HomeMy WebLinkAboutADU-Scorecard-InterimReport-200201-1The ADU Scorecard
Center for Community Innovation
Grading ADU Ordinances in California
INTERIM REPORT | FEBRUARY 1, 202O
Authors:
Karen Chapple, Audrey Lieberworth, Eric Hernandez, Dori Ganetsos, Alejo Alvarado, and Josie Morgan
Acknowledgements:
We are grateful to Debbie Sanderson and Josh Abrams (Baird + Driskell Community Planning) for their thoughtful
input. We also thank Madeline Livingstone, Alison Spencer, Kathleen Kong, and Zoe Riering-Czekalla for their
research assistance.
Cover Photo: Kari Svanstrom
The Center for Community Innovation (CCI) at UC Berkeley nurtures
effective solutions that expand economic opportunity, diversify
housing options, and strengthen connection to place.
Center for Community Innovation
2538 Channing Way, Bldg. 9, Room 204
Berkeley, CA 94720
cci@berkeley.edu
Introduction
The ADU Scorecard 1
Introduction
Introduction
The ADU Scorecard 2
Introduction
Across the United States, but especially in California, a
shortage of housing is creating affordability challenges
for communities.1 One potential solution is increasing
the production of accessory dwelling units (ADUs),
which are separate small dwellings embedded within
single-family residential properties. Also known as
secondary units, granny flats, and in-law units, and
often located in converted garages or basements,
ADUs are a low-cost and readily implementable
approach to infill development, particularly in high-cost
cities characterized by little to no vacant land and an
abundance of single-family lots.2 In a 2016 McKinsey
report, researchers estimate that California could add up
to 790,000 housing units if homeowners are willing to
adapt their properties to accommodate ADUs.3
However, with the exception of a few cities like Los
Angeles, widespread construction of ADUs has not yet
materialized.4 Zoning laws, particularly from the post-
World War II era, have limited ADU development across
the United States.5 Even when states have attempted to
undo restrictive zoning practices, local governments still
impose burdensome regulatory requirements and delay
enactment of local laws. Barriers such as lot regulations
and fees can make ADU construction physically
impossible and deter homeowners who already face
issues such as neighbor opposition to new construction,
existence of minor code violations, or lack of financing to
cover design and construction costs.6
Thus, California has launched a concerted effort to
create ADU ordinances that facilitate production. Already
in 2003, the California State Legislature had passed
Assembly Bill 1866, which required that every state
jurisdiction have a ministerial process for approving
secondary units. Still, at that time many jurisdictions
enacted ADU ordinances that were unduly complex and
restrictive.7 Thus, in 2016, state legislators, supported
by the Bay Area Council, began enacting a new set of
reforms that addressed parking requirements, setbacks,
fees, and other barriers (see Appendix A).
This report introduces an ADU scorecard that aims to
evaluate the robustness of ADU ordinances in over 200
CA jurisdictions based on an A to F grading system. The
standardized grading method allows cities to compare
their ADU laws with other cities, and better understand
the homeowner experience in building ADUs within
their jurisdictions. The ADU scorecard accounts for 15
different ADU requirements, assessing their compliance
with state law and user-friendliness for homeowners.8
A valuable tool for policymakers, the ADU scorecard can
help cities shape ADU requirements by teaching about
ADU ordinance practices in ‘good-grade’ jurisdictions.
These provide important examples as cities must revise
their ordinances again in coming years to comply with
new state laws.
After a brief discussion of our methods, this report
describes the overall findings for California jurisdictions.
We then highlight model practices in Berkeley, Eureka,
Sebastopol, and San Diego. A conclusion summarizes
recently passed legislation and next steps.
Methodology
Methodology
The ADU Scorecard 4
For this report, we reviewed the 201 ordinances
received by California’s Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) by September 6, 2019.
We evaluated the ordinances that had been submitted
to HCD, and when information was missing from an
ordinance (e.g., for data on fees), we searched the
jurisdiction’s website. With some 540 municipalities and
counties expected to submit ordinances, this represents
37.2 percent of the state. In some cases, jurisdictions
have modified their ordinances but failed to notify the
state; we have evaluated an additional three ordinances
in this category, for a total of 204. In some cases,
jurisdictions have modified their ordinances but failed
to notify the state; we have evaluated an additional
three ordinances in this category, for a total of 206. But
when jurisdictions fail to submit an ordinance, State law
Methodology
governs their ADU regulations. When jurisdictions default
to state standards, but did not submit an ordinance, we
do not provide a grade.9
In order to “grade” the ordinances, we created a rubric to
score the ADU regulations of each city or county. There
are 15 different ADU requirements assessed, which
were translated into 16 equally weighted criteria (see
Appendix B for the grading criteria and rubric). Some of
these come from the legislation passed in 2016 or 2017,
while others come from the 2019 reforms. Three of these
offer opportunities to gain extra credit, which include
Parking Requirements for ADUs, and Maximum Size for
Attached and Detached ADUs.10 Each criterion is valued
between 5-20 points, with the exception of Additional
Layers of Entitlement or Review, for which jurisdictions
may only receive negative points. Points within each
grading criteria are cumulative. We added the scores for
each of the criteria to get a final numerical score for each
jurisdiction, which we then used to construct a curve and
assign letter grades.
A good grade reflects a regulatory environment friendly
to ADU construction. Jurisdictions with high scores do
not impose excessive zoning and permitting barriers
that could get in the way of ADU construction. A bad
grade reflects a regulatory environment that places
unnecessary and/or significant barriers in the way of
homeowners constructing ADUs. Jurisdictions with
low grades generally have burdensome regulatory
requirements that restrict ADU construction despite the
requirements of the state ADU ordinance.
Source: Stephen Schauer
How is California
Doing?
How is California Doing?
The ADU Scorecard 6
How is California Doing?
With some exceptions, California’s jurisdictions are not
producing very good ADU ordinances (see Figures 1 and
2 below, full map here, and list of grades in Appendix
C). The mean and median ADU ordinance grade in
California is C+. Not surprisingly, grades varied across the
state. California’s rural region did relatively well, with an
average B- score among its jurisdictions.11
Grades tend to reflect success in getting ADUs permitted:
there is a positive correlation (r = 0.25) between a
jurisdiction’s grade and how many ADUs it permitted in
2018. Many of the bigger municipalities that have already
amped up their ADU production got scores in the A- or
B range. For example, Los Angeles County, with an A-,
permitted 706 ADUs in 2018, and San Francisco, with an
A-, permitted 364.
Across California, jurisdictions tend to score points
for allowing generous ADU sizes, as well as including
detailed language such as about junior ADUs (JADUs).12
Where jurisdictions fall short is in adding additional
layers of review or entitlements, or charging extra fees
ranging from impact fees for parks, to fees for utility
connections, to permitting fees such as address recording
(Figure 3). In general, Northern Californian jurisdictions
perform worst in terms of these onerous requirements.
Many jurisdictions in the southern half of the state
adopt a variety of other measures that may slow ADU
production. Inland Empire jurisdictions stand out for
high minimum lot sizes, low height limits, challenging
setback regulations, and arduous parking requirements.
