Local zoning · Artesia

Artesia — Design Review

Design Review under the Artesia local zoning and planning code, with the controlling citations.

Last reviewed: July 3, 2026

Overview

This page explains how design review works under the City of Artesia zoning and planning ordinance (what the code calls the Design Review / Development Review process). It summarizes who decides, which projects need review, the approval standards, application and appeal mechanics, and how the rules interact with local districts like R-1, C-O, and the Artesia Downtown Specific Plan (ADSP) areas. All requirements below are grounded in the Artesia Municipal Code; relevant code sections are cited with the controlling § number and the file reference from the retrieved ordinance text.

What "Design Review" covers in Artesia

Purpose: ensure site plan, building layout, scale, mass, height, materials, colors, landscaping and related elements are compatible with neighborhood character and the General Plan (§ 9-2.2001) .
Who decides: applications may be decided by the Planning Commission, the Planning Director (administrative), or the City Council under specific thresholds and appeal rules (§ 9-2.2002, § 9-2.2006–2008) .
Approval criteria: final approvals must meet objective compatibility and quality criteria including consistency with the General Plan/specific plan, applicable design guidelines and development standards, lot-appropriate massing and durable materials (§ 9-2.2005) .
Process triggers and exceptions: the code defines which projects require design review (see table below and § 9-2.2002) .

Note: building permits and technical construction compliance remain with the building department and the California Building Standards Code (Title 24); those technical requirements are separate from the discretionary design review findings. Verify how plan-check and design-review timing will be coordinated with the city on each application (Verify with the jurisdiction).

Which projects require design review (key categories)

The most useful decision summary is this table pulled from the ordinance:

What triggers review	Decision body / pathway	Why it matters	Code Reference
Any building or structure requiring a building permit in any zone other than A-1, R-1, or M‑D‑R (and M‑R only if it is a one‑family dwelling)	Planning Commission review (unless otherwise stated)	Broad requirement: most non-single‑family projects face discretionary aesthetic review	§ 9-2.2002(a)(1)
Any building or structure in A-1, R-1, M‑D‑R intended for non‑dwelling uses	Planning Commission review	Commercial/other uses in residential zones are discretionary	§ 9-2.2002(a)(2)
Major wall signs	Design review as specified by Article 12/12.5 (sign criteria)	Signs are reviewed under the design criteria (not simply ministerial)	§ 9-2.2002(a)(3)
Exterior color changes (most structures)	Administrative review by City Manager or designee; appealable	Small facade/paint changes mostly handled administratively but must meet the color guidelines and design criteria	§ 9-2.2002(d) and § 9-2.2005
Wireless communications facilities	Director review unless classified major under Article 42	Special pathway for wireless; major facilities follow Article 42	§ 9-2.2002(c)
Cannabis sites with valid commercial cannabis permits: major v. minor façade modifications	Major = Commission; Minor = administrative Director (60% façade rule)	The code draws a quantitative line (60% of façade) for cannabis-site façade changes	§ 9-2.2002(b)

District-by-district breakdown

Below are Artesia districts specifically mentioned in the ordinance text with what the code says about intent, typical permitted uses, where design review applies, and the dimensional standards the code supplies in the retrieved material.

Agricultural‑Single‑Family Residential (A‑1)

Purpose: preserve agricultural / single‑family residential uses. (§ 9-2.2801 and related residential articles not fully excerpted) .
Typical permitted uses: single‑family dwellings and incidental uses; mobilehomes under conditions (found in residential standards) (§ 9-2.2802 and related provisions) .
Design review: Most new structures in A‑1 are excluded from Commission review only when they are single‑family residences used for residential purposes; however any non‑residential design or a change in exterior design for non‑residential use triggers Commission review (§ 9-2.2002(a)(1)–(2)) .
Key dimensional standards: Not fully available in retrieved sections for A‑1 (Not found in retrieved materials). Verify with the jurisdiction.

Single‑Family Residential (R‑1)

Purpose: provide areas developed exclusively for one‑family dwellings (§ 9-2.2801) .
Typical permitted uses: detached one‑family dwellings (with accessory uses like small family day care) (§ 9-2.2802) .
Design review: Single‑family homes used solely as residences are generally outside the main Commission review trigger, but certain actions—like two‑story homes—require site plan approval by the City Manager (administrative) and are reviewed under development review standards (§ 9-2.702 reference; see §9-2.2804(n)) .
Key dimensional standards: The code excerpts require a minimum residential area, front façade offsets, maximum finished floor height above grade, and other architectural controls (e.g., minimum finished floor height, offsets, porch/garage rules) — see the residential standards referenced in Article 28 (selected items in § 9-2.2804 and related subsections) .
Parking: special parking review applies for two‑story houses; see site plan approval note below and link to Artesia parking for related requirements (§ 9-2.2804(n)) .

