Predictika · ADU Project Pre-screen

Before an AI agent tells an applicant a granny-flat project looks approvable, it is pre-screened against city and state rules

The City of Eastbrook, a fictional city in California, lets an AI intake agent pre-screen accessory dwelling unit (ADU) projects. Before the agent tells an applicant how the project looks, the call goes to Predictika’s ADU Project Pre-screen. It reads the project against California ADU law and the city code together: unit type, size, height, setbacks, entrance, address, parking, sprinklers, rentals, sales, historic status and the number of units. Where the city is stricter than state law, state law prevails and the validator says so. Then it returns one verdict: approvable by right, approvable with changes, or needs staff review.

Illustrative only. This is a pre-screen, not a permit decision. The City of Eastbrook and its code are fictional. The state law references are to California’s ADU statutes as understood in September 2026 and have not been reviewed by a planner or attorney. This is not legal advice.

Scope: one ADU or junior ADU project, judged against city and state rulesSee everything this validator covers

This validator decides one thing: how one proposed ADU or junior ADU (JADU) project looks against the rules. It does not decide a permit, and it does not check the plans.

  • Projects — conversion, new attached, new detached and junior units on a single-family lot; conversion and detached units on a multifamily lot.
  • Rules — unit type for the lot, size, expansion, height, setbacks, front setback, sprinklers, entrance, address, passageway, parking, JADU owner, inside the home and deed restriction, rental term, separate sale, historic status, utility connections, and the number of units.

Within these rules the validator handles any combination of the listed choices, not just the scenarios on this page. Lot facts such as transit distance and historic status are taken as stated and are not verified.

What the validator sees: the project the applicant describes, as statedRead more

The validator takes the project as inputs: the lot type, the unit type, size, bedrooms, height, setbacks, entrance and address, and the answers to the rental, sale, historic and utility questions. It computes the limits and returns the verdict and every finding, with the law behind each.

Two honest limits. The validator judges the project it is given: if the applicant understates the height, the answer follows. And a project is only pre-screened if the agent calls the validator; in a deployment the intake workflow makes the call. Once a project is approvable by right, it can be released for the building-permit application, which is also not a permit decision.

The AI agentDescribes the applicant’s project, says how it looks, then calls the validator before telling the applicant.
Predictika validatorReads the project against city and state rules, then returns one verdict and every finding.

8 scenarios in 5 groups · each group runs from the agent’s first attempt to the outcome · click one to switch

What the agent proposes

The AI agent says

Illustrative agent statement. The validator receives the structured request below.

Proposing agent: AI agent (scripted)

Before sending, the agent must call Recorded run

Predictika validator


      

        
        
        
      

      
Waiting for the call.

      
    

  

  
  

    
Where permit pre-screening gets it wrong
Click to expand
    
General statements about permit forms and checklists, not about any named product or city. We rest this on public descriptions of how such tools work; anyone running a specific product will know it better than we do.

    
What the validator caughtTypical toolPredictika
City code read together with state lawCannot do it
Each limit has a city value and a state value and the higher one governs, except where state law protects a small unit. A checklist cannot say which law prevailed.		Every rule is checked on every call and the verdict lists each finding.
Limits that depend on the unit type and the lotOnly with workarounds
Height, size and count differ for attached, detached, conversion and junior units, and between single-family and multifamily lots.		Every rule is checked on every call and the verdict lists each finding.
Counts that depend on the existing buildingOnly with workarounds
The number of units allowed depends on how many already exist, or on whether the building is only proposed.		Every rule is checked on every call and the verdict lists each finding.
Items that need a personOnly if someone is vigilant
Historic status, nonprofit sales and unclear second units cannot be decided by a rule, and must be flagged for review rather than passed.		Every rule is checked on every call and the verdict lists each finding.
Reporting every problem at onceOnly if someone is vigilant
A form usually shows the first problem. Here each rule fires on its own and all are reported with the law behind them.		Every rule is checked on every call and the verdict lists each finding.
Height above the most generous limitOnly with workarounds
Height limits differ between the city code and state law and depend on the unit type. A rule has to take the higher of the two and compare it with the plan.		Every rule is checked on every call and the verdict lists each finding.
Front setback short of the main houseOnly if someone is vigilant
Whether the city rule or state law governs depends on the unit size. A rule has to apply the 800 sq ft protection and say which law governs.		Every rule is checked on every call and the verdict lists each finding.
Sprinklers required that the main home does not needOnly if someone is vigilant
A checklist usually stops at the first problem. Here every finding is reported at once, with the law behind each.		Every rule is checked on every call and the verdict lists each finding.
Too many multifamily detached unitsOnly with workarounds
The cap depends on both a fixed number and the number of existing units, and on whether the building is existing or only proposed. A rule has to compute it.		Every rule is checked on every call and the verdict lists each finding.
Listed historic property needs staff reviewOnly with workarounds
Some questions cannot be answered by a rule. The right result is a review, not a guess either way.		Every rule is checked on every call and the verdict lists each finding.