Height limits are also problematic in City of Los Angeles
Figure 1. San Francisco Bay Area and Capitol Region
Figure 2. Southern California
How is California Doing?
The ADU Scorecard 7
jurisdictions, and high minimum lot sizes are a barrier
in neighboring Orange County jurisdictions as well.
Jurisdictions in the Capitol and San Diego regions
do not do well in terms of height limits and parking
requirements. Many jurisdictions in the Central Valley
and rural parts of the state have ordinances which are
-16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0
Orange County
Central Valley Region
Rural Region
Inland Empire Region
Los Angeles County
San Diego County
Central Coast Region
San Francisco Bay Area
Capital Region
Northern Region
Points
Additional layers of entitlement or review Impact, utility, and/or other fees
extremely vague, and others have overly strict setback
regulations. Almost all jurisdictions in the state have
owner occupancy requirements of some kind. But there
are exceptions, as we see in the next section.
Figure 3. Points assessed for fees and review process by region.
Models to Follow
Models to Follow
The ADU Scorecard 9
Models to Follow
Berkeley: A Work in Progress
Berkeley is a city located on the eastern side of the
San Francisco Bay in Northern CA. The city is 17.69
square miles, and in 2017, the city’s population was
estimated at 122,324.
Berkeley provides an example of a jurisdiction that – in
response to community organizing – continually tweaks
its ordinance in order to spur more construction. Though
it is not a very good model (scoring a B-), its ordinance is
improving gradually. Berkeley was one of the first cities to
pass supportive ADU legislation, but over the years very
little construction resulted. To help spur ADU construction
locally, Berkeley City Council Member Ben Bartlett
established an advisory ADU Task Force. The Task Force
membership includes local community members who are
also realtors, architects, planners, developers, mortgage
specialists, and ADU advocates. It has been working
collaboratively with the broader Berkeley community and
City Council to advance ADU policy and construction in
the city.
Berkeley’s first revisions to its ADU ordinance were
adopted in 2017, and, in response to local advocacy
efforts, the City updated its ordinance again in 2018. The
amended ordinance received high marks for increasing
maximum ADU sizes from 750 to 850 sq. ft., and for
eliminating the parking requirement. This is because
the 2016 state laws prohibit parking requirements for
ADUs within half a mile of public transit, and all Berkeley
homes are located within half a mile of transit. Berkeley
also allows four feet side and rear setbacks for ADUs,
which is smaller than most jurisdictions across the state.
In addition, the City does not mention lot size minimum
requirements and allows ADUs on single family parcels
Source: Frameworks, 2011
in all zoning districts with a few exceptions. To clarify
the development process for applicants, the Berkeley
Planning Department posted ADU guidance documents
online, including a flow chart, table of development
standards, and responses to frequently asked questions.
Models to Follow
The ADU Scorecard 10
Relaxing state ADU laws in 2016 has had a significant
impact in Berkeley. In 2016, Berkeley permitted 14
ADUs, increasing to 57 in 2017, and 137 in 2018,
according to the City’s 2018 Annual Housing Element
Progress Report. However, there are still steps that local
homeowners and advocates would like to see taken
to make it easier to build ADUs, such as increasing
height limits and enforcing the 120-day planning permit
approval process. Berkeley is currently in the process
of updating its ordinance to comply with the new 2019
state ADU legislation.
Eureka: A Rural Outlier
The city of Eureka is located along the coast of
Humboldt County in Northern California. It is the
largest coastal city (14.45 square miles) between San
Francisco, CA, and Portland, OR, with a population of
27,177 (2017).
Eureka stands out among small towns in California’s rural
north for its generous ordinance and outreach efforts.
Eureka received high scores for its ADU ordinance,
which was adopted in 2019. The City does not impose
parking requirements for ADUs, nor does it require
replacement parking when an existing covered parking
space is eliminated in conjunction with the creation of an
ADU. Additionally, the City allows large maximum ADU
sizes (1,200 sq. ft.) without using language that limits
maximum percent increase, and does not mention owner
occupancy or minimum lot size requirements. Eureka’s
ADU ordinance also includes Junior ADU language, and
states that ADUs are permitted in any zoning district
where detached single family homes are a permitted
land use. Furthermore, in September 2018, the City of
Eureka and partnering agencies held a two-day ADU
Fair to educate and inspire single family homeowners to
build ADUs.
Eliminating common barriers that homeowners face
in ADU development, as well as growing public
awareness about the importance of ADUs, has been
critical. According to Eureka’s 2018 Annual Housing
Element Progress Report, just 14 ADUs were built that
year. However, the City recognizes that it needs to do
more than just revise its ordinances, and is pursuing
additional steps. Currently, the City is working to design
a pilot program that will help homeowners identify
solutions for financing ADUs. The City also recently
updated its Housing Element, and ADU development
was highlighted as a key strategy to increase housing.
There are approximately 6,000 single family residential
parcels in Eureka, and only 5% already house an ADU,
which means that the creation of ADUs could constitute
a substantial opportunity for local housing development.
City of San Diego: Financing
Affordable ADUs
The city of San Diego is located along the CA
coastline, approximately 120 miles south of Los
Angeles. San Diego is 372.39 square miles, and its
population was estimated at 1.42 million in 2017.
Though it received a relatively high score for its 2017
ordinance, San Diego stands out for its efforts to educate
homeowners and assist with finance, particularly for
low-income residents. Some of the important features
of its ADU (Companion Unit) program are eliminating
the owner occupancy requirement, relaxing parking
requirements, and expanding the zones where ADUs are
Source: Frameworks, 2011
Models to Follow
The ADU Scorecard 11
permitted. Additionally, the City allows large maximum
ADU sizes (up to 1,200 square feet) and construction
of Junior ADUs, and has eliminated development
impact fees. The City has also conducted extensive
community outreach to describe the regulations and
ADU development process to homeowners, and posted a
number of online resources for the public. These include
a helpful 42-page ADU handbook and a fact sheet with
information about ADU development standards and
responses to frequently asked questions.
Another important feature is that San Diego has
established subsidy programs to assist homeowners
with ADU development. During the 2018-2019 fiscal
year, the City set aside a $300,000 fund to help
homeowners cover water and sewer fees. The City has
increased the amount of available funding to $800,000
for the 2019-2020 fiscal year. In addition, the City’s
Housing Commission is launching a pilot program to
build 40 ADUs of varying sizes and designs for low
income tenants. The ADUs will be built adjacent to
single-family dwellings on land that the Commission
owns. The purpose of this program is to identify costs,
development timelines, the construction process, and
potential hurdles in advance of launching a loan program
in Spring 2020 to help low income homeowners build
ADUs on their property.
In response to these measures, the City has witnessed
an astronomical rise in the number of ADUs built in the
past few years. According to the City’s Annual Housing
Element Progress Report, 215 ADUs were constructed
in 2018 alone. However, homeowners are still concerned
about permitting challenges in the Coastal Zone, which
prohibit more widespread construction of ADUs.
Sebastopol: A Model User-Friendly
Ordinance
Sebastopol is a small city located in Sonoma County in
Northern California. It is just 1.86 square miles in size,
and in 2017 Sebastopol’s population was estimated at
7,666 residents.
