Considers updates to ADU ordinance
On May 11, the Planning Board held a study session to review proposed updates to zoning codes related to accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and condominium conversions. The Board signaled broad support for allowing ADUs to be converted into condominiums and sold separately. They also endorsed policies aimed at streamlining ADU construction while resisting new regulatory barriers, arguing that ADUs have become an increasingly important source of affordable housing in Alameda amid stagnant multifamily development and continuing housing shortages.
Background
State law AB 1033 allows cities to permit ADUs to be converted into condominiums and sold separately from the primary residence. ADU production in Alameda has been strong in recent years, averaging roughly 50 units annually and accounting for a growing share of the City’s housing production. Staff noted that ADUs are “inherently more affordable” than conventional single-family homes or condominiums, making them an important component of the City’s housing strategy.
Allowing ADU conversions could create home ownership opportunities for lower income buyers and encourage homeowners who would not otherwise build an ADU to do so because they could later sell the unit. Regarding the potential for reduced rental housing availability, staff noted that even if all existing ADUs were converted, they would represent less than 3% of the city’s rental housing stock.
ADU-to-condo conversions
Planning Boardmembers broadly supported allowing ADUs in Alameda to be converted into condominiums, arguing the policy would expand housing flexibility and create additional pathways to homeownership while posing limited risk to the city’s rental housing stock. Boardmember Teresa Ruiz said, “I am of a camp to provide options…for our residents, not restrict them.”
Boardmember Sunny Tsou argued that the condominium conversion process itself is complicated enough to prevent widespread abuse. He noted that homeowners would need to create condominium CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions), establish common areas, obtain lender approvals, and complete mapping and recording requirements. Boardmember Ruiz added that owners must also maintain reserves and comply with ongoing management obligations. Tsou suggested that if concerns about displacement arise, the City could consider targeted tenant protections, such as a “right of first refusal” that would allow tenants to purchase a converted ADU before it is sold on the open market.
Boardmember Hanson Hom argued that Alameda lacks sufficient opportunities for lower-income homeownership, suggesting that ADU condominiums “could … fill that gap. Nonetheless, he observed that the current condominium conversion process appears “onerous” and asked staff to explore whether Alameda could create “a streamlined process” that would make ADU condo conversions less “time-consuming,” “labor-intensive,” and costly.
Number and type of ADUs allowed
Planning Board members discussed whether Alameda should continue to allow uncapped conversions of multifamily space into ADUs, a policy more permissive than state law. Alameda’s ordinance presently allows unlimited conversion of existing multifamily space, including garages, storage areas, and other non-habitable areas, into ADUs. State law, by contrast, caps such conversions at the number of existing units on site, up to a maximum of eight.
To illustrate the issue, staff described a recent proposal which seeks to convert office, commercial, and parking areas at a large multifamily complex near South Shore into roughly 50 ADUs. This proposal would not have been possible under state standards.
ADUs provide significant incentives for developers because they are exempt from certain building code requirements, such as sprinklers when the primary structure is not sprinklered, and can also avoid impact fees that might otherwise apply to conventional residential units.
Boardmembers generally supported maintaining Alameda’s flexible policy, with Boardmember Ruiz noting that the ordinance was accomplishing its intended purpose of “allowing maximal units into our market.”
Boardmember Tsou, however, raised concerns about how far the City’s permissive ADU policies should extend. He questioned whether projects involving “100 units” or more should continue to receive exemptions from impact fees or other requirements, arguing that, at some scale, additional residents place greater demands on roads, libraries, schools, fire services, and other City infrastructure, warranting closer review. Still, Boardmember Ruiz argued that the City should view these projects as efficient reuse of existing structures.
Board Member Andy Wang said Tsou’s concerns raised an important policy question about the relationship between ADU incentives and large-scale housing production. He noted that Alameda has struggled to produce enough housing and suggested that the City should consider whether large multifamily ADU conversions could be a way to generate housing at scale.
Waived impact fees
Planning Board members discussed whether Alameda should continue waiving local impact fees for ADUs or consider imposing proportional fees on portions of ADUs larger than 750 square feet, as permitted under state law. Staff explained that Alameda currently waives all impact fees over which it has discretion for ADUs, though school impact fees still apply because they are imposed separately by the school district. Staff said the City could legally impose proportional fees on ADU square footage above 750 square feet, but emphasized that many homeowners pursue ADUs precisely because other forms of new housing construction are financially difficult or cost-prohibitive; adding new fees could discourage ADU production.
The Board was hesitant to impose new impact fees on ADUs at this time, arguing that the City is seeking ways to encourage more housing development and reduce construction barriers.
Removal of curb cuts
Planning Board members discussed Alameda’s existing policy requiring removal of curb cuts and restoration of sidewalks when garages are converted into ADUs and no longer provide a compliant parking space. Many Alameda ADU projects involve converting existing garages, often located very close to the front property line. Under current practice, if less than 18 feet remain between the former garage area and the front property line after conversion, applicants are required to remove the curb cut and restore the curb and sidewalk because the remaining space no longer qualifies as a legal parking stall.
Staff proposed formally codifying this practice in the ordinance to eliminate ambiguity and strengthen the City’s enforcement ability. The Board concurred with Board Vice President Diana Ariza noting that removing unnecessary curb cuts would create additional on-street parking.
Front-yard setbacks
Alameda’s ADU ordinance already includes side- and rear-yard setback requirements, but is silent regarding front-yard setbacks. In most residential districts, primary homes are required to maintain a 20-foot front-yard setback, though exceptions exist for substandard lots or unusual site conditions.
Overall, the Board appeared interested in maintaining some front-yard setback for non-state-exempt ADUs, while possibly allowing carefully defined exceptions for existing nonconforming conditions.
“State-exempt” refers to a category of ADUs that are protected under California state law and which local governments have limited authority to regulate. These qualify for streamlined approval if they meet state-defined standards, including a maximum size of 800 square feet, four-foot side and rear setbacks, and a maximum height of 16 feet.
Because state law preempts local control over many aspects of these units, Alameda cannot impose discretionary requirements on them beyond what state law allows. “Non-state-exempt ADUs” refer to larger or differently configured ADUs that do not qualify for state protections and therefore can be subject to additional local zoning and design standards.
Deed restrictions for JADUs
The Board discussed whether Alameda should continue requiring owner occupancy for Junior ADUs (JADUs) or eliminate that requirement. JADUs are smaller ADUs that can only be created within an existing single-family home and are subject to different restrictions.
For JADUs specifically, the owner-occupancy requirement was originally justified because JADUs may share facilities, such as bathrooms, with the primary dwelling, potentially creating conflicts between separate tenants.
The Board was inclined to remove owner-occupancy deed restrictions for JADUs beyond the limited restrictions required under state law, viewing additional requirements as unnecessary barriers to housing creation. As Boardmember Wang noted, “People share bathrooms all the time… They can work it out. They don’t need to bring the Planning Department or the Planning Board into their bathroom conflicts.”
Nonconforming additions
Planning Board members discussed whether Alameda should allow additions to existing nonconforming accessory structures being converted into ADUs to extend along existing setback encroachments rather than fully comply with modern setback requirements. The Board did not support allowing major extensions of existing nonconformities, particularly for projects involving extremely small or zero-foot setbacks.
What’s next?
Staff will return to the Planning Board, likely in June, with a revised draft ordinance incorporating the Board’s feedback for their further review.
Contributing writer Karin K. Jensen covers boards and commissions for the Alameda Post. Contact her via [email protected]. Her writing is collected at https://linktr.ee/karinkjensen and https://alamedapost.com/Karin-K-Jensen.