checks.json

[
 {
  "check_id": "stale-statutory-citation",
  "title": "Cites Government Code sections deleted by SB 477 (2024)",
  "severity": "definite",
  "patterns": [
   "65852\\.2(?:2|3|6)?\\b"
  ],
  "state_law": "SB 477 (Ch. 7, Stats. 2024) relocated State ADU/JADU Law from Gov. Code \u00a7\u00a7 65852.2, 65852.22, 65852.26 to \u00a7\u00a7 66310\u201366342, effective March 25, 2024. (SB 9's \u00a7\u00a7 65852.21 and 66411.7 remain current.)",
  "exclude_patterns": [
   "65852\\.21\\b"
  ],
  "explanation": "References to the deleted sections must be amended to the relocated sections. HCD's first finding against Santa Clara County's ordinance was exactly this.",
  "hcd_precedent": "HCD findings letter to County of Santa Clara, June 24, 2025, ADU Finding 1 (Statutory Numbering)."
 },
 {
  "check_id": "adu-owner-occupancy-requirement",
  "title": "Owner-occupancy requirement on ADUs",
  "severity": "review",
  "patterns": [
   "owner[\\s-]*occup\\w*"
  ],
  "state_law": "Gov. Code \u00a7 66315: no owner-occupancy requirement may be imposed on ADUs (narrow exception: separate-conveyance sales under \u00a7 66341(c)(3)). JADUs with shared sanitation are a lawful exception (\u00a7 66333(b)).",
  "explanation": "Flags owner-occupancy language for review: prohibited for ADUs and for SB 9 two-unit developments; lawful only for shared-sanitation JADUs and SB 9 lot-split affidavits.",
  "hcd_precedent": "HCD letter to City of Laguna Beach, Sept. 19, 2024 (owner-occupancy imposed on SB 9 developments, not allowed); HCD ADU Handbook (March 2026), Owner-Occupancy.",
  "context_patterns": [
   "accessory\\s+dwelling|\\badus?\\b|\\bjadu"
  ]
 },
 {
  "check_id": "height-cap-below-state",
  "title": "Height cap below state-mandated allowances",
  "severity": "review",
  "patterns": [
   "(?:not|shall not|may not)\\s+exceed\\s+(?:sixteen|16)\\s*(?:\\(16\\)\\s*)?feet",
   "maximum\\s+height\\s+of\\s+(?:sixteen|16)\\b"
  ],
  "state_law": "Gov. Code \u00a7 66321(b)(4): 16 ft is the base for detached ADUs. A detached ADU must be allowed 18 ft near a qualifying major transit stop / high-quality transit corridor; that transit branch also allows 2 additional ft for an aligned roof pitch. A separate 18-ft branch applies on a lot with an existing or proposed multistory multifamily dwelling. Attached ADUs must be allowed up to 25 ft or the primary-dwelling zoning limit, whichever is lower.",
  "explanation": "A blanket 16-foot cap may omit a mandatory 18-foot branch, the transit-specific 2-foot roof-pitch addition, or the attached-ADU allowance. The multistory-multifamily branch does not carry the roof-pitch addition unless the transit condition also applies.",
  "hcd_precedent": "HCD findings letter to County of Santa Clara, June 24, 2025, ADU Finding 6 (Height).",
  "context_patterns": [
   "accessory\\s+dwelling|\\badus?\\b|\\bjadu"
  ]
 },
 {
  "check_id": "unit-count-undercount",
  "title": "Possible ADU/JADU unit-count undercount",
  "severity": "review",
  "patterns": [
   "only\\s+one\\s+(?:accessory\\s+dwelling\\s+unit|adu)",
   "no\\s+more\\s+than\\s+one\\s+(?:detached\\s+)?(?:accessory\\s+dwelling\\s+units?|adus?)"