Sebastopol runs a model ADU program, as exemplified
by its overall permissiveness in terms of ADU
construction and active promotion of ADUs. Its high-
scoring ADU ordinance was first adopted in 2017
and later amended in 2018. It does not impose any
parking requirements on new ADUs, exempts ADUs
from the city’s residential lot coverage requirements,
and allows two story ADUs to be constructed up to 25
feet tall. In addition to allowing ADUs in all residential
zoning districts, Sebastopol also allows an ADU to
be constructed on any parcel already containing an
existing single-family home, regardless of whether or
not that parcel is currently zoned for residential uses.
Source: City of San Diego ADU Fact Sheet, 2018. http://www.
revisionsresources.org/wp-content/uploads/City-of-San-Diego-ADU-
Fact-Sheet-for-Homeowners-Final-wo-AARP.pdf
Source: Sonoma West Times & News
Models to Follow
The ADU Scorecard 12
The ordinance allows for the construction of junior
ADUs. Sebastopol does not require owner occupancy
for either the primary unit or the accessory dwelling unit.
Sebastopol’s 2018 amendments increased the maximum
permissible unit size for ADUs proposed on lots greater
than 10,000 square feet from 840 square feet to 1,000
square feet. Additionally, Sebastopol is already in the
process of updating its ordinance to comply with the new
2019 state ADU legislation.
The City developed supporting documents making
the ADU requirements more user-friendly and easy
to understand for property owners. Notably, these
documents contain detailed information about the types
of fees, e.g., sample fee amounts for an 840 square foot
unit, that a property owner should expect to pay upon
Building Permit issuance. In addition to developing online
resources, Sebastopol collaborated with Sonoma County
in 2018 to host a “Raise the Roof” housing fair and expo.
This event helped spread awareness about ADUs and
JADUs to 150 attendees, and demonstrates Sebastopol’s
commitment to promoting ADUs as a viable tool to
address the housing crisis. Since Sebastopol’s ADU
program began, the City lowered the fees associated
with both standard ADUs and Junior ADUs to make
them more financially feasible to construct. The City’s
ordinance also promotes manufactured and mobile home
ADUs as a viable construction typology. According to
Sebastopol’s Annual Housing Element Report, 16 ADUs
were constructed in 2018.
Models to Follow
The ADU Scorecard 13
Next Steps
Next Steps
The ADU Scorecard 14
Next Steps
New state legislation that went into effect on January
1, 2020 forces cities to remove some of the remaining
barriers to ADU construction. Per AB 68, localities are
no longer able to require a minimum lot size, rear and
side setback more than 4’, or replacement parking when
converting a garage to an ADU. SB 13 removes impact
fees for ADUs less than 750 square feet and adjusts
them proportional to the unit size if larger. SB 13 and
AB 881 also remove owner-occupancy requirements
for five years. In addressing these new requirements,
jurisdictions will be able to improve their ordinances (and
grades!) substantially.
Equally importantly, new state legislation provides a
pathway to bring unpermitted units up to code (SB 13),
allows for a JADU and ADU on the same lot (AB 68),
prohibits common interest developments from prohibiting
ADUs (AB 670), pushes the state and localities to
encourage affordable ADU rentals (AB 671), enforces
ordinance non-compliance via the Attorney General’s
office (AB 68), and allows Habitat for Humanity, to sell
deed-restricted land to eligible low-income homeowners
(AB 587). Hopefully future legislation will address
the few barriers that remain, such as lot coverage
regulations, height limits, and multiple ADUs on a lot, as
well as create new financial incentives for construction.
California has come a long way, but as this report shows,
passing new legislation is insufficient. Many jurisdictions
remain out of compliance or simply missing in action,
and only a handful are modeling best practices. Here at
UC Berkeley’s Center for Community Innovation, we will
continue monitoring compliance, updating grades on
an ongoing basis as new ordinances come in. Moving
forward, we will create an interactive web portal (http://
www.aducalifornia.org) that will allow us to collect more
information on barriers from local officials and residents.
Together, we can scale up ADU production in California.
Source: Frameworks, 2011
Next Steps
The ADU Scorecard 15
Endnotes
1 Elizabeth Kneebone and Mark Trainer, How Housing Supply Shapes Access to Entry-Level Homeownership, (Berkeley,
Terner Center for Housing Innovation, 2019); Elizabeth Kneebone and Mark Trainer, How Housing Supply Shapes Access to
Opportunity for Renters, (Berkeley, Terner Center for Housing Innovation, 2019).
2 Chapple, Karen, Jake Wegmann, Alison Nemirow, and Colin Dentel-Post, “Yes In My Backyard: Mobilizing the Market for
Secondary Units.” (Berkeley, Center for Community Innovation, 2012).
3 Jonathan Woetzel, Jan Mischke, Shannon Peloquin, and Daniel Weisfield, A Tool Kit to Close California’s Housing Gap:
3.5 Million Homes by 2025, (New York, McKinsey Global Institute, 2016), https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/
Featured%20Insights/Urbanization/Closing%20Californias%20housing%20gap/Closing-Californias-housing-gap-Full-report.
ashx.
4 Notable exceptions are Portland and Vancouver. See: Karen Chapple, Jake Wegmann, Farzad Mashhood, and Rebecca
Coleman, Jumpstarting the Market for Accessory Dwelling Units: Lessons Learned from Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver,
(Berkeley, Terner Center for Housing Innovation, Center for Community Innovation, and ULI, 2017), https://ternercenter.
berkeley.edu/uploads/ADU_report_4.18.pdf.
5 For examples, see http://www.accessorydwellings.org.
6 Karen Chapple, Jake Wegmann, Alison Nemirow, and Colin Dentel-Post, Yes in My Backyard: Mobilizing the Market for
Secondary Units, (Berkeley, Center for Community Innovation, 2012).
7 Ibid.
8 There are 15 ADU requirements assessed. However, the Maximum Size for Attached ADUs is graded separately from the
Maximum Size for Detached ADUs, given that there are commonly different maximum size limits imposed based on the pro-
posed unit typology. This created 16 total individual grading criteria.
9 Presumably, by following state standards, they deserve a good grade; but without the ordinance, we have insufficient
evidence to assess their implementation.
10 Jurisdictions received extra credit for Parking Requirements for ADUs if they reduce parking barriers beyond what is
required in CA ADU law. For example, not requiring parking for ADUs that are studios (with zero bedrooms) or allowing
parking in tandem and/or setbacks. We also gave jurisdictions extra credit for Maximum Size for Attached and Detached
ADUs if they did not include the language limiting the maximum size percent increase for either or both criteria. This is
another indicator that the jurisdiction is reducing barriers to ADU development.
11 In this report, we organize our findings using the regions designated by California’s Tax Credit Allocation Committee,
available here: https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/apportionment/presentation.pdf. We modify the geographies slightly; for
instance, we present San Francisco as part of the Bay Area region, not as a stand-alone geography.
12 A JADU is an independent living unit of less than 500 square feet carved out of a single-family residence via the
conversion of an existing room.
