Ripon city staff reviewed a series of California state laws that have progressively limited local control over accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and asked the City Council for direction on local standards for ADUs that are not “state-exempt.”

Ken, a city planning staff member, told the council that since February 2016 the state has passed multiple bills intended to expand ADU production and streamline approvals, and that Ripon has approved 56 ADU applications through the planning department since 2016. "ADU ordinances are required by law to be compliant with state law," Ken said, adding that many recent bills reduce local discretion on design, parking, setbacks and owner-occupancy requirements.

The presentation summarized recurring state requirements described in state statutes and implementing guidance: ministerial (staff-level) approval with reduced review timelines, limits or waivers on parking, restrictions on replacement parking rules for multifamily parcels, caps and categories for ADU sizes (state-exempt detached ADUs generally 800 square feet or smaller and certain attached ADUs with different limits), and removal of some owner-occupancy rules. Ken said the city’s last ADU ordinance was adopted in May 2021 and that the state has passed roughly a dozen additional bills since then, creating a “moving target” for local code updates.

Why this matters: Council members said the state changes could make it harder for Ripon to preserve neighborhood character and manage parking while also meeting housing goals. Staff emphasized that local discretion remains only for "nonexempt" ADUs — units that do not meet the narrow state-exempt criteria — and requested guidance on the specific standards the council wants to retain for those nonexempt units.

Key points staff proposed for nonexempt ADUs

- Setbacks and height: apply the city's detached-accessory-structure setbacks (staff recommended 10 feet rear, 5 feet side) and accessory-structure height limits (staff said aligning with accessory-structure standards could limit ADU heights to about 12 feet, compared with state allowances of 16–25 feet in some circumstances).
- Design: require nonexempt ADUs to "match or complement" the primary residence in roof pitch, siding, colors and materials.
- Lot coverage: count nonexempt ADUs toward lot-coverage limits for zoning districts, in line with detached accessory structures.
- Parking and fees: require at least one off-street parking space for nonexempt ADUs and require replacement of covered parking if converted; assess development impact fees proportionate to the primary unit for nonexempt ADUs.
- Owner occupancy: retain an owner-occupancy requirement for nonexempt ADUs (staff recommendation).

Staff also explained procedural next steps: staff will prepare a revised ADU ordinance incorporating council direction, send it to the Planning Commission for recommendation, return to council for adoption or amendment, and then forward any adopted ordinance to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review. Ken said staff expects the Planning Commission/council review to begin in the first part of next year and that full compliance with HCD could stretch into 2026 depending on HCD review timing.

Public comment and council concerns

Adam Corkins, a Ripon resident and property owner, urged the council to consider incentives to encourage higher design standards rather than simply imposing restrictions that push builders toward the state-exempt rules. "I might consider, suggest we take a different view on where the city has control, which is what can you do to incentivize those higher standards?" Corkins said, describing his own experience trying to use higher-quality materials.

Ryan Van Gronigen, who said he has built several ADUs in Ripon, urged council members to visit existing units before finalizing standards. "I would just urge you guys to actually go out and look at those ADUs," Van Gronigen said. He told the council that most ADUs he has seen in Ripon are "pretty decent looking units" and that neighbors’ initial resistance often subsides after units are complete.

Council members raised recurring concerns about parking, visual compatibility and potential effects on property values if low-quality or minimally designed ADUs proliferate. Several members asked staff to preserve as much local control as legally possible for nonexempt ADUs while acknowledging that most ADUs built so far in Ripon are likely to qualify as state-exempt and therefore subject to limited local review.

No formal motions or votes took place at the meeting. Staff said it will return a draft ordinance to the Planning Commission for recommendation and then to the council; after any final adoption the city must submit the ordinance to HCD for review and potential comments.

Ending

Councilmembers and members of the public agreed to continue the conversation through the formal ordinance process. Staff committed to provide council with a list of existing ADU locations in Ripon for members to inspect and to bring a draft ordinance to the Planning Commission early next year, with HCD review to follow.