Camarillo planning commission recommends code amendments to reflect 2024 state housing laws, adds objective design standards

Camarillo Planning Commission members voted to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Title 19 of the Camarillo Municipal Code to implement several 2024 state housing laws, add objective design standards for new residential structures, and extend noticing for zoning changes.

The change package, summarized to the commission on Feb. 18, 2025, reflects state bills addressing accessory dwelling units (ADUs), ministerial approval for certain small subdivisions (up to 10 units), objective design standards for residential development, rules for urban dwelling units and urban lot splits, and longer public‑hearing notice for zoning changes that affect permitted uses.

City staff told commissioners the proposed redlines update local code citations and adopt the state provisions by reference where permitted. Staff said the code will (1) update citations moved within the California Government Code, while declining to adopt a state provision that would require the city to allow ADUs to be sold separately from the primary dwelling; (2) implement a state rule that prohibits requiring replacement of off‑street parking when an uncovered space is removed to accommodate an ADU and that defines “livable space” for ADU purposes; (3) adopt the new ministerial approval process that allows single‑family subdivisions of 10 units or fewer to be reviewed without discretionary hearings when they meet strict objective criteria; and (4) incorporate SB 9/SB 450 changes to urban lot splits and urban dwelling units, including new timelines and limits on discretionary denials.

Key technical points discussed at the hearing include:

- ADUs: staff said the municipal code will reference relocated state ADU provisions and will not adopt the portion of the cited government code section that would permit separate sale of ADUs from the primary dwelling. Staff also noted the state now prohibits requiring replacement of uncovered off‑street parking demolished to build an ADU and defines “livable space” as space intended for human habitation (living, sleeping, eating, cooking, or sanitation). (source: community development staff)

- Ministerial 10‑unit subdivisions: staff summarized criteria a project must meet to qualify for the ministerial process: qualifying lots must be zoned for multifamily (no larger than 5 acres) or vacant/zoned single‑family (no larger than 1.5 acres); multifamily lots must be substantially surrounded (at least 75%) by urban uses; newly created single‑family parcels may not be under 1,200 sq ft and multifamily parcels 600 sq ft; average unit size cannot exceed 1,750 sq ft; some sites are excluded (prime farmland, wetlands in very high fire hazard zones, special flood hazard areas, habitat for certain protected species, earthquake fault zones unless seismic standards are met, and similar hazard or resource areas); and projects on lots identified in the housing element must create the same number of lower‑income units as projected in that housing element. Staff also said the city may disapprove a ministerial project only if a written finding based on a preponderance of the evidence shows a specific, unmitigable adverse impact on public health or safety.

- Urban lot splits / SB 9 / SB 450: staff explained the law now limits the city’s ability to apply unique standards to these projects, removes the previous 25% exterior wall demolition limit, and requires approval or denial within 60 days of a complete application (approval by inaction if the city does not respond). Staff said the proposed redlines generalize existing urban dwelling unit requirements so the city no longer applies separate rules to these project types.

- Objective design standards (new Ch. 19.41): staff proposed interim objective standards intended to be clear and non‑subjective. Examples presented include a required use of at least two paint colors (main wall plus trim), minimum roof pitch of 3:12 with roof colors limited to gray, brown, or natural clay, a minimum of three different elevation materials repeated on each building face (brick, stone, fiber cement siding, or stucco listed as examples), eave depths between 1 and 3 feet, window treatment and shutter proportionality requirements, a prohibition on unbroken wall planes greater than 15 feet, and a menu of architectural styles (Spanish colonial revival, Monterey, Craftsman, French country and one other listed) with applicants required to select at least five elements from the chosen style. Staff also noted a director‑level exception process: the community development director may approve an alternative design if three findings are made (equivalent or superior architectural quality, neighborhood compatibility, and no adverse effect on public health, safety or welfare). (source: community development staff)

- Noticing (AB 2904): staff said AB 2904 increases minimum noticing from 10 to 20 days for any zoning ordinance or zoning amendment that affects permitted uses; the proposed edits would change Chapter 19.84 to require at least 20 days’ published notice before the Planning Commission hearing.

Commissioners asked clarifying questions about specific draft language. They flagged apparent typographical or drafting issues (for example, an incomplete citation in the ADU section and awkward wording in driveway requirements), asked whether the design elements could raise costs for affordable housing, and requested clarity on when a new driveway approach would be allowed for lot splits. Planning staff agreed to clean up language before the item goes to City Council and said driveway language would be revisited with public works to clarify when a new drive approach would be permitted or required. Planning staff also said the city tracks ADU and ministerial application counts and will report exact numbers in the upcoming General Plan annual progress report to HCD and OPR.

“The proposed standards provide a floor for the quality of residential development, not a ceiling,” city staff said during the presentation.

After discussion, Commissioner Edsall moved and a colleague seconded a resolution recommending City Council approval. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution PC 2025‑1 by voice vote; the roll call recorded Commissioners Edsall, Vander Meulen and Chair Limon voting yes and the motion passed. The recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for final action.

Next steps: staff will revise the ordinance text per the commission’s comments and present the item to the City Council. Staff also said a comprehensive general plan update and a Climate Action Plan outreach are planned; the safety element is anticipated to come back to the commission in March.