Next Steps
The ADU Scorecard 16
Appendices
Appendix A
The ADU Scorecard 17
The first three bills (SB 1069, AB 2299, and AB 2406) came into effect on January 1, 2017, with the following
provisions:
• reducing parking requirements to one space per bedroom or unit;
• allowing parking in tandem or setbacks;
• exempting parking requirements under certain conditions, such as proximity to public transit;
• removing sprinkler requirements;
• prohibiting cities from requiring new utility connections (or capacity charges for internal ADUs);
• allowing ADUs within existing space ministerially;
• permitting ADUs up to 1,200 in floor area;
• eliminating setback requirements for existing garages; and
• authorizing local governments to permit junior ADUs (JADUs), or efficiency units within the main house.
The Legislature passed another set of ADU provisions effective January 1, 2018 (SB 229 and AB 494). In addition to
clarifying some aspects of the previous bills, these included:
• allowing new single-family home construction to include an ADU;
• permitting new ADUs in all zoning districts that allow single-family uses;
• modifying fees from utilities, such as water districts, to be proportional in scale to ADU size;
• further reducing the parking required to just one space; and
• allowing lot configuration for replacement parking.
Finally, a new law (SB 1226) effective January 1, 2019 provides a path to legality for ADUs built without a building
permit, by complying with building standards in effect at the time the unit was constructed.
Appendix A
Appendix B
The ADU Scorecard 18
Appendix B
Table 1. Grading Criteria Descriptions
Criterion Definition Rationale
Lot Size
Minimum
Enforced minimum area of a lot
which an ADU is built on
Jurisdictions may use unreasonable lot size minimums as a way to
prevent the construction of ADUs. Low minimum lot sizes also allow
for more affordably sized units to be constructed for lower-income
residents. Our rubric considers a low minimum lot size or no minimum
lot size at all to be a positive factor influencing the accessibility of
accessory dwelling units particularly to lower income residents.
Lot Coverage
and Floor
Area Ratio
(FAR)
Requirements
How ADUs must comply with
the maximum lot coverage and/
or FAR requirements for the
underlying parcel
Jurisdictions that include ADUs in the lot coverage and/or FAR for the
underlying parcel may limit the size and overall ability to construct an
ADU.
Parking
Requirements
for ADU
Number and configuration of
required parking spaces
Lack of accessible parking to fulfill requirements can serve as a major
deterrent to a resident who wishes to construct an ADU. Jurisdictions
are eligible to receive bonus points for this criteria if they grant
any additional parking exemptions (i.e., allow parking in tandem
or setback areas), on top of the five standard parking exemptions
included in the CA code.
Parking
Requirements
for Main
House
Replacement parking for
the primary unit if a garage
or parking structure is
converted into or demolished
in conjunction with the
construction of an ADU.
Lack of accessible parking to fulfill requirements can serve as a
major deterrent to a resident who wishes to construct an ADU. Many
residents who convert their garage or parking structure into an
ADU do so because of a lack of space for the construction of a new
structure, meaning that they lack extra room on their residential parcel
to be used for off-street parking requirements.
Setback
Requirements:
Conversion
Setback rules for a garage
or parking structure which is
converted into an ADU
California ordinance AB 494 requires that ordinances do not contain
any setback requirements for a garage or parking structure which
is converted into an ADU. By requiring setbacks, jurisdictions are
restricting the accessibility of ADU construction for homeowners with
existing garages close to the lot line.
Setback
Requirements:
New ADU
Setback rules for an ADU
which is a newly constructed
structure and not the product
of the conversion of a previous
structure.
By law, homeowners may construct an ADU within the setback of
the primary unit and by requiring extra setbacks for new ADUs or by
requiring new ADUs to conform to district requirements, jurisdictions
are restricting the accessibility of ADU construction for residents who
are unable to comply.
Maximum
Size -
Detached &
Attached
Maximum floor area (in square
feet) of the ADU allowed by the
ordinance.
Jurisdictions may limit resident’s access to building permits
by requiring an unreasonably low maximum size for the ADU.
Jurisdictions are eligible to receive bonus points for this criteria if they
do not include ordinance language limiting maximum size percent
increase.
Appendix B
The ADU Scorecard 19
Criterion Definition Rationale
Height Limit Maximum height (in feet) of the
ADU stated in the ordinance.
Jurisdictions may minimize residents’ ability to construct an ADU by
providing unreasonably strict height limits. We issued a grade based
on the larger height limit in the event that more than one height limit
was stated in an ordinance (i.e., one height limit for detached, and
another for attached ADUs).
Multiple ADUs
and Multi-
Family Zoning
Districts
Zoning districts within which
ADU construction is allowed
(single-family or multiple-
family)
Limiting the allowable zoning districts for ADUs prevents some
homeowners from building ADUs. This criteria also refers to whether
or not the ordinance allows for the construction of ADUs on multi-
family zoned parcels or if it only allows for the construction of ADUs
on single-family zoned parcels.
Review
Timeframe
Number of days that may
pass after an ADU application
is submitted before the
application is ministerially
approved
California ordinances SB 229 and AB 494 require that ADU
applications be ministerially approved; by delaying the process
of ministerial approval, jurisdiction make it more difficult for a
homeowner to obtain permits and begin construction.
Additional
Layers of
Entitlement or
Review
Additional permit and approval
requirements for ADUs, such
as design review or deed
restrictions
These may include design review, recordation of deed restriction,
conditional use permits (for height, size, lot coverage, etc), approval
of adequate water / sewer infrastructure, and more. These
additional layers may incur more time and costs, which may inhibit
the homeowner’s ability to build an ADU. Jurisdictions only receive
negative points for this criterion.
Fees
Common fees associated with
unit construction including
building permit or application
fee, utility fees, connection or
capacity charges, park fees,
affordable housing fees, and
school fees.
This criteria considers not only common fees but also reduction or
waiver of planning or impact fees. Fees may act as a major deterrent
to residents, especially low-income residents, who wish to construct
an ADU.
JADU /
Efficiency
Units
Contents of ordinance language
and rules regarding junior
accessory dwelling units and
efficiency units
JADUs and efficiency units are a very accessible option for residents
who do not have the resources to construct a detached accessory
dwelling unit and by restricting them or omitting them entirely,
jurisdictions may prevent their construction.
Owner
Occupancy
Requirement
Requirements for the owner
of the ADU and primary
dwelling unit to live in either the
accessory dwelling unit or the
primary dwelling unit.
Jurisdiction may restrict access to ADU construction through strict
requirements regarding owner occupancy, which then hinder financial
viability for homeowners who need the rental income, or have
constraints that prohibit them from living on-site.
Clarity of
Program or
Ordinance
Including all key code and
procedural information in
the ADU ordinance or clearly
elsewhere in the municipal code
or handouts online
Ordinances must provide information in a user-friendly format and
make it publicly accessible to homeowners.
Appendix B
The ADU Scorecard 20
Table 2. Grading Rubric.
