When a home is built in Coronado, the city caps the total square footage allowed on each lot under a limit known as floor area ratio, or FAR.
Later, if a homeowner decides to add an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to an existing home, state law requires the city to allow it — up to 800 square feet — even if the lot is already at its cap.
But propose building an ADU alongside new construction of a house? Every square foot counts.
The state says that distinction violates California ADU law. It’s one of 31 points on which the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has found Coronado’s ADU ordinance out of compliance, according to a letter sent the the city in December 2025.
In a formal response obtained through a public records request, the city agreed to amend its ordinance on most of the 31 points but is standing firm on a handful, including the FAR rule a resident challenged at the Coronado City Council’s July 21 meeting.
HCD’s findings reviewed Coronado’s ADU ordinance, which was adopted in April 2024. The letter gave the city two options: amend the ordinance, or formally explain why it believes the ordinance complies despite HCD’s determination. If the city does neither, the HCD may refer the matter to the California Attorney General’s office.
What the HCD flagged
Many of the findings are technical: outdated code citations, misplaced cross-references, typos. But several go to the heart of how Coronado regulates ADUs.
Among them, HCD says the city must:
- Allow ADUs to be sold separately from the primary residence in certain affordable-housing scenarios
- Reduce its minimum rental term for ADUs and junior ADUs (JADUs) from six months to 30 days
- Remove subjective design standards requiring ADUs to match the architectural style and material quality of the main house
- Allow up to eight detached ADUs on lots with existing multifamily buildings
- Permit taller ADUs — 18 to 20 feet — within a half mile of a major transit stop, noting that the Coronado ferry terminal qualifies
- Stop requiring pre- and post-construction surveys by a licensed land surveyor
- Drop deed-restriction and covenant requirements for ADUs
- Not count an ADU’s square footage against a property’s FAR limit when a new house and detached ADU are proposed together
- Justify its ADU parking requirements — including one space per unit and replacement parking for converted garages — by citing the specific Coastal Act provisions that allow them, or else ease the rules to match state law’s parking exemptions
The letter states the city must amend its ordinance or provide evidence for an exemption to these findings accordingly.
The city’s response: yes to most, no to some
The city’s response, dated Feb. 6, 2026 and signed by Community Development Director Richard Grunow, concedes the majority of the findings and commits to bringing ordinance amendments to the city council. (HCD originally set a Jan. 9 response deadline; the department granted a 30-day extension to Feb. 8.)
But the city pushed back on several items. It defended its land survey requirement, noting Coronado was incorporated in 1890 and lacks documentation for many properties. The survey, according to the city, helps to ensure ADUs comply with state laws and standards.
Coronado also pointed to the California Coastal Act to justify its ADU parking requirements, since the entire city sits within the Coastal Zone. It argued HCD’s request on carriage house conversions “exceeds existing state law.”
As for the FAR question, the city flatly declined to amend, citing its win in Scurlock v. City of Coronado, a 2024 Court of Appeal decision upholding the city’s inclusion of ADU square footage in FAR calculations for new construction. “Because the Court of Appeal has already ruled that this provision of the City’s ADU Ordinance is lawful and consistent with the State ADU Law, the City finds no further amendments are required,” the letter states.
Two caveats complicate that defense. The first is that the Scurlock opinion is unpublished, meaning California court rules bar parties from citing it as precedent in other cases.
The second is that the law has changed since the case was decided. Scurlock, decided in January 2024, interpreted the ADU statute as it stood when the homeowner applied for his permits in 2020: former Government Code section 65852.2. That version shielded ADUs of up to 800 square feet from FAR limits, but the court reasoned it gave no corresponding square footage bonus to the primary residence. Coronado was therefore free to count the ADU’s square footage when measuring the rest of the project against the lot’s cap.
Two months after the decision came down, that statute ceased to exist. In early 2024, the legislature repealed the old ADU statute and reorganized the state’s ADU rules into a new chapter of the government code — and it has kept amending them since, most recently with changes that took effect this past January through SB 543.
HCD’s finding rests on one of those new provisions. For ADUs that qualify under that section, cities may only apply the specific standards the section spells out, such as size and setback minimums. A floor area ratio cap is not among them.
In HCD’s reading, the city may apply its development standards, including FAR, to the new house itself, but not to the ADU proposed alongside it. Whether Scurlock‘s reasoning survives the rewrite is precisely what the city and the state now dispute.
The dispute in real terms
The compliance dispute spilled into public view at the July 21 council meeting, when resident David Vinograd told the council during public comment that he is proposing a roughly 4,200-square-foot home with an approximately 800-square-foot ADU, and has received written direction from the planning department that conflicts with his reading of state law.
“I’m of the opinion that the state law is crystal clear as to what my rights are and what is required of the city of Coronado,” he said. “I’m getting a lot of blowback from the city.”
Later in the meeting — during the council’s unanimous approval of the city’s new pre-approved ADU plan program, itself an HCD-required housing element item — Councilmember Mark Fleming asked whether the pre-approved ADU designs would be excluded from FAR calculations. City Attorney Johanna Canlis pointed to the municipal code provision requiring new-construction projects with ADUs to comply with FAR limits.
“In fact, not very long ago, the city actually litigated this issue, and we prevailed in court,” Canlis said, referring to the Scurlock case.
Vinograd returned to the podium to read HCD’s finding No. 7 aloud. “They’re saying two separate things,” he said. “The city must — not shall, must — amend the ordinance to remove the imposition of development standards contained in the city zoning ordinance on ADUs and JADUs. Clear as day.”
Vinograd also contested Canlis’ interpretation, saying that the Scurlock ruling applied under old state law.
On this matter, the HCD’s letter reads, “When an applicant proposes a new single-family dwelling with a detached ADU pursuant to Government Code section 66323 the City may apply its development standards to the primary dwelling, but the ADU is not subject to
discretionary review or development standards that are not a part of section 66323, including, but not limited to, a maximum floor area ratio. The City must amend the Ordinance to remove the imposition of development standards contained in the City’s Zoning Ordinance on ADUs and JADUs.”
What’s next
The city’s February letter says it plans to bring ordinance amendments forward and has requested a meeting with HCD staff to resolve the contested items before any public hearings, with the stated goal of reaching “a consensus prior to public hearings on the proposed amendments.” No hearing date has been announced.