Medium Density Residential (M‑D‑R) and Multiple‑Residential (M‑R)

Purpose & uses: intended for multi‑unit residential development; exact text for densities/standards not fully quoted in provided excerpts. (Not found in retrieved materials for full standards) .
Design review: Projects in M‑D‑R and M‑R follow the general design review triggers — new construction or exterior modifications may be subject to Commission review except for one‑family dwellings in M‑R, which are treated like single‑family for the § 9-2.2002 trigger (§ 9-2.2002(a)(1)) .
Key dimensional standards: Not found in the retrieved materials. Verify with the jurisdiction.

Commercial zones (General and Planned Development) and Specific Plans (including ADSP, Artesia Boulevard SP, Artesia Boulevard Corridor SP)

Purpose & uses: commercial zones accommodate retail, office, and other non‑residential uses; specific plan areas like the Artesia Downtown Specific Plan (ADSP) have their own controls and may supersede the Zoning Law where adopted (§ 9-2.3454–3456) .
Design review: Commercial buildings and exterior changes in non‑residential zones are explicitly subject to design review (typically Commission) (§ 9-2.2002(a)(1)) . Projects within a specific plan must show consistency with that specific plan; where the specific plan is silent, the Zoning Law controls (§ 9-2.3455–3456) .
Key dimensional standards: Many specifics are in the individual zone articles or the ADSP; the retrieved excerpts reference ADSP boundaries and that ADSP provisions prevail where adopted (§ 9-2.3457) . Verify project‑level standards with the ADSP and the city.

Condominium Zone (C‑O)

Purpose: limited‑height multiple residential areas intended for condominiums (§ 9-2.3501) .
Typical permitted uses: condominiums (§ 9-2.3502) .
Design review: multi‑unit condominium projects would be subject to discretionary approvals (conditional use, design review, tentative map) and must satisfy condominium development standards (§ 9-2.3606, § 9-2.3604) .
Key dimensional standards: the C‑O article provides minimum lot area (60,000 sq ft), density metrics, minimum lot width, and yard standards (e.g., front yard 15 ft; garages/parking 25 ft from curb) (§ 9-2.3503) .

How decisions are made: findings, notice, appeals, and conditions

Approval findings: Applications must meet the criteria in § 9-2.2005 (consistency with General Plan/specific plan/guidelines/development standards; compatibility; desirable occupant/public environment; durable materials) .
Application contents: applicants must use a city form, pay fees, submit scaled site and elevation plans for new structures, and provide owner authorization if not owner‑applicant (§ 9-2.2003) .
Notice & hearing: design review is subject to the notice/hearing requirements of Article 23 unless specifically exempted (administrative Director decisions often do not require hearing) (§ 9-2.2004) .
Council affirmation: if a Commission decision involves a structure over 35 ft in height (without a height variance) or more than 20,000 sq ft of floor area, the Commission decision requires City Council affirmation before it becomes final (§ 9-2.2007) .
Appeals: actions of the Planning Director or Planning Commission on design review may be appealed (15‑day appeal window) as described in Article 19 and § 9-2.2008 .

Design guidance references the code relies on

The ordinance directs consistency with adopted design guidelines such as the City's Color Guidelines (exterior color changes must comply with the Color Guidelines and satisfy § 9-2.2005) (§ 9-2.2002(d)) .
Landscaping and screening expectations are folded into the design criteria and other landscape-specific articles (see Article 15 and the City's Water Efficient Landscape adoption) — landscaping matters may be imposed as conditions when approving design review (see § 9-2.1550 and related landscape articles) .

Checklist

Submit a completed design review application form and fee per City fee resolution (§ 9-2.2003)
Provide scaled site plan and building elevation drawings for any new structure (§ 9-2.2003)
Demonstrate consistency with General Plan / applicable specific plan and design guidelines (§ 9-2.2005; § 9-2.3455)
Document materials, colors (include Color Guidelines references if applicable), landscape plan, lighting, and parking layout where applicable (two‑story houses require parking design approval) (§ 9-2.2005; § 9-2.2804(n))
If project is in a specific plan area (e.g., ADSP), include a consistency analysis and any specific plan forms (§ 9-2.3455–3456)
Expect notice/hearing procedures unless the Planning Director handles the matter (§ 9-2.2004)

Risks & Ambiguities

Issue	Why it matters	What to verify
Administrative vs. Commission review path	The code splits jurisdiction (Director vs Commission vs Council affirmation thresholds). Misfiling changes process/timing and noticing requirements.	Confirm the project classification under § 9-2.2002 and whether administrative review applies (Planning Director/City Manager) .
Specific plan controls (ADSP and other SPs)	Specific plans override or supplement zoning; inconsistency can void approvals.	Verify whether the parcel lies in the ADSP or another specific plan and which provisions control (§ 9-2.3455–3456) .
Height / floor area thresholds that trigger Council affirmation	Projects >35 ft or >20,000 sq ft require Council affirmation of Planning Commission action; missing this can lead to reprocessing.	Confirm building height and total floor area early and whether a height variance applies (§ 9-2.2007) .
Objective vs. discretionary standards for ADUs and small residential changes	State ADU law limits discretionary, subjective standards; conflicting local design-review practices may run into state preemption.	For ADU applications, check how the City applies design review vs. ministerial ADU rules and consult the City's ADU page or planner (Not found in retrieved materials for the ADU–design‑review interplay) .
Color/paint changes handled administratively but appealable	Applicants may assume color is routine; administrative denials can be appealed to Commission/Council and add time.	Confirm Color Guidelines submittal requirements and appeal path (§ 9-2.2002(d); § 9-2.2003) .

