Citizen Portal
Sign In

Public commenter urges clearer ADU rules for multifamily; council to consider ordinance changes

San Gabriel City Planning Commission · April 14, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A public commenter told the Planning Commission the city's ADU code is tailored to single-family homes and requested clearer guidance on multifamily ADUs, parking, and second-story ADUs; staff said two zone-text amendments updating ADU rules will go to the city council next week.

Peter Wong, a resident and designer, used the public-comment period to ask the Planning Commission for clearer guidelines on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) for multifamily properties, saying the municipal code is geared toward single-family ADUs and that recent state law changes are not clearly reflected in local rules.

"I studied the city municipal code in regard to the ADU developments, and it is quite extensive, but it's just kind of geared towards single family," Wong told the commission, asking for formal guidance so designers and applicants can move projects forward without repeated staff cycles.

Staff (Marlon) told commissioners the city will present two zone-text amendments to the City Council next week intended to update the ADU ordinance in line with state guidelines, including changes that increase the allowable number of ADUs on some multifamily properties from a previous limit of two to as many as eight depending on unit count. The staff update was described as part of an upcoming council packet and staff report.

Wong pressed for additional clarity on parking requirements and the potential for second-story ADUs on multifamily properties; he said he and his clients have faced repeated review cycles to find answers on multifamily ADU design and compliance. Commissioners and staff agreed not to take formal action on the request tonight because the item was not on the published agenda and suggested awaiting the council's action and the staff report before directing new work to staff.

The commission returned to general business and adjourned the meeting.