Letter Grade Points
A 89 <
A-75 to 89
B+60 to 74
B 45 to 59
B-30 to 44
C+15 to 29
C 0 to 14
C--15 to -1
D -40 to -16
F < -40
Appendix C
The ADU Scorecard 21
Table 3. Grades
Appendix C
Jurisdiction Grade
Number
of ADUs
Permitted
in 2018
Year
Ordinance
Adopted/
Amended
Ordinance Link
ADELANTO -----
AGOURA HILLS B+6 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/agoura-hills-01-18-2018.pdf
ALAMEDA B 0 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/alameda-city-02-13-2018.pdf
ALAMEDA COUNTY C+20 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Alameda-County-04-24-2019.pdf
ALBANY --39 --
ALHAMBRA D 27 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/alhambra-02-27-2018.pdf
ALISO VIEJO B-0 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/aliso-viejo-12-15-2017.pdf
ALPINE COUNTY --1 --
ALTURAS --0 --
AMADOR -----
AMADOR COUNTY --0 --
AMERICAN CANYON --3 --
ANAHEIM C-15 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Anaheim-9-21-2017.pdf
ANDERSON --0 --
ANGELS CAMP --1 --
ANTIOCH B-4 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Antioch-update-01-15-2019.pdf
APPLE VALLEY C+0 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Apple-Valley-08-31-2018.pdf
ARCADIA C+16 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Arcadia-07-12-2017.pdf
ARCATA --18 --
ARROYO GRANDE C+26 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/arroyo-grande-05-25-2018.pdf
ARTESIA C-0 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/artesia-03-26-2018.pdf
ARVIN --0 --
ATASCADERO --11 --
ATHERTON --13 --
ATWATER --0 --
AUBURN --1 --
AVALON --0 --
AVENAL --1 --
AZUSA B-12 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/azusa-07-22-2019.pdf
BAKERSFIELD --0 --
BALDWIN PARK --13 --
BANNING --0 --
BARSTOW C 0 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/barstow-02-06-2018.pdf
BEAUMONT C -2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Beaumont-12-12-2017.pdf
Appendix C
The ADU Scorecard 22
Jurisdiction Grade
Number
of ADUs
Permitted
in 2018
Year
Ordinance
Adopted/
Amended
Ordinance Link
BELL -----
BELL GARDENS -----
BELLFLOWER C-0 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/bellflower-03-06-2018.pdf
BELMONT B+11 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Belmont-05-23-2017.pdf
BELVEDERE --0 --
BENICIA B 3 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Benicia-02-20-2019.pdf
BERKELEY B-137 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/berkeley-update-06-06-2018.pdf
BEVERLY HILLS C+0 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Beverly-Hills-02-07-2017.pdf
BIG BEAR LAKE B-3 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/big-bear-lake-07-23-2019.pdf
BIGGS --0 --
BISHOP --1 --
BLUE LAKE -----
BLYTHE -----
BRADBURY -----
BRAWLEY --0 --
BREA --0 --
BRENTWOOD --7 --
BRISBANE B-8 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Brisbane-04-25-17.pdf
BUELLTON --0 --
BUENA PARK C-8 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/buena-park-06-13-2018.pdf
BURBANK B-83 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/burbank-06-04-2018.pdf
BURLINGAME C-10 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Burlingame-10-31-2018.pdf
BUTTE COUNTY --15 --
CALABASAS C+7 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/calabasas-11-16-17.pdf
CALAVERAS COUNTY B-0 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/calaveras-county-07-12-2018.pdf
CALEXICO B-0 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Calexico-09-25-2018.pdf
CALIFORNIA CITY -----
CALIMESA --1 --
CALIPATRIA -----
CALISTOGA B 6 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Calistoga-3-21-2017.pdf
CAMARILLO --9 --
CAMPBELL C 8 2016 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Campbell-12-16-2016.pdf
CANYON LAKE --0 --
CAPITOLA --3 --
CARLSBAD B-69 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/carlsbad-10-28-17.pdf
CARMEL -----
CARPINTERIA --0 --
CARSON --0 --
CATHEDRAL --2 --
CERES --2 --
Appendix C
The ADU Scorecard 23
Jurisdiction Grade
Number
of ADUs
Permitted
in 2018
Year
Ordinance
Adopted/
Amended
Ordinance Link
CERRITOS --0 --
CHICO C 7 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/chico-04-02-2018.pdf
CHINO C-0 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Chino-9-18-2017.pdf
CHINO HILLS D 0 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/chino-hills-12-05-2017.pdf
CHOWCHILLA C+0 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/chowchilla-01-12-18.pdf
CHULA VISTA C 16 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/chula-vista-05-10-2018.pdf
CITRUS HEIGHTS B+6 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Citrus-Heights-08-04-2017.pdf
CLAREMONT --4 --
CLAYTON --0 --
CLEARLAKE --0 --
CLOVERDALE --8 --
CLOVIS --9 --
COACHELLA --0 --
COALINGA --0 --
COLFAX --0 --
COLMA C+0 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Colma-07-07-2017.pdf
COLTON C+4 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Colton-02-19-2019.pdf
COLUSA -----
COLUSA COUNTY --2 --
COMMERCE -----
COMPTON --6 --
CONCORD B 35 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Concord-04-12-17.pdf
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY D 94 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/contra-costa-co-12-05-2017.pdf
CORCORAN -----
CORNING --0 --
CORONA B 3 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/corona-01-03-2019.pdf
CORONADO D 13 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/coronado-02-28-2018-amended.pdf
CORTE MADERA B-12 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Corte-Madera-01-09-2017.pdf
COSTA MESA D 6 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/costa-mesa-02-20-2018.pdf
COTATI --2 --
COVINA --1 --
CRESCENT CITY -----
CUDAHY -----
CULVER CITY D 54 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Culver-City-08-01-2017.pdf
CUPERTINO --15 --
CYPRESS -----
DALY CITY --130 --
DANA POINT --6 --
DANVILLE --39 --
DAVIS B-25 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Davis-05-01-2019.pdf
Appendix C
The ADU Scorecard 24
Jurisdiction Grade
Number
of ADUs
Permitted
in 2018
Year
Ordinance
Adopted/
Amended
Ordinance Link
DEL MAR --3 --
DEL NORTE COUNTY --3 --
DEL REY OAKS --0 --
DELANO --0 --
DESERT HOT SPRINGS --0 --
DIAMOND BAR --12 --
DINUBA --0 --
DIXON --0 --
DORRIS --0 --
DOS PALOS -----
DOWNEY C+3 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/downey-07-25-2018.pdf
DUARTE D 7 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Duarte-04-20-2017.pdf
DUBLIN --30 --
DUNSMUIR --0 --
EAST PALO ALTO C 7 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/East-Palo-Alto-1-31-2017.pdf
EASTVALE --0 --
EL CAJON C 20 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/El-Cajon-06-13-2017.pdf
EL CENTRO --18 --
EL CERRITO --16 --
EL DORADO COUNTY --24 --
EL MONTE --6 --
EL SEGUNDO B 5 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/El-Segundo-07-17-2017.pdf
ELK GROVE --0 --
EMERYVILLE C+0 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/emeryville-11-28-2017.pdf
