ADU Project Planner helps homeowners make specific planning decisions using traceable evidence. California is the focus of our detailed regulatory guides; general U.S. resources are labelled separately. This policy applies to articles, pages, tools, worksheets, PDFs and illustrations.
Our publication requirements
- Define the decision and jurisdiction. State what the reader can decide, where the information applies and what still requires property-specific confirmation. A city guide must contain distinct local information, not substituted city names.
- Verify material requirements. Support legal, permitting, fee and program claims with current statutes, official agency guidance or adopted local materials. Record the source date, effective date where relevant, and the actual scope of review.
- Show the basis of every number. Identify location, date, inclusions, exclusions and source for quoted costs. Label invented teaching figures as fictional. Historical research is not a current local estimate; correlation is not proof of an ADU’s individual effect.
- Make the next step practical. Name the responsible agency or professional, required evidence, unresolved question and next action. Distinguish legal deadlines from estimated turnaround and construction schedules.
- Test the supporting resource. Check formulas, invalid inputs, links, downloads and the intended mobile/print experience. State whether entries are saved and whether a worksheet calculates automatically.
- Keep versions consistent. Apply corrections to affected article text, tables, tool outputs, metadata and downloadable resources. Do not update a review date without reviewing the stated material.
Required article structure
- A specific title identifying the decision and jurisdiction.
- A quick answer in the first two sentences, with essential qualifications.
- A legal or evidence section linking directly to the relevant primary source and distinguishing operative law from proposed changes.
- Local context with relevant internal links, without implying that a statewide summary settles parcel-specific questions.
- A useful comparison table or checklist where it makes the decision clearer, followed by a concrete next action.
- Accurate authorship, a genuine review date and the scope of that review. A date must not imply that unreviewed downloads or related guides were checked.
How a California city guide is researched
- Confirm the permitting jurisdiction. A city mailing address is not enough when county jurisdiction may apply.
- Start with current primary sources. Review the city ADU hub, operative municipal code, permit or checklist materials, fee resources and current California HCD guidance.
- Compare dates and authority. When a newer ordinance, checklist or program conflicts with an older city PDF, identify the conflict and tell the reader what to verify instead of combining the documents into one false rule.
- Extract a homeowner decision. A local guide must do more than repeat setbacks. It should help the reader choose a pathway, identify a parcel constraint, use a local program, compare a stock plan, prepare a permit file or resolve another city-specific decision.
- Link the evidence. Material local claims should point to the responsible agency source so a homeowner can re-check the rule before spending money.
- Date the source check honestly. A review date describes the material actually checked; it is not a guarantee that a city will not change a form, fee or interpretation afterward.
Authorship, AI assistance and review
AI assistance is used in developing site content and resources. AI output is not evidence or professional review. Claims of manual verification or licensed expert review must identify work that actually occurred; we do not imply that every existing guide has received either. Authors and reviewers must be credited accurately, without invented qualifications.
Our review target is at least annually for regulatory guides, with earlier checks when a material law change, revised agency guidance or a reader correction is identified. This is an editorial requirement, not a claim that automated monitoring is active.
Evidence and uncertainty
Primary sources are required for material regulatory claims. Research papers may support clearly scoped research findings. Contractor quotes establish only their documented scope; homeowner discussions can suggest questions but do not establish legal requirements, typical prices or market-wide outcomes. When evidence conflicts or cannot be verified, narrow the claim, flag the uncertainty or hold it back.
Tools, examples and financial decisions
Calculators perform the stated arithmetic on supplied assumptions. They are not bids, appraisals, loan approvals or permit decisions. Unknown is not zero. Sensitivity ranges are not statistical confidence intervals. We do not use unvalidated scores to predict contractor performance. Obtain local professional advice before a material financial, legal or construction commitment.
Images and downloads
Illustrations must not be presented as completed projects or real financial proof. A downloadable worksheet must identify its scope, limitations and version; a checklist cannot promise inspection approval. Browser-print worksheets must explain how to save a copy and whether entries persist.
Corrections and review status
This is our required standard, not a claim that every existing asset has completed a fresh review. Legacy content is being checked against it. Send the affected page, disputed statement and supporting source through our contact page. Material corrections should identify what changed without implying unrelated claims were reverified.
Policy updated September 2, 2026. Clear formatting supports readers; we do not promise Google rankings or inclusion in AI answers.