CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: April 6, 2026
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING AND INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. __,
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ORDINANCE (ADU & JADU)
AMENDMENT
SYNOPSIS
A proposed amendment to the accessory dwelling unit ordinance, Section 18.15.050 of the Pleasant Hill Municipal Code, will codify provisions that were implemented as part of an Urgency Ordinance that was approved by the City Council in response to State legislation that was adopted in December 2025. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment at a public hearing on February 24, 2026, and recommended approval of the proposed amendment to the City Council.
DISCUSSION
Background/Analysis
In recent years, the California Legislature has approved, and the Governor has signed into law, numerous bills that amended various sections of the Government Code to impose new limits on local authority to regulate ADUs and JADUs. In late 2025, new bills were enacted that further amended State ADU law as summarized below.
AB 462 – Coastal Development Permits; Disaster-Affected Areas AB 462 mainly modifies several permitting requirements associated with processing Coastal Development Permits (CDP) for ADUs located in the Coastal Zone. Pleasant Hill is not, however, located within a Coastal Zone. In addition to Coastal Zone modifications, AB 462 modifies the rules governing the issuance of a certificate of occupancy (CofO) for an ADU. Historically, state law has prohibited a local agency from issuing a CofO for an ADU before one is issued for the primary dwelling (i.e., the primary dwelling must have a CofO before the ADU can receive one).
AB 462 creates a narrow exception to this prohibition for detached ADUs when all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The Governor has declared a state of emergency for the county on or after February 1, 2025;
(2) The primary dwelling was substantially damaged or destroyed by an event referenced in the state of emergency proclamation; and
(3) The ADU has been issued construction permits and passed all required inspections.
If these conditions are satisfied, the detached ADU can receive a CofO before the primary dwelling. In all other scenarios, the primary dwelling still requires issuance of a CofO before one can be issued for an ADU.
AB 462 was enacted as an urgency measure that took effect immediately when signed by the Governor (on October 10, 2025).
The following three bills were enacted as non-urgency measures and took effect on January 1, 2026:
AB 1154 – JADU Owner-Occupancy; Short-Term Rental
When a JADU is developed, existing state law requires a property owner to reside in the JADU or remaining portion of the single-family dwelling. AB 1154 narrows this requirement to apply only when a JADU shares sanitation facilities (bathroom) with the single-family dwelling. If the JADU has its own bathroom, then the property owner does not have to reside on the property at all.
AB 1154 also expressly prohibits JADUs from being used as short-term rentals (i.e., rented for a term shorter than 30 days). Most ADU ordinances, including the City of Pleasant Hill’s, already included this prohibition (as well as prohibiting ADUs from being used as short-term rentals). But the prohibition is now required by state law.
SB 9; SB 543 – ADU Ordinance Submittal to HCD; Approval Under existing law, local agencies are required to submit a copy of their ADU ordinance to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) within 60 days of adoption. This year’s SB 9 and SB 543 create a penalty for failing to do so by rendering null and void any local ordinance that is not submitted to HCD within 60 days of adoption. The bills further specify that a local ADU ordinance is null and void if HCD issues findings that the ordinance does not comply with state law and the local agency fails to respond to HCD within 30 days.
SB 543 – ADU Size; Number of ADUs; Impact Fees; Permitting Timeline SB 543 makes numerous changes and clarifications to state ADU law, the most notable of which are summarized below.
Measuring ADU & JADU Size
Existing law limits the maximum size of a JADU to 500 square feet and prohibits local ADU ordinances from imposing certain development standards that would prevent an ADU created under Government Code section 66314 through 66322 from being at least 800 square feet. SB 543 amends state ADU law to specify that allowable square footage of an ADU or JADU refers to square footage of “interior livable space.” Impact Fees
Existing law exempts ADUs that are 750 square feet or smaller from development impacts fees (DIFs). SB 543 clarifies that DIFs may not be imposed on an ADU that has 750 or fewer square feet of interior livable space and for a JADU with 500 or fewer square feet of interior livable space. The bill also exempts an ADU or JADU with fewer than 500 square feet of interior livable space from school impact fees.
Quantity of ADUs Created Under Government Code Section 66323 Existing state law creates four categories of Class 1 ADUs that must be approved if they comply with the limited standards provided in Government Code section 66323(a)(1)(4).
These four categories are:
On a Lot with a Single-Family Dwelling:
(1) A converted ADU and/or JADU created on a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling;
(2) A detached ADU created on a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling;
On a Lot with Multi-Family Dwellings:
(3) Converted ADUs created in an existing multifamily dwelling; and (4) Detached ADUs created on a lot with a proposed or existing multifamily dwelling.
For some time, there has been uncertainty as to whether ADUs created under Government Code section 66323 could be combined. Some practitioners interpreted the statute not to obligate local agencies to allow combinations. Initially, HCD took that same position, as noted in its 2020 ADU Handbook. But for the last few years, HCD has taken the opposite position that combinations are permitted.
SB 543 codifies HCD’s most recent interpretation by amending Government Code section 66323 to specifically allow certain combinations. Thus, for a lot with a singlefamily dwelling, a property owner will be able to combine categories (1) and (2) above, and for lots with multi-family dwellings, a property owner will be able to combine categories (3) and (4) above.