  

  

    
What this validator catches: findings from its test cases
Click to expand
    
Every rule is checked on every call, in any order the choices arrive; one problem never hides another. Blocking findings stop the request; approval findings need a person to sign off first.

    
12 ADUs would be on the single-family lot. Eastbrook allows one ADU plus one JADU (EMC 17.80.020); state law adds only a conversion ADU together with one new detached ADU of 800 sq ft or less, 4-ft side and rear setbacks and 16 ft height (Gov. Code 66323(a)(1)-(2)). This combination does not fit either. Appears to conflict.
2Height 32.0 ft exceeds the most generous applicable limit (30.0 ft; the other law allows 25.0 ft). Governs Eastbrook (EMC 17.80.020; Gov. Code 66321). Appears to conflict.
3Front setback 12.0 ft is short of the 20.0 ft main dwelling front setback, and the state protection does not apply here (it covers a unit of 800 sq ft or less whose placement the front setback would block). Eastbrook governs (EMC 17.80.020). Appears to conflict.
4Size 1100 sq ft exceeds the Eastbrook maximum of 1000 sq ft (EMC 17.80.020: attached 1,000, detached 1,200). State law only sets a floor (850 sq ft studio/1-bedroom, 1,000 sq ft 2+ bedrooms, and 800 sq ft is always protected, Gov. Code 66321, 66323(a)(2)), so Eastbrook governs. Appears to conflict.
5Side setback 3.0 ft and rear setback 4.0 ft: new floor area needs at least 4 ft on the side and rear (EMC 17.80.020; Gov. Code 66323(a)(2), 66314 cap local requirements at 4 ft). Governs both. Appears to conflict.
6Sprinklers are being required for the ADU although the main home does not need them (Gov. Code 66323(d); EMC 17.80.020). Governs both. Appears to conflict.
7No separate exterior entrance (EMC 17.80.020 requires one; Gov. Code 66323(a)(1) and 66333 also require exterior access or a separate entrance). Governs both. Appears to conflict.
8No separate address (EMC 17.80.020 requires one; state ADU law is silent). Eastbrook governs. Appears to conflict.
9A passageway from the street to the unit is being required (EMC 17.80.020: none; Gov. Code 66313, 66314 bar it). Governs both. Appears to conflict.
10Parking or replacement parking is being required (EMC 17.80.020: none in any case, and none for a lost garage). Eastbrook governs; Gov. Code 66322 gives the same relief in its listed situations. Appears to conflict.
11A conversion may expand by at most 150 sq ft for access, this one expands 200 sq ft (Gov. Code 66323(a)(1); EMC 17.80.020). Governs both. Appears to conflict; the added area would be treated as new construction.
12JADU size 550 sq ft exceeds the 500 sq ft maximum (Gov. Code 66313, 66333; EMC 17.80.020). Governs both. Appears to conflict.
132 JADUs would be on the lot; only one JADU is allowed per lot (Gov. Code 66333; EMC 17.80.020). Governs both. Appears to conflict.
14The JADU shares sanitation with the main home, so the owner must live on the property unless the owner is a government agency, land trust or housing organization (Gov. Code 66333; EMC 17.80.020). Governs both. Appears to conflict.
15Rental term of 14 days is under the 30-day minimum (Gov. Code 66315, 66323(e), 66333; EMC 17.80.020). Governs both. Appears to conflict.
16A separate sale of the unit from the main home is not allowed (EMC 17.80.020; Gov. Code 66314, 66333), except a sale that qualifies under Gov. Code 66341. Governs both. Appears to conflict.
176 conversion ADU(s) exceed the limit of 5 (at least 1, up to 25 percent of existing units; none if the building is only proposed) (Gov. Code 66323(a)(3); EMC 17.80.020). Governs both. Appears to conflict.
189 detached ADU(s) exceed the limit of 8 (up to 8 and no more than the existing units; 2 on a proposed multifamily building) (Gov. Code 66323(a)(4); EMC 17.80.020). Governs both. Appears to conflict.
19A JADU is not a category available on a multifamily lot (EMC 17.80.020; Gov. Code 66323(a); a JADU exists only on a single-family lot, 66333). Governs both. Appears to conflict.
20The property is listed as historic; objective standards protecting listed historic resources may apply (Gov. Code 66314). Eastbrook 17.80.020 has no separate historic rule. State law governs this question. Needs review.
21A separate sale is proposed under Gov. Code 66341 (qualified nonprofit developer, recorded affordability and tenancy-in-common terms). This pre-screen cannot confirm those conditions. Needs review.
22Two ADUs would be on the lot but the type or size of the second is not fully stated. Allowed only as a conversion ADU plus one new detached ADU of 800 sq ft or less (Gov. Code 66323(a)(1)-(2)); Eastbrook alone allows one (EMC 17.80.020). Needs review.
23Separate new utility connections are planned for a conversion or JADU; an agency generally cannot require them, and any fee treatment is outside this pre-screen (Gov. Code 66324). State law governs. Needs review.

