Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Adus topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning Commission recommends Upland update ADU/JADU ordinance to match state law

City of Upland Planning Commission · January 28, 2026
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

The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend that City Council adopt an update to Chapter 17.37 aligning local ADU and JADU rules with recent California law, adding measurement, appeal, and permit-completeness requirements and allowing combined ADU options on qualifying lots.

The Upland Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt a zoning-code amendment updating local rules for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (JADUs) to reflect changes in state law. Planning Manager Laura Lee Farris told commissioners the amendments incorporate measures that took effect Jan. 1, 2026, and that "staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution to the staff report recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance."

Farris outlined key state changes the ordinance incorporates: AB 462 (disaster-area occupancy exceptions), AB 1154 (JADU occupancy and short-term rental restrictions), SB 9 and SB 543 (transparency and measurement rules), and a new clarification from the Housing and Community Development Department on when multiple ADU options may be combined on a single lot. She said the draft uses interior "livable space" rather than gross square footage to measure ADUs and JDUs and implements a 15-business-day deadline to deem an application complete (with an appeal path to the commission for incompleteness determinations).

Commissioners questioned how much local discretion remains. Commissioner Johnson said he was concerned about "Sacramento telling Upland what to do," and asked whether SB 543 conflicts with prior council direction. Service Director Mr. Dahlquist and Farris replied that local ordinances must be consistent with state law or they may be nullified, but cities retain limited supplemental regulations if they comply. Dahlquist said "we don't really have a choice" about compliance.

After deliberation, a commissioner moved and the commission voted to adopt a resolution recommending Council approve Zoning Code Amendment No. 25-0004; the motion passed with six affirmative votes and one opposition. The commission's action is a recommendation to the city council and is not subject to an appeal period at the commission level.