Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adu Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board recommends ADU ordinance amendments including AB 1033 condominium conversions to city council
Summary
Alameda's planning board voted June 22 to recommend city‑council approval of ADU ordinance amendments that add an AB 1033 ADU‑to‑condominium path, clarify setbacks and legal‑nonconforming rules, and set development impact fees for ADUs to zero; board asked staff to redraft language to clarify ministerial thresholds for rooftop decks, roof‑pitch language and references to state law.
On June 22 the Alameda Planning Board recommended the City Council adopt amendments to the city's accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and junior ADU (JADU) ordinance, including a new, state‑law‑compliant pathway to convert some ADUs to condominiums under AB 1033.
Staff said the revisions respond to recent state law changes and the city's housing‑element obligations. Key elements include an optional ADU‑to‑condominium conversion process (which, under state law, requires condominium documents such as CC&Rs and a homeowners association where applicable), explicit front‑yard setback language for ADU conversions on substandard lots, limits on how legal nonconforming accessory structures may be altered, and clearer rules about driveway/curb‑cut removal where short driveways would otherwise obstruct sidewalks. Planning staff also noted the city's 2026–27 master fee schedule includes a line setting development impact fees for ADUs and JADUs to zero, so staff did not propose new ADU impact fees.
Board members asked detailed questions about condo conversions and whether state law forces a homeowner association even where there are no common areas. City attorney staff advised that AB 1033 requires condominium subdivision procedures that reference Davis‑Stirling condominium statutes, and that a form of homeowners association is typically required because the condominium process divides ownership of structures while leaving the underlying land as shared property. Several members asked staff to examine whether any of the state‑mandated language could be referenced rather than copied verbatim into the municipal code or provided as an informational handout to applicants.
Members also pressed staff to clarify development standards that allow some ADU conversions to preserve an existing accessory structure footprint only if dimensions (including height up to 18 feet) remain the same; otherwise an expanded conversion must comply with current setbacks and height limits. The board asked staff to reword "match" requirements for roof pitch and materials to allow complementary designs rather than requiring exact matching, and to set a clear ministerial threshold (square‑foot or setback‑based) under which small rooftop patios/decks should not trigger discretionary design review.
Public commenters included local ADU builder Hank Hernandez, who urged the board to exempt modest integrated rooftop patios from discretionary design review, shorten the driveway threshold for curb‑cut removal, and drop a strict roof‑pitch matching rule; and Mark Gier, who supported the condo‑conversion path as a way to create starter‑home ownership.
After discussion the board voted to adopt a resolution recommending that City Council approve the ordinance amendments with staff direction to incorporate the clarifications discussed (language edits, cross‑references to public‑works parking standards, ministerial thresholds for small rooftop decks, and a clearer treatment of state‑law condo conversion text). Staff said it will redraft the ordinance for council with the requested clarifications and will coordinate language with the city attorney to avoid conflicts with evolving state law.
The planning board motion passed by voice vote; the matter will next appear before City Council for a final decision.
