Oct 5, 2026
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
By Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Re: Proposed Amendment to the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Dear Alameda City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter as a public comment concerning Item 5-L on the agenda for the Council meeting scheduled for October 6, 2026, proposed amendments to the City’s regulations for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs).
We would like to thank the City for making amendments to the ordinance in response to our previous public comments.
However, the City’s proposed ordinance still contains two provisions that fail to comply with state law. The City must address these issues before adopting the ordinance.
Background
The law gives local governments authority to enact zoning ordinances implementing development standards on ADUs. (Gov. Code, § 66314.) The standards in these local ordinances are limited by state law so as not to overly restrict ADU development. (See id.) Separately from local ADU ordinances, Government Code section 66323 establishes a narrower set of ADU types that local governments have a ministerial duty to approve. “Notwithstanding Sections 66314 to 66322 … a local agency shall ministerially approve” these types of ADUs. (Id. at subd. (a).) This means that ADUs satisfying the minimal requirements of section 66323 must be approved regardless of any contrary provisions of the local ADU ordinance. Local governments may not impose their own standards on such ADUs. (Gov. Code, § 66323, subd. (b) [“A local agency shall not impose any objective development or design standard that is not authorized by this section upon any accessory 2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
[email protected]
dwelling unit that meets the requirements of any of paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (a).”]).
In addition, ADUs that qualify for the protections of Government Code section 66323, like other ADUs, must be processed by local governments within 60 days of a complete permit application submittal. (Gov. Code, § 66317, subd. (a).) State law also prohibits creating regulations on ADU development not explicitly allowed by state law. Government Code Section 66315 states, “No additional standards, other than those provided in Section 66314, shall be used or imposed, including an owner-occupant requirement, except that a local agency may require that the property may be used for rentals of terms 30 days or longer.” Impermissible Tree Ordinance Requirements
Section 30-5A(k) imposes the City’s underlying tree standards, found in section 13-21 of Chapter XIII of the City Code, on ADU development. This section contains an exception: “A State-Mandated ADU that cannot be accommodated on the lot without the removal of a protected tree(s) is exempt from this requirement.”
However, the City may not require that a 66323 ADU (i.e. “State-Mandated ADU”) be located elsewhere in the lot in order to comply with the City’s tree standards. As discussed above, Government Code section 66323, subdivision (b) specifically forbids the application of local standards to section 66323 ADUs. A tree ordinance is exactly the type of local standard forbidden by section 66323, subdivision (b).
Additionally, this provision subjects a proposed 66323 ADU to a non-objective review process by City staff. Cities may impose only “objective standards” on ADUs. (Gov. Code, § 66314, subd. (b)(1); see also Gov. Code, § 66315 [stating local jurisdictions may only impose standards authorized by section 66314].) “Objective standards” are “standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal.” (Gov. Code, § 66313, subd. (i).) This requirement is not objective, as it is impossible for an applicant to know, ex ante, whether City staff will judge that an ADU could be located elsewhere on the lot.
From page 19 of the March 2026 HCD ADU Handbook (emphasis added):
A local agency may notimpose development or design standards, including both local standards and standards found in State ADU Law, on 66323 Units that are not specifically listed in Government Code section 66323. (Gov. Code, § 66323, subds. (a), (b).) This includes, butis notlimited to, parking, height, setbacks, or other zoning provisions (e.g., lot size, open space, floor area ratio, etc.). 2 of 4
We sympathize with the City’s goals regarding protected trees. However, the City may not subject 66323 ADUs to any local standards, and this includes the ordinance’s non-objective location requirements regarding protected trees.
The City must amend its ADU ordinance to fully exempt section 66323 ADUs from these underlying tree standards.
Impermissible Historic Standards
Section 30-5A(l) imposes underlying historic standards on all ADUs, with an exception:
“except that historic review is not required for a State-Mandated ADU involving the demolition of a detached garage or accessory structure that is to be replaced with an accessory dwelling unit.”
The issue in this case is that the universe of potential historic review for a 66323 ADU under the proposed ordinance is broader than just demolition of a detached garage or accessory structure.
Code section 13-21.5(a): “No building, structure, group of structures, or site, including trees or plantings, that has been designated a Historical Monument shall be demolished, removed or altered without first referring the matter to the Historical Advisory Board for a certificate of approval …”
This means that the City’s proposed code would still require 66323 ADUs to seek a certificate of appropriateness for new construction 66323 ADUs on a historic-designated parcel if such parcel includes a designated historic “site” under the City’s historic preservation ordinance.
Furthermore, if an applicant wished to convert of a space inside a historic-designated structure into an ADU pursuant to Government Code section 66323, the City’s ordinance would require a certificate of appropriateness for the ADU to have its own exterior entrance, if such converted structure did not already have such an entrance, given that this would constitute an exterior alteration.
As discussed above, Government Code section 66323, subdivision (b) specifically forbids the application of local standards to section 66323 ADUs. This exemption includes local historic preservation and landmark ordinances.
From page 19 of the March 2026 HCD ADU Handbook (emphasis added):
A local agency may notimpose development or design standards, including both local standards and standards found in State ADU Law, on 66323 Units that are not specifically listed in Government Code section 66323. (Gov. Code, § 66323, subds. (a), (b).) This includes, butis notlimited to, parking, height, setbacks, or other zoning provisions (e.g., lot size, open space, floor area ratio, etc.). 3 of 4
The City must amend its ADU ordinance to exempt section 66323 ADUs from these underlying historic preservation standards, including a certificate of appropriateness process.
⧫ ⧫ ⧫
CalHDF appreciates the City’s effort to implement state law governing ADU construction.
However, the City should amend its ordinance to ensure that it complies with state law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
4 of 4
From: Steven Edrington
To: Jennifer Warner
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Upcoming ADU condo ordinance suggestion Date: Saturday, September 19, 2026 12:17:07 PM
Attachments: Outlook-khha0szw.png
image.png
Outlook-fpcr2ggu.png
Ms. Warner,
I reviewed the proposed ordinance and suggest considering an alternative that would allow an ADU to be separately owned through a planned development or qualifying lot split, with the land beneath each dwelling held in separate fee-simple ownership.
This approach may be particularly workable for corner lots or other properties where each dwelling can have independent access to a public right-of-way. Because some buyers are reluctant to purchase condominiums due to ongoing HOA dues and shared governance, separate ownership of the land could reduce common-area obligations and potentially minimize or eliminate HOA expenses.
Providing more than one ownership structure could make these projects more attractive to property owners and buyers. If the City’s goal is to encourage additional infill housing, this flexibility may help make more projects financially feasible.
Thank you for considering this suggestion.
Steven Edrington
President
Edrington & Associates | Adapt Dwellings
Corporate Office:
5944 Claremont Avenue, No. 2, Oakland, CA 94618
(510)749-4880 Ext. 4
Southern California Office:
3460 Wilshire Blvd., 8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90010
(213)921-8499 Ext. 4
Email: [email protected]
adaptdwellings.comedringtonandassociates.com
CSLB#1098831 DRE#01129470