ENCINITAS B+55 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Encinitas-02-26-2019.pdf
ESCALON --0 --
ESCONDIDO C 24 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/escondido-12-06-2017.pdf
ETNA --0 --
EUREKA A-14 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/eureka-06-17-2019.pdf
EXETER --0 --
FAIRFAX B 12 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/fairfax-11-13-2017.pdf
FAIRFIELD C+5 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/fairfield-02-26-2018.pdf
FARMERSVILLE --0 --
FERNDALE -----
FILLMORE -----
FIREBAUGH --0 --
FOLSOM C-15 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Folsom-05-19-17.pdf
FONTANA --18 --
FORT BRAGG --5 --
FORT JONES -----
Appendix C
The ADU Scorecard 25
Jurisdiction Grade
Number
of ADUs
Permitted
in 2018
Year
Ordinance
Adopted/
Amended
Ordinance Link
FORTUNA --3 --
FOSTER CITY C-1 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/foster-city-03-13-2018.pdf
FOUNTAIN VALLEY B-19 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/fountain-valley-12-14-2017.pdf
FOWLER -----
FREMONT C 43 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Fremont-01-03-17.pdf
FRESNO --9 --
FRESNO COUNTY --1 --
FULLERTON C+19 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Fullerton-09-18-2017.pdf
GALT --0 --
GARDEN GROVE C -2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/garden-grove-10-17-17.pdf
GARDENA B-12 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Gardena-08-22-2017.pdf
GILROY C 0 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/gilroy-01-29-2018.pdf
GLENDALE C 68 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/glendale-amended-03-12-2018.pdf
GLENDORA C+8 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Glendora-05-09-17.pdf
GLENN COUNTY C+-2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/glenn-county-10-23-17.pdf
GOLETA C+0 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/goleta-07-06-2018.pdf
GONZALES --0 --
GRAND TERRACE C 0 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Grand-Terrace-06-28-17.pdf
GRASS VALLEY --0 --
GREENFIELD --1 --
GRIDLEY --0 --
GROVER BEACH --5 --
GUADALUPE C 2 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Guadalupe-03-14-2019.pdf
GUSTINE -----
HALF MOON BAY --12 --
HANFORD --0 --
HAWAIIAN GARDENS --0 --
HAWTHORNE --14 --
HAYWARD C+5 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/hayward-11-30-17.pdf
HEALDSBURG A-18 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Healdsburg-02-03-2017.pdf
HEMET C+0 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/hemet-01-22-2018.pdf
HERCULES C 1 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Hercules-01-30-2019.pdf
HERMOSA BEACH C+3 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Hermosa-Beach-10-31-2018.pdf
HESPERIA -----
HIDDEN HILLS --1 --
HIGHLAND --2 --
HILLSBOROUGH B+29 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Hillsborough-exceptions-02-01-2019.pdf
HOLLISTER --0 --
HOLTVILLE -----
Appendix C
The ADU Scorecard 26
Jurisdiction Grade
Number
of ADUs
Permitted
in 2018
Year
Ordinance
Adopted/
Amended
Ordinance Link
HUGHSON --0 --
HUMBOLDT COUNTY --12 --
HUNTINGTON BEACH -----
HUNTINGTON PARK -----
HURON --0 --
IMPERIAL --0 --
IMPERIAL BEACH --4 --
IMPERIAL COUNTY -----
INDIAN WELLS --0 --
INDIO C 0 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/indio-10-24-17.pdf
INDUSTRY --0 --
INGLEWOOD -----
INYO COUNTY -----
IONE --0 --
IRVINE C+1 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/irvine-05-01-2018.pdf
IRWINDALE --0 --
ISLETON --0 --
JACKSON --2 --
JURUPA VALLEY B-7 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/jurupa-valley-06-07-18.pdf
KERMAN --1 --
KERN COUNTY D 0 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/kern-county-07-11-2017.pdf
KING CITY --3 --
KINGS COUNTY --0 --
KINGSBURG -----
LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE C 5 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/la-canada-flintridge-11-28-2017.pdf
LA HABRA --5 --
LA HABRA HEIGHTS --0 --
LA MESA --24 --
LA MIRADA -----
LA PALMA --0 --
LA PUENTE -----
LA QUINTA C+0 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/la-quinta-04-19-2019.pdf
LA VERNE --3 --
LAFAYETTE B-11 2016 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Lafayette-12-20-2016.pdf
LAGUNA BEACH --13 --
LAGUNA HILLS C+0 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Laguna-Hills-01-10-2019.pdf
LAGUNA NIGUEL --1 --
LAGUNA WOODS --0 --
LAKE COUNTY --6 --
LAKE ELSINORE --0 --
Appendix C
The ADU Scorecard 27
Jurisdiction Grade
Number
of ADUs
Permitted
in 2018
Year
Ordinance
Adopted/
Amended
Ordinance Link
LAKE FOREST C+2 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Lake-Forest-07-12-2017.pdf
LAKEPORT --0 --
LAKEWOOD --16 --
LANCASTER --1 --
LARKSPUR --2 --
LASSEN COUNTY -----
LATHROP --0 --
LAWNDALE --9 --
LEMON GROVE --12 --
LEMOORE --0 --
LINCOLN --3 --
LINDSAY --0 --
LIVE OAK --0 --
LIVERMORE C+43 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/livermore-06-21-2018.pdf
LIVINGSTON --0 --
LODI --0 --
LOMA LINDA --4 --
LOMITA B+13 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/lomita-3-28-2018.pdf
LOMPOC --2 --
LONG BEACH C+59 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/long-beach-02-26-2018.pdf
LOOMIS --0 --
LOS ALAMITOS C+-2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/los-alamitos-12-20-2017.pdf
LOS ALTOS B 32 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/los-altos-06-03-2019.pdf
LOS ALTOS HILLS --21 --
LOS ANGELES A-5049 2018 https://planning.lacity.org/ordinances/docs/ADU/Ordinance.pdf
LOS ANGELES COUNTY B+706 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/los-angeles-county-05-15-2019.pdf
LOS BANOS --0 --
LOS GATOS A-45 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/los-gatos-03-13-2018.pdf
LOYALTON -----
LYNWOOD --0 --
MADERA --0 --
MADERA COUNTY --0 --
MALIBU --6 --
MAMMOTH LAKES C+1 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Mammoth-Lakes-02-15-2017.pdf
MANHATTAN BEACH --0 --
MANTECA --0 --
MARICOPA --0 --
MARIN COUNTY --10 --
MARINA --16 --
Appendix C
The ADU Scorecard 28
Jurisdiction Grade
Number
of ADUs
Permitted
in 2018
Year
Ordinance
Adopted/
Amended
Ordinance Link
MARIPOSA COUNTY --4 --
MARTINEZ --3 --
MARYSVILLE --0 --
MAYWOOD -----
MCFARLAND -----
MENDOCINO COUNTY B-0 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Mendocino-County-11-19-2018.pdf
MENDOTA -----
MENIFEE --0 --
MENLO PARK C-27 2017 https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/MenloPark/html/MenloPark16/MenloPark1679.html#16.79
MERCED --0 --
MERCED COUNTY C-4 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Merced-County-12-26-2017.pdf
MILL VALLEY C+29 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Mill-Valley-02-1-2017.pdf
MILLBRAE --1 --
MILPITAS --1 --
MISSION VIEJO --0 --
MODESTO --2 --
MODOC COUNTY -----
MONO COUNTY --3 --
MONROVIA C-10 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Monrovia-07-20-2017.pdf
MONTAGUE --0 --
MONTCLAIR --1 --
MONTE SERENO C-12 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Monte-Sereno-05-08-2019.pdf