  

  

    
Scenarios and results
Click to expand
    
The recorded result of the validator for each scenario on this page: the request the AI agent sent, the verdict, and every finding, in the order they appear above.

    
1. Height: An attached unit 32 feet tall

    
The agent's request. I'm proposing a new attached ADU of 900 sq ft with 2 bedrooms, 32 ft tall. The side and rear setbacks are 4 ft and the front setback is 25 ft.

    
Verdict: Blocked.

    
    
      
  • Height above the most generous limit. Height 32.0 ft exceeds the most generous applicable limit (30.0 ft; the other law allows 25.0 ft). Governs Eastbrook (EMC 17.80.020; Gov. Code 66321). Appears to conflict.
    • 
    

    
2. Height: The same unit at 28 feet

    
The agent's request. I'm lowering the unit to 28 ft.

    
Verdict: Allowed.

    
3. City rules and state law: A large unit with a short front setback

    
The agent's request. I'm proposing a new detached ADU of 1000 sq ft with 3 bedrooms, 16 ft tall. The front setback is 12 ft, on a lot 60 ft deep where the main house sits 20 ft from the front property line. The unit is 38 ft deep.

    
Verdict: Blocked.

    
    
      
  • Front setback short of the main house. Front setback 12.0 ft is short of the 20.0 ft main dwelling front setback, and the state protection does not apply here (it covers a unit of 800 sq ft or less whose placement the front setback would block). Eastbrook governs (EMC 17.80.020). Appears to conflict.
    • 
    

    
4. City rules and state law: The same unit at 800 sq ft

    
The agent's request. I'm reducing the unit to 800 sq ft and 2 bedrooms. The front setback is still 12 ft.

    
Verdict: Allowed.

    
5. Several problems at once: A unit with five problems

    
The agent's request. I'm proposing a new detached ADU of 700 sq ft with 1 bedroom, 16 ft tall, with 4 ft side and rear setbacks and a 25 ft front setback. It shares the main entrance and has no address of its own. A passageway, parking and sprinklers are being required.

    
Verdict: Blocked.

