The San Diego City Council is considering rolling back an accessory dwelling unit, or ADU, incentive that has earned it high marks among housing leaders but raised the ire of some single-family homeowners.

For every ADU a property owner is willing to build that is deed-restricted for low-income or moderate-income tenants, the law says, they can build one bonus ADU and charge market-rate rent for the bonus unit.

Popularity of the program has picked up significantly with 787 ADUs approved last year under the incentive. Proponents argue it is a way to increase the city’s housing supply and create many construction jobs.

However, anti-density groups have argued that large ADU projects destroy community character and create parking nightmares.

Q: Should San Diego rework its ADU bonus program?

Economists

Norm Miller, University of San Diego

NO: All programs can be improved so my answer could be “Yes.” What we do know is that ADUs have provided a smidgen of new housing supply and that is the positive. If parking is the issue, then we should examine other programs like “Complete Communities” that allow new housing sans any parking. What we need are smaller lots and more density, no matter how it is provided.

David Ely, San Diego State University

NO: Building additional housing should be a high priority for the city, and this program is effective in advancing that goal. It motivates property owners to construct not only market-rate units but affordable housing for low-income residents as well. Both types of housing are needed. Rather than rolling back the program and losing the benefits it is creating, the city should instead focus on expanding community services to match population growth in the impacted communities.

Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research

YES: The fuss over only 787 units among 571,500 housing units in the city seems much ado about relatively little. Building more supply is key to bringing prices down. The more successful the program, the more intrusive the impact on neighborhoods. Requiring an affordable component is counterproductive by limiting numbers while making other housing costs rise more to compensate for them. Allowing multiple ADUs, not just one or two, on single properties should also be reconsidered.

Alan Gin, University of San Diego

NO: The biggest problem the local economy faces is the high cost of housing. It makes it difficult for people to live in San Diego and it makes it difficult for businesses to recruit workers. The ADU bonus program has shown that it can lead to more housing in general and more low and moderate housing. A lot of people think that more density is good and needed, as long as it is in someone else’s neighborhood.

James Hamilton, UC San Diego

YES: The core principle to keep in mind is consent of the governed. The ADU program was achieving some success, but also went too far in some cases. City Council members heard the complaints of the residents they represent and responded accordingly. I urge the city to try to mitigate the costs and roadblocks for new development in a way that benefits the entire community and that everyone can support.

Ray Major, economist

YES: The current ADU bonus program has proven to be a disastrous policy destroying our long-standing communities in the process. The program needs to be stopped immediately and re-evaluated so that the negative consequences of shoehorning a dozen units onto a single-family lot can be mitigated before it ruins even more San Diego neighborhoods. Admit that this program doesn’t work and find another way to build the housing we desperately need in the region.

Executives

Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health

YES: While we need more housing, I’ve always believed we must address that in concert with the needs of single-family home neighbors. This should not be at their expense by negatively impacting privacy and home values as well as increasing traffic congestion. We also must consider the risk of massing homes so close together in fire-risk areas. L.A. and Altadena should be a lesson for San Diego.

Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere

YES: The city council has recognized negative impacts, including destruction of community character, decreasing property values and safety concerns. While increased density can address housing needs, it’s stressing infrastructure, quality of life, and causing overdevelopment. Proper planning is crucial to balance development with community needs, considering factors like schools, parking, traffic, emergency services and utilities. Proper community planning and input should be a factor prior to allowing any aggressive development.

Phil Blair, Manpower

YES: The current guidelines have been in place for enough time to necessitate a review. If the ADU program is designed to increase the number of affordable units in our community then we need to know if it is working. Or, if it is being abused to add guest rooms or pool cabanas under the disguise of living units, then we have a problem. And especially if there is a massing of ADUs in certain neighborhoods then the regulations need to be altered.

Gary London, London Moeder Advisors

YES: Allowing multiple tiny units on a single lot is not an ADU. It is a subdivision. It should be subject to that standard of scrutiny and available mitigation. I recommend that the city change its focus to encourage the type of housing suitable for middle-income families. I propose lowering the minimum lot sizes from 5,000 square feet to 1,000 square feet to make way for family-friendly townhomes and rowhomes.

Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth

YES: Increasing the housing supply should remain a priority given the high cost of housing in San Diego. That said, well-intended legislation to incentivize ADU construction is being stretched to unintended extremes concerning the number of units built on a single plot without plans for associated infrastructure like parking. The council should rework the program to curtail these outliers but keep the general incentives for reasonable ADUs to be constructed.

©2025 The San Diego Union-Tribune. Visit sandiegouniontribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.