MONTEBELLO -----
MONTEREY --13 --
MONTEREY COUNTY --20 --
MONTEREY PARK -----
MOORPARK C 4 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Moorpark-06-24-2019.pdf
MORAGA C+1 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/moraga-03-01-2018.pdf
MORENO VALLEY --1 --
MORGAN HILL C -2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/morgan-hill-07-19-2018.pdf
MORRO BAY --8 --
MOUNT SHASTA --1 --
MOUNTAIN VIEW --11 --
MURRIETA --0 --
NAPA B-45 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Napa-City-04-13-2017.pdf
NAPA COUNTY --16 --
NATIONAL CITY --0 --
NEEDLES --0 --
NEVADA CITY --1 --
Appendix C
The ADU Scorecard 29
Jurisdiction Grade
Number
of ADUs
Permitted
in 2018
Year
Ordinance
Adopted/
Amended
Ordinance Link
NEVADA COUNTY C+19 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Nevada-County-06-04-2019-update.pdf
NEWARK --0 --
NEWMAN -----
NEWPORT BEACH C 3 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/NewportBeach-update-02-13-2019.pdf
NORCO -----
NORWALK C+1 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/norwalk-04-19-2018.pdf
NOVATO B 11 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/novato-03-20-2018.pdf
OAKDALE --0 --
OAKLAND B+405 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/oakland-03-07-2018.pdf
OAKLEY C 0 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/oakley-05-16-2019.pdf
OCEANSIDE B 44 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/oceanside-updated-07-23-2018.pdf
OJAI B 24 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Ojai-9-7-2017.pdf
ONTARIO --0 --
ORANGE --15 --
ORANGE COUNTY --17 --
ORANGE COVE --0 --
ORINDA C 8 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/orinda-04-16-2018.pdf
ORLAND --0 --
OROVILLE --0 --
OXNARD C+25 2016 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Oxnard-12-27-2016.pdf
PACIFIC GROVE --7 --
PACIFICA C+10 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Pacifica-06-10-2019-amendment.pdf
PALM DESERT --0 --
PALM SPRINGS B--2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Palm-Springs-03-27-2019.pdf
PALMDALE --0 --
PALO ALTO C+36 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Palo-Alto-updated-01-03-2019.pdf
PALOS VERDES ESTATES --1 --
PARADISE -----
PARAMOUNT F 0 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/paramount-06-04-2018.pdf
PARLIER -----
PASADENA C-14 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Pasadena-03-13-2017.pdf
PASO ROBLES --15 --
PATTERSON -----
PERRIS --0 --
PETALUMA --30 --
PICO RIVERA -----
PIEDMONT B 23 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Piedmont-05-23-2017.pdf
PINOLE D 4 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Pinole-09-26-2017.pdf
PISMO BEACH --4 --
Appendix C
The ADU Scorecard 30
Jurisdiction Grade
Number
of ADUs
Permitted
in 2018
Year
Ordinance
Adopted/
Amended
Ordinance Link
PITTSBURG --0 --
PLACENTIA --2 --
PLACER COUNTY C+48 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/placer-county-12-13-2017.pdf
PLACERVILLE C 4 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/placerville-11-06-2017.pdf
PLEASANT HILL --9 --
PLEASANTON C+14 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Pleasanton-6-13-17.pdf
PLUMAS COUNTY --2 --
PLYMOUTH --0 --
POINT ARENA --0 --
POMONA --19 --
PORT HUENEME D 2 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Port-Hueneme-03-26-2019.pdf
PORTERVILLE --6 --
PORTOLA -----
PORTOLA VALLEY C+14 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/portola-valley-06-13-18.pdf
POWAY D 1 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Poway-10-24-2018.pdf
RANCHO CORDOVA --0 --
RANCHO CUCAMONGA --5 --
RANCHO MIRAGE C-0 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Rancho-Mirage-05-09-2019.pdf
RANCHO PALOS VERDES --2 --
RANCHO ST. MARGARITA --0 --
RED BLUFF C 0 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/red-bluff-07-13-2018.pdf
REDDING C+0 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Redding-06-14-2017.pdf
REDLANDS -----
REDONDO BEACH --16 --
REDWOOD CITY --52 --
REEDLEY B-1 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Reedley-ord-03-04-2019.pdf
RIALTO -----
RICHMOND --1 --
RIDGECREST -----
RIO DELL --0 --
RIO VISTA --0 --
RIPON -----
RIVERBANK --0 --
RIVERSIDE C+2 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Riverside-City-03-29-2019.pdf
RIVERSIDE COUNTY --51 --
ROCKLIN --1 --
ROHNERT PARK B 3 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Rohnert-Park-05-23-17.pdf
ROLLING HILLS C+-2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/rolling-hills-03-14-2018.pdf
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES --0 --
Appendix C
The ADU Scorecard 31
Jurisdiction Grade
Number
of ADUs
Permitted
in 2018
Year
Ordinance
Adopted/
Amended
Ordinance Link
ROSEMEAD B-106 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/rosemead-07-02-2018.pdf
ROSEVILLE C+6 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/roseville-06-13-18.pdf
ROSS --1 --
SACRAMENTO B-128 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Sacramento-City-03-29-2017.pdf
SACRAMENTO COUNTY B-38 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Sacramento-County-07-18-2017.pdf
SAINT HELENA A-11 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/saint-helena-12-04-17.pdf
SALINAS B-9 2016 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Salinas-12-6-2016.pdf
SAN ANSELMO B-17 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/San-Anselmo-04-24-17.pdf
SAN BENITO COUNTY --8 --
SAN BERNARDINO -----
SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY
C+5 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/san-bernardino-county-04-25-2018.pdf
SAN BRUNO C 18 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/San-Bruno-05-11-17.pdf
SAN BUENAVENTURA C-1 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/san-buenaventura-11-13-17.pdf
SAN CARLOS --19 --
SAN CLEMENTE --13 --
SAN DIEGO B 215 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/san-diego-city-09-21-2017.pdf
SAN DIEGO COUNTY --110 --
SAN DIMAS D 2 2016 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/san-dimas-07-18-2018.pdf
SAN FERNANDO D 96 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/San-Fernando-City-09-12-2017.pdf
SAN FRANCISCO A-364 2019 https://commissions.sfplanning.org/cpcpackets/2019-011895PCA.pdf
SAN GABRIEL C+30 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/San-Gabriel-09-13-2018.pdf
SAN JACINTO --1 --
SAN JOAQUIN --0 --
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY --59 --
SAN JOSE B 247 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/San-Jose-11-15-2016a.pdf
SAN JUAN BAUTISTA --0 --
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO --2 --
SAN LEANDRO C+4 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/San-Leandro-06-11-2018.pdf
SAN LUIS OBISPO B 54 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/san-luis-obispo-04-17-2018.pdf
SAN LUIS OBISPO CO.--28 --
SAN MARCOS --4 --
SAN MARINO C-5 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/san-marino-03-14-2019.pdf
