Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Calabasas adopts objective design standards first reading, council splits 4–1 on ordinance
Summary
After a staff and consultant presentation, the council moved forward on objective design standards for multifamily and mixed‑use projects, introducing ordinance 2026‑424 (adding section 17.12.147) at first reading; the motion passed 4–1 amidst questions about waivers, density bonuses and enforceability.
Calabasas moved forward April 22 on formal objective design standards (ODS) intended to provide measurable, ministerial review criteria for qualifying multifamily and mixed‑use housing projects required under state law. Staff recommended introducing Ordinance No. 2026‑424 to add section 17.12.147 to the Calabasas Municipal Code and amend section 17.12.145; the council voted 4–1 on first reading after a lengthy presentation and Q&A.
City planning staff summarized the ODS purpose, structure and required municipal code amendments, and said the planning commission recommended edits (including allowing the planning director limited flexibility to update the tree and plant list). The consultant from John Kaliske Architects (JKA) described the document organization (user guide, site and open space standards, massing and bulk, regional and Old Town architecture) and the appendix tree and plant palette. Staff said projects that comply with all objective standards would be eligible for ministerial approval at the director level, while projects requesting deviations—waivers, incentives or concessions—would be referred to the planning commission for transparency.
Council discussion focused on parking and frontage standards, how detached condominium projects are classified relative to multifamily definitions, and lessons learned from other cities where density‑bonus waivers reduced the practical impact of some standards. Staff acknowledged that state density bonus law can require many waivers, so the ordinance channels projects requesting state incentives to planning commission review to preserve transparency. Councilmember Kraut moved adoption/introduction of the ordinance; the title was read and council waived reading of the full text. The first‑reading motion passed 4–1.
