On March 4, after a marathon all-day session, the City Council balked at outright repealing its Accessory Dwelling Unit Bonus Program, seeking to promote building more affordable housing to alleviate the continuing housing crisis.

Instead, by a 6-3 vote, the council opted to remand the matter back to staff to return within 90 days with a repeal of the program in single-family zones. Staff was also directed to revise the ADU Bonus Program to make it align more closely with state regulations, which are more restrictive than City regulations, allowing one bonus ADU for every affordable ADU with no limitation on the total number allowed. San Diego’s Bonus ADU Program is also more liberal than the state’s, allowing ADUs to be two stories.

So many people showed up to testify in Council Chambers that an “overflow” room had to be created to accommodate them. Hundreds of people ended up testifying, either in person or online. Most of them opposed the City’s ADU Bonus Program, arguing it contains loopholes allowing developers to build apartment buildings on single-family lots as ADUs.

Several coastal-area residents testified on the City’s ADU Bonus Program.

“We favor a repeal of the ADU Bonus Program,” testified Mary Soriano, president of La Jolla Town Council. “There is a fire hazard with multiple ADUs on a lot.”

“There are a myriad of problems with the existing Bonus ADU Program,” said UC resident Bonnie Kutch. “First, they’re nothing more than unregulated apartment buildings that disrupt established neighborhoods. They’re (developers) targeting blocks with starter homes that could otherwise be used for first-time homebuyers. They create traffic congestion and deprive neighborhoods of street parking.”

Bruce Coons, a Peninsula resident and spokesperson for Save Our Heritage Organisation, a nonprofit devoted to historical preservation, said: “We were happy to support the single ADU and the junior ADU programs, and we even supported it in historic districts. But then, unbeknownst to us, this Bonus ADU Program, a complete bait and switch, was added on without proper public vetting and knowledge. We feel like we were stabbed in the back.”

District 2 Councilmember Jennifer Campbell, representing Mission Beach and the Peninsula, spoke against continuing the City’s Bonus ADU Program as presently construed. “My constituents have been so upset at the materialization of a small little box (ADU) on top of a small little box,” she said. “Call them ADUs – and you can double your money. We’re having a terrible time in District 2 with this, and I agree that this has got to be reviewed. This is important about keeping the quality of life.”

Stephen Russell, president of the San Diego Housing Federation, spoke in favor of the ADU Bonus Program. “We believe that housing is a human right, and we’re failing to provide sufficient housing,” he said, adding, “This (ADU Bonus) is a very critical housing production program. We’re in opposition to repealing it. While there’s certainly room for improvement with the program, the urgency of our housing crisis demands that we continue to produce as much housing as we possibly can. We need the housing now.”

“San Diego is in the middle of a housing crisis, and repealing the ADU Program would be a huge step in the wrong direction,” said Josh Hessler, identifying himself as a young person living in a Pacific Beach apartment. He added: “Many of my friends and family have had to leave the City because they couldn’t afford a place to live. The ADU program has been one of the few policies creating more housing options, helping families stay together and giving a way to provide more affordable rentals.”

District 4 Councilmember Henry Foster III came out in favor of repealing the City’s existing ADU Bonus Program. “We are here today because of the mayor’s unwillingness to pause the Bonus ADU Program, to address unintended consequences,” he said, adding, “The issues are citywide.

“The current ADU Bonus Program does not mitigate several unintended impacts such as additional high density, fires in various zones, locations with restricted emergency access and inefficient lot design and resource management. We should work to look at all viable options that will increase housing production and truly improve the quality of life of our communities.”