Plain-English Summary

If you build or change the exterior of most non‑single‑family buildings in Artesia, or change a residential property to a non‑residential use, you will need to pass the city's design review test — either administratively or before the Planning Commission — by showing your plans fit the General Plan, applicable specific plans or design guidelines, and the city's development standards; the approval criteria and application requirements are in §§ 9‑2.2001–9‑2.2008 and § 9‑2.2003 of the municipal code.

Source References

Artesia Municipal Code, Article 20 (Design Review Approval): § 9-2.2001–§ 9-2.2008 (purpose, project categories, application, notice/hearing, findings, resolution, appeals) .
Application specifics: § 9-2.2003 (application requirements) .
Coloring and color guidelines: § 9-2.2002(d) and cross‑reference to Color Guidelines and approval criteria (§ 9-2.2005) .
Council affirmation and appeals: § 9-2.2007–§ 9-2.2008 (council affirmation thresholds; appeals process) .
Two‑story home/site plan and residential standards: Article 28 (R‑1) references and § 9-2.2804(n) on two‑story home site plan approval (§ 9-2.702 cross‑reference) .
Specific plans and ADSP: § 9-2.3454–§ 9-2.3456 (specific plan consistency and control) .
Condominium zone and condominium project submittal standards: Articles 35 and 36, including § 9-2.3501–§ 9-2.3503 and § 9-2.3604–§ 9-2.3606 for condominium submission requirements and standards .

Sources

Retrieved passages

Artesia Zoning Code (§ 7) High relevance
Artesia Zoning Code (§ 7) High relevance
Artesia Zoning Code (§ 7) High relevance
Artesia Zoning Code (article and) High relevance
Artesia Zoning Code (Section 9-2.702) High relevance
Artesia Zoning Code (§ 7) High relevance
Artesia Zoning Code (article would) High relevance
Artesia Zoning Code (§ 83.01) High relevance

Cited sections

Official Artesia code library

Frequently asked questions

Do I need design review in Artesia for a new retail building?

Yes. Any new building that requires a building permit in a non‑residential or not‑expressly exempt residential zone is subject to design review and typically submitted to the Planning Commission (§ 9‑2.2002(a)(1)) .

What triggers Planning Commission review versus administrative review?

The code lists categories: most non‑residential building permits and certain residential non‑dwelling uses go to the Planning Commission. The Planning Director/City Manager handles items explicitly listed for administrative review (e.g., some wireless facilities and color changes) — consult § 9‑2.2002 for the criteria that split Commission vs. Director review (§ 9‑2.2002) .

What are the approval criteria the city uses to decide a design review?

Applications must be consistent with the General Plan, any applicable specific plan and design guidelines, and the development standards; they also must be compatible with adjacent uses, provide a desirable environment, and use durable, high‑quality materials (§ 9‑2.2005) .

Does a paint color change require formal review?

Most exterior color changes are reviewed administratively by the City Manager or designee and must comply with the City's Color Guidelines and § 9‑2.2005 approval criteria; the administrative decision is appealable (§ 9‑2.2002(d); § 9‑2.2005) .

If my project is over 35 feet tall, does anything special happen?

Yes. If the Planning Commission approves or denies a design review for a project that exceeds 35 ft in height (and is not the subject of a height variance) or exceeds 20,000 sq ft of floor area, the Commission's decision does not become final unless the City Council affirms it (Council review/affirmation requirement) (§ 9‑2.2007) .

What information do I need to file a design review application?

At minimum: the City's application form, fee, scaled site plan and elevation drawings for new structures, and owner authorization if the applicant is not the owner (§ 9‑2.2003) .

Are signs reviewed through the same process?

Major wall signs are included in the design review categories and are considered per Article 12/12.5 of the code; signs have their own criteria but are processed under the design review article as specified (§ 9‑2.2002(a)(3)) .

How does the specific plan (ADSP) affect design review?

If your site is inside an adopted specific plan area such as the ADSP, the specific plan's standards and approvals control; no discretionary approval (including design review) may be adopted unless consistent with the specific plan (§ 9‑2.3455–3456) .

Can I appeal a Planning Director's administrative approval?

Yes. Except where law states otherwise (e.g., wireless facility rules differ), actions of the Planning Director or Planning Commission regarding design review can be appealed within 15 days following the appeal procedures in Article 19 (§ 9‑2.2008 and Article 19) .

Does the design review approval ever expire or get revoked?

Yes. The code provides revocation, suspension, modification and termination procedures for discretionary approvals including design review; properties then must be brought into compliance within the period set by the Planning Commission or Council (see § 9‑2.1804–1807) .

Ask about any Artesia property

Get a cited, plain-English answer on Artesia zoning, setbacks, FAR, ADUs and permits — for any address.

Start Free Trial