Whether you call them “granny flats,” accessory dwelling units or extra rent income, the city of Santa Clarita could see a whole lot more of them popping up with pending changes to the city’s municipal code.
Despite years of attempts to slow their proliferation — due to fire concern and the need to preserve local control, according to city officials — the City Council approved a first reading of changes that would make it easier to put an ADU on a local property.
The rule changes were approved with a 3-1 vote, as Councilman Jason Gibbs was absent from the meeting. Councilwoman Marsha McLean, calling her move “ceremonial,” was the lone no.
“I’m sorry, I cannot vote yes on this,” McLean said when the time came. “I know it’s ceremonial, and I know we’re supposed to, and you guys are doing what you have to do — I vote no.”
A second reading is expected in two weeks, which would make the changes final.
Santa Clarita Mayor Laurene Weste said the state law gave the city no choice, by design, calling the situation a “compliance mandate that doesn’t give the city any option.”
And as the city spent about 20 minutes explaining during a staff presentation, which was then seconded by City Attorney Joe Montes — the state really wasn’t interested in hearing the city’s concerns about its very high-fire hazard severity zones.
Andrew Olsen, an associate planner for the city, described the city’s ADU approach during a Planning Commission hearing last month as being “as conservative as possible,” due to several reasons.
There’s a desire to preserve “neighborhood integrity,” according to city officials, as well as keeping the units from popping up all over local canyons in high-fire severity zones, where the city argued to the state that such approvals represent a fire hazard.
The arguments, which were made by multiple jurisdictions, fell on deaf ears in Sacramento, according to Montes at Tuesday’s meeting.
At one point, Montes mentioned a letter from the Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and Environment, addressing the environmentalist group’s concerns with the city’s changes.
The environmentalists recently raised concerns about the city’s oak-tree ordinance being superseded by the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development, or HCD, requirements, which don’t allow the city to prevent an ADU because an oak tree is in its way, according to Montes.
He said the city now has a 60-day “shot clock” to approve such plans when they’re presented, and oak trees are not a consideration.
“Those are identified on fire maps that we dealt with earlier in the year,” Montes said. “The city had prohibited ADUs in those areas. HCD did not agree. The city pushed back in its letter. The HCD did not agree with the city’s rationale.”
In terms of further study to support the city’s position, he said a countywide request, specifically for areas in the burn scars of the Eaton and Palisades fires — accompanied by a study showing the potential danger of such approvals — also was rejected, per Montes.
The city’s stance on ADUs also has been challenged by housing-advocacy groups in the courts.
The city passed its original ADU ordinance in February 2021, and then was told further revision was necessary more than two years later. The city responded within 30 days, according to a city report, but it didn’t hear back until the city passed further changes in 2025.
The city tried to add additional regulations on what could be approved in an ADU, following legislative changes to what’s now required or allowed for heights, number of detached multifamily ADUs and parking.
By December, the city had been taken to court by housing advocates who had sent threat letters to governments up and down the state that were no longer in compliance with the latest housing rules.