    
    
      
  • Sprinklers required that the main home does not need. Sprinklers are being required for the ADU although the main home does not need them (Gov. Code 66323(d); EMC 17.80.020). Governs both. Appears to conflict.
    • 
      
  • No separate entrance. No separate exterior entrance (EMC 17.80.020 requires one; Gov. Code 66323(a)(1) and 66333 also require exterior access or a separate entrance). Governs both. Appears to conflict.
    • 
      
  • No separate address. No separate address (EMC 17.80.020 requires one; state ADU law is silent). Eastbrook governs. Appears to conflict.
    • 
      
  • Passageway required. A passageway from the street to the unit is being required (EMC 17.80.020: none; Gov. Code 66313, 66314 bar it). Governs both. Appears to conflict.
    • 
      
  • Parking required. Parking or replacement parking is being required (EMC 17.80.020: none in any case, and none for a lost garage). Eastbrook governs; Gov. Code 66322 gives the same relief in its listed situations. Appears to conflict.
    • 
    

    
6. Multifamily lots: Nine detached units on a 12-unit building

    
The agent's request. I'm proposing 9 detached ADUs of 600 sq ft, 16 ft tall, on an existing multifamily building with 12 units.

    
Verdict: Blocked.

    
    
      
  • Too many multifamily detached units. 9 detached ADU(s) exceed the limit of 8 (up to 8 and no more than the existing units; 2 on a proposed multifamily building) (Gov. Code 66323(a)(4); EMC 17.80.020). Governs both. Appears to conflict.
    • 
    

    
7. Multifamily lots: The same project with 8 units

    
The agent's request. I'm reducing the project to 8 detached ADUs.

    
Verdict: Allowed.

    
8. Staff review: A conversion in a listed historic home

    
The agent's request. I'm converting part of the house into a 500 sq ft ADU. The house is listed as historic.

    
Verdict: Needs approval.

    
    
      
  • Listed historic property needs staff review. The property is listed as historic; objective standards protecting listed historic resources may apply (Gov. Code 66314). Eastbrook 17.80.020 has no separate historic rule. State law governs this question. Needs review.
    • 
    

  

  

    
Narration transcript
Click to expand
    
The text of the narrated walkthrough, step by step.

    
    
      
  1. Welcome to a demo of Predictika's Validator. The City of Eastbrook, a fictional city in California, lets an AI intake agent pre-screen accessory dwelling unit (ADU) projects. Before the agent tells an applicant how the project looks, the call goes to Predictika’s ADU Project Pre-screen. It reads the project against California ADU law and the city code together: unit type, size, height, setbacks, entrance, address, parking, sprinklers, rentals, sales, historic status and the number of units. Where the city is stricter than state law, state law prevails and the validator says so. Then it returns one verdict: approvable by right, approvable with changes, or needs staff review.
    2. 
      
  2. I will start with the first request by the agent.
    3. 
      
  3. The agent says. I'm proposing a new attached ADU of 900 sq ft with 2 bedrooms, 32 ft tall. The side and rear setbacks are 4 ft and the front setback is 25 ft.
    4. 
      
  4. Before it goes out, the agent calls the validator.
    5. 
      
  5. Blocked, with one finding, all in one answer. Height 32.0 ft exceeds the most generous applicable limit (30.0 ft; the other law allows 25.0 ft). Governs Eastbrook (EMC 17.80.020; Gov. Code 66321). Appears to conflict.
    6. 
      
  6. The validator returned one blocking finding in one answer. A check that reads one field at a time would pass most of this; it shows only when the choices in the request are checked against each other.
    7. 
      
  7. What this shows: for height above the most generous limit, a tool can do this only with workarounds.
    8. 
      
  8. Now the agent resubmits.
    9. 
      
  9. The corrected request. It changes the height to 28 ft.
    10. 
      
  10. It calls the validator again.
    11. 
      
  11. This time the validator clears it.
    12. 
      
  12. The earlier finding is cleared.
    13. 
      
  13. One problem caught in one call, fixed in one pass, and a clean request. That is the value of Predictika's validator: catching mistakes before the action runs.
    14.