Cathedral City planners say non‑conventional building materials allowed under code; urge climate‑focused design standards

The Cathedral City Planning Commission heard on Nov. 5 that non‑conventional construction materials such as straw‑bale, rammed earth, insulated concrete forms and cross‑laminated timber are permissible under the California residential building code when applicants provide engineer‑stamped plans and demonstrate compliance with seismic, energy and safety standards.

Staff told commissioners the city’s building official, Jeremy, provided an attachment summarizing how alternative materials can meet code requirements, and that applicants must submit plans stamped by a licensed engineer to demonstrate the structure is safe and habitable. “Yes, non conventional…materials are permissible under the building code, but you have to be able to justify, so to speak, that they do meet construction standards,” staff said during the presentation.

Why it matters: commissioners framed the discussion as part of a broader development code update that could add objective, climate‑responsive design standards to encourage energy‑wise construction without imposing unnecessary aesthetic restrictions. Commissioners voiced support for minimal, verifiable standards — examples discussed included deeper eaves, recessed windows and shading requirements for west‑ and south‑facing walls — that would aim to reduce energy demand in the desert climate.

Commissioner Bedard argued alternative materials and community or co‑build approaches can reduce up‑front costs and expand housing options, and urged separating the technical question of material permissibility from a separate policy debate over design overlays or neighborhood compatibility. “You could use that type of material and make it look like something else,” Bedard said, underscoring that many materials can be detailed to appear conventional.

Staff and other commissioners cautioned that objective design standards must be narrowly scoped for single‑family properties so as not to be unduly restrictive. Staff noted Cathedral City’s design guidelines date from about 1998; the objective design standards that consultants were retained to write were scoped primarily for multifamily and non‑residential projects, but commissioners asked staff to explore modest, localized single‑family standards during the code update.

Permits, prefabrication and ADUs: commissioners also discussed prefabricated and manufactured housing. Staff said the building code already allows manufactured and prefabricated homes when they are certified (for example by Housing and Community Development). For accessory dwelling units, staff noted recent changes that exempt ADUs of 800 square feet or less from architectural review in some cases.

Permit duration and extensions: the commission debated permit term limits for development approvals — whether to keep a 2‑year approval with a discretionary one‑year extension (a “2+1” approach) or move to a straight 3‑year term. Supporters of 2+1 said requiring a formal extension encourages timely progress; opponents noted limited discretion to deny an extension unless environmental circumstances change. Commissioners asked staff and the city attorney to research possible findings or progress‑based benchmarks that could justify denying an extension in specified circumstances.

Next steps: staff outlined the development code update schedule and outreach: steering‑committee review of objective design standards is planned for March 24, and the Planning Commission is scheduled to receive those materials April 22. Commissioners requested concise steering‑committee summaries via email between meetings so they can track changes.

Votes at a glance: the only formal recorded vote at this meeting was the approval of the minutes for the prior meeting, which passed 5‑0 after a motion by member Malakoff and a second from member McPhail.

The commission asked staff to return with technical clarifications (including follow‑up from building official Jeremy on seismic compliance for alternative materials), suggested modest, climate‑oriented design options for single‑family infill, and legal guidance on findings for permit extensions. The meeting adjourned with no policy changes adopted.