Thousand Oaks council adopts ordinance to align ADU rules with new state law

The Thousand Oaks City Council on Tuesday voted 5-0 to amend the city’s ADU regulations to incorporate recent state law changes and clarifications, including provisions of Assembly Bill 2533 and Senate Bill 1211.

Senior Planner Justine Kendall told the council the ordinance updates definitions, the permitted-use matrix and several development standards in Title 9, Chapter 4 of the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code so the city’s rules conform with state ADU law that took effect Jan. 1. “The proposed updates address inconsistencies between the city's local ADU and junior ADU development standards and the amended state laws,” Kendall said. She noted the city’s ADU webpage (toaks.gov/adu) had been updated to reflect new state-required public disclosures.

Kendall and city attorneys walked the council through key changes required by state law: AB 2533 expands the timeframe and procedural guidance for legalizing unpermitted ADUs and requires agencies not to penalize owners seeking legalization; SB 1211 restricts replacement-parking requirements (expanded to include uncovered parking) and expands the number of detached ADUs allowable on some multifamily lots (raising a prior limit of two to as many as eight or equal to the number of existing units, whichever is fewer).

Council members asked detailed questions about how the state changes would play out locally. Council member Adam sought clarification on the “eight-unit” change; staff said the increase applies only to existing multifamily developments and that single-family lots remain governed by the usual two-ADU limit. Council member Engler asked whether parking loss would be regulated; staff said state law limits when the city may require replacement parking and the update adds uncovered parking to that list. Mayor Newman and councilors pressed staff on preemption and whether the city could vote “no”; the city attorney told the council it could, but doing so would create conflicts with state law and likely require processing ADU applications under state standards if local rules were out of compliance.

Two members of the public — John and Nan Chu — addressed the council during the public hearing. John raised constitutional concerns related to CC&Rs and state law; Kendall and the city attorney advised that California Civil Code Section 4751 and related legal issues are matters in active statewide discussion and litigation, and that the city must apply state law as written. Chu offered a list of neighborhood-protection suggestions (for example, construction limits and nuisance controls); staff said many of those protections are already available through the city’s nuisance and code-enforcement rules, but that state law forbids ministerial ADU approvals from being conditioned on neighborhood hearings.

After discussion, Council member Adam moved to introduce the ordinance as drafted and place it on its reading and adoption path. The council voted 5-0 to approve the municipal code amendment, read title only and waive further reading. The ordinance language as read amends definitions and multiple sections of Article 45 (ADU standards) to implement MCA 2024-70005.

The ordinance update was presented as exempt from CEQA and staff and the city attorney said the changes are primarily ministerial updates required by state law rather than new discretionary policy. The council directed staff to continue outreach and to post clarifying materials for applicants about required inspections and the city’s legalization process for unpermitted ADUs.