Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Adus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sierra Madre council adopts first reading of ADU ordinance and directs staff to draft a tiered fee schedule
Summary
The City Council introduced ordinance 14-94 to align local accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules with state law and unanimously directed staff to return with a fee resolution that discounts the first ADU, charges higher proportions for subsequent units and applies multifamily rates outside R‑1 zones. Staff estimated the policy change could recapture previously waived impact fees while still incentivizing smaller ADUs.
The Sierra Madre City Council on May 12 approved first reading of ordinance 14‑94, updating local rules for accessory dwelling units to conform to recent state ADU law, and gave staff direction to prepare a new public‑facilities fee schedule for council consideration.
Senior Planner Wolf told the council the ordinance aligns Sierra Madre’s definitions, timelines and historic‑preservation provisions with state law and implements ministerial review timeframes the state requires. Wolf said state rules allow combinations of attached, detached and junior ADUs and clarified that the city’s code needs to reflect those limits and procedural changes.
“The ordinance is consistent with the general plan’s housing element and streamlines ADU permitting while updating standards where state law has changed,” Wolf said.
The bulk of the meeting’s debate focused on whether — and how — to charge public‑facilities (impact) fees for ADUs. Wolf reminded council that a 2006 nexus study underpins the city’s existing fee schedule and that the city had waived ADU fees since 2021; staff reported the forgone revenue totaled roughly $1.7 million from 2020 to 2025.
Council members raised equity and incentive questions. Several members said the state’s proportionality formula can produce results councilmembers called inequitable — for example, the same ADU can trigger a much higher proportional fee when paired with a small primary house than when paired with a very large primary house. Others emphasized the council’s goal of encouraging smaller, more affordable ADUs to help meet housing targets.
After extended discussion, councilors converged on principles to guide staff drafting: apply the single‑family fee schedule for ADUs in R‑1 zones but provide a substantial discount for the first ADU, a smaller discount for a second ADU on the same lot, and require full proportional fees for later additional dwellings; in non‑R1 zones, use the multifamily fee schedule. Council directed staff to draft a resolution and ordinance language reflecting those principles and to return with specific rates and fiscal projections.
Mayor Christine Loh summarized the decision as a middle path: “We want to encourage the first unit, but not subsidize multiple‑unit conversion that effectively creates dense, for‑profit development on single parcels.”
The council approved the motion directing staff to prepare the fee schedule and accompanying legal findings; staff noted any final fee will have to conform to state law’s proportionality limits and to the upcoming nexus‑study updates required by statute.
What’s next: staff will prepare draft fee language and an implementing resolution — including examples, zone‑by‑zone application and fiscal estimates — for council review at a later meeting. The ordinance 14‑94 (text changes to Chapter 17) was introduced by title; a second reading/adoption will follow the fee discussion as required.