  ],
  "state_law": "Gov. Code \u00a7 66323(a): specified ADU/JADU combinations are protected on single-family lots. Existing multifamily lots may receive up to eight detached ADUs, not exceeding the existing unit count, plus conversion ADUs. Proposed multifamily lots are limited to no more than two detached ADUs.",
  "explanation": "Review an apparent one-ADU cap to determine whether it is an unlawful overall lot cap or a lawful limit on one specific approval branch. This screen deliberately does not flag a two-detached-ADU cap by itself because that exact cap is lawful for a proposed multifamily dwelling under \u00a7 66323(a)(4)(A)(iii).",
  "hcd_precedent": "HCD findings letter to County of Santa Clara, June 24, 2025, ADU Finding 3 (Unit Allowance).",
  "context_patterns": [
   "accessory\\s+dwelling|\\badus?\\b|\\bjadu"
  ]
 },
 {
  "check_id": "size-cap-conflict",
  "title": "Size cap that may preclude protected units or conversions",
  "severity": "review",
  "patterns": [
   "(?:maximum|not\\s+(?:to\\s+)?exceed(?:ing)?)[^.]{0,60}?(?:1,?200|1,?000|850|800|750|700|640|600)\\s*square\\s+feet",
   "cumulative\\s+square\\s+footage[^.]{0,80}(?:not|shall\\s+not)\\s+exceed"
  ],
  "state_law": "Gov. Code \u00a7 66321(b)(2): a local maximum must still allow 850 sq ft of interior livable space, or 1,000 sq ft for an ADU with more than one bedroom. These figures protect what local maximums must allow; they are not required minimum unit sizes. Qualifying \u00a7 66323(a)(1) conversions are not subject to unit-size limits.",
  "explanation": "Review whether the cap leaves the applicable protected size available and whether it improperly reaches a qualifying conversion. A number at or above a protected allowance is not a conflict by itself; scope and ADU type matter.",
  "hcd_precedent": "HCD findings letter to County of Santa Clara, June 24, 2025, ADU Finding 7 (Size Maximums); HCD letter to City of Fort Bragg, Feb. 19, 2025 (overly restrictive ADU size limits).",
  "context_patterns": [
   "accessory\\s+dwelling|\\badus?\\b|\\bjadu"
  ]
 },
 {
  "check_id": "subjective-design-standard",
  "title": "Subjective design standard (must be objective)",
  "severity": "review",
  "patterns": [
   "similar\\s+styled",
   "compatib\\w+\\s+with",
   "harmon(?:y|ious)",
   "high[\\s-]quality\\s+materials",
   "character\\s+of\\s+the\\s+neighborhood",
   "(?:(?:adequate|reasonable|compatible)\\s+privacy|privacy\\s+(?:of|for)\\s+(?:adjacent|neighboring)|(?:ensure|protect|preserve|maintain)\\s+(?:the\\s+)?privacy)"
  ],
  "state_law": "Gov. Code \u00a7\u00a7 66314(b)(1), 66313(i): only objective standards \u2014 uniformly verifiable by an external benchmark knowable before submittal \u2014 may be imposed on ADUs.",
  "explanation": "Qualitative terms such as \"compatible,\" \"harmony,\" or \"similar styled\" may require subjective judgment. Privacy-related standards are not automatically subjective: staff should check whether the provision supplies a measurable external benchmark, such as a stated window location or distance.",
  "hcd_precedent": "HCD findings letter to County of Santa Clara, June 24, 2025, ADU Finding 8 (Subjective Standard: \"similar styled roof design\").",
  "context_patterns": [
   "accessory\\s+dwelling|\\badus?\\b|\\bjadu"
  ]
 },
 {
  "check_id": "setback-above-four-feet",
  "title": "Side/rear setback above the 4-foot state maximum",
  "severity": "review",
  "patterns": [
   "(?:side|rear)[^.]{0,60}?(?:five|six|seven|eight|ten|fifteen|5|6|7|8|10|15)\\s*(?:\\(\\d+\\)\\s*)?(?:feet|foot|ft)"
  ],
  "state_law": "Gov. Code \u00a7 66314(d)(7): no more than four feet side and rear setbacks may be required for an ADU; no setback for conversions or same-footprint rebuilds. SB 9: \u00a7\u00a7 65852.21(b)(2)(B), 66411.7(c)(3) \u2014 max four feet, none for existing structures.",
  "explanation": "Flags side/rear setback figures above four feet for review (front setbacks are permitted but cannot preclude an 800 sq ft unit, \u00a7 66321(b)(3)).",
  "hcd_precedent": "HCD findings letter to County of Santa Clara, June 24, 2025, SB 9 Finding 6 (setback requirements must reflect the 4-foot statutory allowance); HCD letter to City of Riverside, Mar. 21, 2025.",
  "context_patterns": [
   "accessory\\s+dwelling|\\badus?\\b|\\bjadu"
  ]
 },
 {
  "check_id": "parking-above-one-space",
  "title": "Parking requirement above one space per unit/bedroom",
  "severity": "review",
  "patterns": [
   "(?:two|2)\\s+(?:off[\\s-]street\\s+)?(?:parking\\s+)?spaces",
   "guest\\s+parking"
  ],
  "state_law": "Gov. Code \u00a7 66314(d)(10): maximum one space per unit or bedroom, whichever is less; tandem allowed; guest parking may never be required; \u00a7 66322(a) exempts many ADUs from parking entirely.",
  "explanation": "Two-space requirements or any guest-parking requirement conflict with the state cap.",
  "hcd_precedent": "HCD ADU Handbook (March 2026), Parking Requirements.",
  "context_patterns": [
   "accessory\\s+dwelling|\\badus?\\b|\\bjadu"
  ]
 },
 {
  "check_id": "sb9-outdated-fire-exclusion",
  "title": "SB 9 fire-hazard exclusion not updated for SB 450 (2024)",
  "severity": "review",
  "patterns": [
   "high\\s+or\\s+very\\s+high\\s+fire\\s+hazard\\s+severity\\s+zone"
  ],
  "state_law": "Gov. Code \u00a7\u00a7 65852.21/66411.7 as amended by SB 450 (2024): the exclusion now distinguishes very-high zones per \u00a7 51178 from high/very-high zones on \u00a7 4202 maps, with exceptions for \u00a7 51179(b) exclusions and mitigated sites.",
  "explanation": "Pre-SB 450 fire-exclusion language is likely outdated; flag for comparison against the amended statute.",
  "hcd_precedent": "HCD findings letter to County of Santa Clara, June 24, 2025, SB 9 Finding 3 (fire-hazard exclusion language must comply with SB 450).",
  "context_patterns": [
   "urban\\s+lot\\s+split",
   "\\bsb\\s*9\\b",
   "65852\\.21",
   "66411\\.7",
   "two\\s+(?:primary\\s+)?(?:residential\\s+)?(?:dwelling\\s+)?units?"
  ]
 }
]