SAN MATEO C 37 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/san-mateo-city-11-14-2017.pdf
SAN MATEO COUNTY B 37 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/san-mateo-county-07-03-2018.pdf
SAN PABLO C-5 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/San-Pablo-07-10-2017.pdf
SAN RAFAEL --76 --
SAN RAMON B 11 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/san-ramon-04-25-2018.pdf
SAND CITY C+1 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/sand-city-03-08-2018.pdf
Appendix C
The ADU Scorecard 32
Jurisdiction Grade
Number
of ADUs
Permitted
in 2018
Year
Ordinance
Adopted/
Amended
Ordinance Link
SANGER --0 --
SANTA ANA C+42 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/santa-ana-07-01-2019.pdf
SANTA BARBARA B-186 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/santa-barbara-05-17-2018.pdf
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY B-95 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Santa-Barbara-County-10-12-2018.pdf
SANTA CLARA --76 --
SANTA CLARA COUNTY C-25 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Santa-Clara-County-07-21-2017.pdf
SANTA CLARITA --50 --
SANTA CRUZ D 39 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/santa-cruz-ord-5264-04-24-2018.pdf
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY C 86 2018 http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/planning-and-community-development/accessory-dwelling-units-adus/-loadingmode-EditContent/-fsiteid-1?navid=3916
SANTA FE SPRINGS C+5 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Santa-Fe-Springs-04-14-2017.pdf
SANTA MARIA --30 --
SANTA MONICA --21 --
SANTA PAULA --0 --
SANTA ROSA B 89 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Santa-Rosa-updated-01-30-2019.pdf
SANTEE C+1 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Santee-03-17-2017.pdf
SARATOGA D 16 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/saratoga-07-16-2018.pdf
SAUSALITO C+7 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/sausalito-01-31-2018.pdf
SCOTTS VALLEY --3 --
SEAL BEACH --0 --
SEASIDE --2 --
SEBASTOPOL A-16 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/sebastopol-02-28-2018.pdf
SELMA -----
SHAFTER -----
SHASTA COUNTY C-20 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/shasta-county-11-16-2017.pdf
SHASTA LAKE --0 --
SIERRA COUNTY -----
SIERRA MADRE C 6 2016 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Sierra-Madre-12-23-2016.pdf
SIGNAL HILL --4 --
SIMI VALLEY C+55 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/simi-valley-updated-06-13-2018.pdf
SISKIYOU COUNTY -----
SOLANA BEACH D 5 2016 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Solana-Beach-12-20-2016.pdf
SOLANO COUNTY F 17 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Solano-County-02-05-2019.pdf
SOLEDAD --0 --
SOLVANG --3 --
SONOMA B-7 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Sonoma-City-09-22-2017.pdf
SONOMA COUNTY --142 --
SONORA --0 --
SOUTH EL MONTE --6 --
Appendix C
The ADU Scorecard 33
Jurisdiction Grade
Number
of ADUs
Permitted
in 2018
Year
Ordinance
Adopted/
Amended
Ordinance Link
SOUTH GATE C-25 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/South-Gate-updated-04-03-2019.pdf
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE --0 --
SOUTH PASADENA D 4 2016 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/South-Pasadena-09-17-2018.pdf
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO B-12 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/south-san-francisco-12-11-2017.pdf
STANISLAUS COUNTY --4 --
STANTON --12 --
STOCKTON --4 --
SUISUN CITY --1 --
SUNNYVALE C+58 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Sunnyvale2-12-6-2016.pdf
SUSANVILLE -----
SUTTER COUNTY --4 --
SUTTER CREEK --0 --
TAFT --0 --
TEHACHAPI --1 --
TEHAMA --0 --
TEHAMA COUNTY --0 --
TEMECULA C 3 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Temecula-10-01-2018.pdf
TEMPLE CITY C+15 2019 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Temple-City-09-19-2017.pdf
THOUSAND OAKS C-20 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Thousand-Oaks-08-28-2017.pdf
TIBURON C+5 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Tiburon-02-06-2017.pdf
TORRANCE C 3 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/torrance-05-16-2017.pdf
TRACY --7 --
TRINIDAD -----
TRINITY COUNTY --0 --
TRUCKEE --9 --
TULARE --0 --
TULARE COUNTY --1 --
TULELAKE --0 --
TUOLUMNE COUNTY --0 --
TURLOCK --6 --
TUSTIN D -2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Tustin-04-18-2017.pdf
TWENTYNINE PALMS --0 --
UKIAH C+8 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/ukiah-08-22-2017.pdf
UNION CITY --9 --
UPLAND --0 --
VACAVILLE C 9 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/vacaville-02-09-18.pdf
VALLEJO B 38 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/vallejo-10-19-2018.pdf
VENTURA COUNTY B-63 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/ventura-county-updated-04-16-2018.pdf
Appendix C
The ADU Scorecard 34
Jurisdiction Grade
Number
of ADUs
Permitted
in 2018
Year
Ordinance
Adopted/
Amended
Ordinance Link
VERNON --0 --
VICTORVILLE --3 --
VILLA PARK C-3 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/villa-park-06-14-2018.pdf
VISALIA --2 --
VISTA C-0 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/vista-11-06-2017.pdf
WALNUT --19 --
WALNUT CREEK C+-2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/walnut-creek-11-14-2017.pdf
WASCO --1 --
WATERFORD --0 --
WATSONVILLE --5 --
WEED --0 --
WEST COVINA D 0 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/west-covina-07-12-2018.pdf
WEST HOLLYWOOD B 12 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/west-hollywood-03-07-2018.pdf
WEST SACRAMENTO --0 --
WESTLAKE VILLAGE --0 --
WESTMINSTER C+98 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Westminster-09-10-2018.pdf
WESTMORLAND --0 --
WHEATLAND -----
WHITTIER C-25 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/whittier-04-02-2018.pdf
WILDOMAR --0 --
WILLIAMS -----
WILLITS A-1 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Willits-10-17-2018.pdf
WILLOWS --0 --
WINDSOR A-9 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/windsor-01-10-2018.pdf
WINTERS C 0 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/winters-03-08-2018.pdf
WOODLAKE --0 --
WOODLAND --1 --
WOODSIDE B+27 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/woodside-03-28-2017.pdf
YOLO COUNTY --3 --
YORBA LINDA C-17 2017 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/Yorba-Linda-05-26-2017.pdf
YOUNTVILLE B-4 2018 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/ordinances/yountville-03-01-2018.pdf
YREKA --0 --
YUBA CITY --0 --
YUBA COUNTY --9 --
YUCAIPA --7 --
YUCCA VALLEY --0 --
Notes: Data for Number of ADUs Permitted in 2018 came from HCD’s 2018 Annual Housing Element Progress Report. ‘–’ indicates
missing data.
Center for Community Innovation
2538 Channing Way, Bldg. 9, Room 204
Berkeley, CA 94720
cci@berkeley.edu