ADU Permitting Process
Existing law requires local agencies to approve or deny an ADU application within 60 days of receiving a complete application. However, state law has been silent with respect to incompleteness determinations, subsequent resubmittals, and appealing local decisions on ADU applications.
SB 543 requires local agencies to now:
(1) Determine whether an ADU application is complete within 15 business days of submittal;
(2) If the application is incomplete, within the same 15 days provide the applicant with a list of incomplete items and how to address them; (3) Review a resubmitted application for completeness within 15 business days; (4) Provide the applicant with a written appeal process for any incompleteness determination or denial (to the Planning Commission or City Council, or both); and
(5) Provide a final written determination on the appeal within 60 business days of receiving the appeal).
Other Amendments Adopted in Urgency Ordinance
In addition to the above amendments, which were required by State Law, through the urgency ordinance, amendments to the screening requirement for Class 2 ADUs were made based on staff consultation with the City Attorney. As part of the urgency ordinance, the City Council approved omitting the landscaping screening provisions for Class 2 ADUs, which allowed property owners to satisfy the screening requirement by planting one 15-gallon, six-foot-tall evergreen tree for every 10 linear feet of exterior wall and left the screening option to installation of a solid six-foot fence or wall. This modification was recommended and approved since landscape for screening within the statutory four-foot side and rear setbacks would leave little to no room for firefighters to maneuver around an ADU.
Planning Commission Meeting
The Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the proposed ordinance amendment at a public hearing on February 24, 2026; no public comments were received or made at the meeting.
During the discussion, the Planning Commission considered items raised by the City Council at the December 15, 2025 City Council hearing, including potentially increasing ADU height and/or allowing greater lot coverage to afford smaller residential lots greater flexibility when considering an ADU. Further, the Council was concerned with the loss of landscaping as a screening method, as it was an opportunity to have a more environmentally responsible solution to screening rather than only a solid wall or fence. The Commission expressed concerns about the secondary effects of taller detached ADUs, such as visual impacts on neighboring parcels, reduced privacy, and compatibility within the neighborhood and determined that evergreen trees located within a fourfoot setback could impede emergency access. It was noted that the modification of the screening provision would not preclude property owners from planting drought-tolerant landscaping if desired.
After discussion of the proposed ordinance amendment, the Commission recommended approval of the amendment to the City Council, as proposed by staff.
City Council Discussion Items
The Council is requested to provide input and feedback on the two discussion items, as initially discussed at the December 15, 2025 City Council hearing, and discussed by the Planning Commission at the February 24, 2026 hearing:
• Increasing ADU Building Height Allowance – Augmented building heights could allow increased flexibility for ADU development, particularly on small or constrained sites.
However, allowing increased ADU heights could result in additional massing on a site resulting in privacy, light, or air impacts for properties adjacent. • Landscape Screening – The primary rationale for removing this option for screening is that within a four-foot setback, planting a tree could obstruct access around an ADU. In addition, the use of foliage for screening is subject to the health and thickness of a tree; thus, depending on health or tree type, the treatment may not effectively screen the ADU from view. However, allowing a tree option is an environmentally superior option, as trees are healthy for the environment and certain species, once mature, could have a more visually appealing appearance.
Necessary Findings
Pursuant to PHMC §18.180, in order to approve an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission and City Council are required to make findings as follows:
1. The new ordinance section shall be consistent with the policies of the General Plan;
2. The new ordinance section shall be consistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance which is to protect and promote the public health, safety and general welfare and implement the policies of the General Plan, more specifically:
a. Provide a precise guide for the physical development of the City to preserve the character and quality of the residential neighborhoods, foster convenient, harmonious and workable relationships among land uses and achieve the arrangement of land uses described in the General Plan.
b. Promote the economic stability of existing land uses. c. Prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of land and buildings. d. Ensure the provision of adequate open space for light, air and fire safety. e. Ensure that service demands of new development will not exceed the capacities of existing streets, utilities or public services.
An analysis of the amendment’s consistency with these findings is provided under Section 1 of the attached proposed ordinance (Attachment A).
General Plan Consistency
The proposed ordinance would be consistent with existing General Plan policies and programs identified in the Land Use Element and Housing Element; an analysis of the amendment’s consistency is provided under Section 2 in the attached proposed ordinance (Attachment A).
Environmental Review
This project is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code because it is an ordinance regarding accessory dwelling units in single-family residential, multifamily residential, and mixed-use zones in compliance with Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
PUBLIC CONTACT
A notice of this public hearing was published in the Contra Costa Times on Friday, March 6 and Friday March 27, 2026. In addition, A-Frame signs notifying the public about this item have been on display at the Pleasant Hill Police Station and Library, it has been posted on the electronic message board at City Hall and notice of the meeting has also been posted on the City website and at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Introduce an ordinance replacing the urgency ordinance for Section 18.15.050 of the Pleasant Hill Municipal Code related to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units and determine the ordinance to be exempt from CEQA.
ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Do not introduce the ordinance.
2. Introduce the ordinance with amendments.
3. Continue the item to a later date with direction to staff from the City Council.
ATTACHMENT(S)
A. Proposed Ordinance (underline/strikethrough)
B. Proposed Ordinance (clean)
C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 06-26
D. Public Notice
Prepared by: Andrew Shiflet, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Troy Fujimoto, City Planner
Approved by: Ethan Bindernagel, City Manager