gloria’s “reform” package.
What Happened to the Code Monitoring Team?
One of many surprises from the maverick commissioners was a mention of the City’s long-lost Code Monitoring Team. Malbrough and Dennis Otsuji suggested such a group could invigorate corrective action against outlier projects.
The monitoring team was not without its critics – like all advisory boards, it was stacked with political cronies. But given the disastrous outcomes of the Bonus ADU program, any effort to slow down runaway housing policies is worth considering.
Part 2 of Takeaways will present a sampling of excerpts from public testimony and Commissioners’ comments.
The public speakers were powerful and irrefutable with their photographs and personal experiences with out-of-scale development. That can’t be ignored, though Miyahara did ignore it – didn’t even acknowledge the 3-hr. testimony and evidence in the room. Might have been a different outcome had Boomhower not recused himself or Mahzari not absent. First round – a win, thanks to Commr. Malbrough hanging tough.
I think this effort really did have an impact. When the crowd gets this loud, the commissioners begin to worry about the negativity following them into their business lives.
This turnaround in concern contrasted with the time a group went down to fight an overly dense proposal for the corner of Evers and Point Loma Ave. The appeal was granted when the commissioners were shown there was a legal issue – the historic district – that made it impossible for them to deny the appeal. But, it was what the chair for the day said at the end that fully demonstrated the real attitude.
He said that he hoped the city would go back and fix what allowed the appeal to win, the historical question, because “this is the kind of project we like to see.”
That was Boomhower. He loves the “royal we.” You can almost picture him entering the chamber wrapped in an ermine cloak and carrying an orb and scepter.
The Planning Commission has more than one type of item on its agendas. Appeals do not simply move on to the City Council. The next step for protesters is a Court Case, where the Planning Commission would defend its position. For things like Municipal Code, they make Recommendations, which go to the City Council. In this case, when all is said and done, what was the Motion? Usually, a vote to recommend follows much discussion of dissenting opinions. The 4705 Point Loma Avenue decision by the Planning Commission upheld an Appeal by a local community group, Coastal Caretakers. I have not seen the actual motion for the ADU Municipal Code, which is the decision.
They were supportive of curtailing the bonus laws but could not agree on how. Some thought that limiting it to 4 ADUs on a single family lot was too restrictive! So they asked city staff to present a few options for limiting bonus adus based on size or quantity.
But it’s about like asking a liquor store for recommendations on getting sober.
There is just to much money on this ADU gravy train for developers/contractors for it to stop. I had plans drawn up for my ADU, got three bids of the approved plans- $370,000, $340,000 and final one was $300,000, I took over the project myself, got the bids from sub’s- foundation, plumbing,electrical, framing etc. (11 subs total), after 10 months, and final permit signed off, my total cost for ADU was $185,000, I spent 10-15 hours on project for the 10 months and i did not get paid for that work, my guess is experienced GC could have done the project for $150,000 (I made mistakes), how to make a $1,000,000 a year, be a contractor and build 7 ADU’s a year, all the GC’s I spoke with had at least 5 ADU’s in their pipeline and complained about having too much work.
Just about everything that Paul Krueger said, I could relate to. I was happy to see a normal empty chamber packed full of PO’d homeowners. Lower the boom on shyster developers who game the program to their advantage and dump bomb after bomb, anywhere they deem there is infill.
The City goes, “olay” and tells the homeowners that dealing with developers is “their problem now”
What took so long to realize this was a failed piece of garbage? It should’ve been apparent when that first diseased phoenix arose at 49th st in Talmadge. Seeing apartment buildings in a backyard just didn’t make sense.
May this failed program be modified in such a way, that it is “gentle density” and not ‘in your face” like we’ve seen in so many instances, including the newspaper yesterday.
What you see everywhere is the result of this failed program that affected neighbors will have to deal with as long as they are living there.
Once again, outstanding article Kate! Finally SD communities/neighborhoods have become vocal and are showing up. Many thanks to Neighbors for a Better San Diego, in lighting that fire under the feet of the complacent residents. Great comments, and fingers crossed the neighborhoods keep the pressure on. Thanks should go to Com. Malbrough, and others for listening to the people, and standing up to the get along to go along City Planners.
STAY STRONG SD residents.