Local zoning · Fillmore

Fillmore — Design Review

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

Last reviewed: July 2, 2026

Overview

Design review in Fillmore is an integrated part of the discretionary development-permit process: the Community Development Department (staff) applies objective and subjective design criteria, and projects that require a development permit or that involve exterior construction are routed through the design review procedures. Projects are evaluated against the ordinance development standards, any adopted design guidelines/policies, and the General Plan. See the city rules on how design review fits into the broader zoning and land use framework. Key topics that commonly appear in design review are parking, landscaping, and building siting and materials, each of which is separately regulated in the code and by adopted guidelines. § 6.04.6620


What the ordinance actually requires (core rules)

  • Design review is required for the review of architectural and site plan design for any project that needs a development permit and for many minor actions that involve physical construction or alteration: new structures listed as “D”, enlargements/expansions or exterior alterations (except some single‑family alterations), relocation of structures, and rebuilding of destroyed legal nonconforming structures without prior development permit. See applicability in § 6.04.6610 and the design rules in § 6.04.6620.

  • Who reviews: the code assigns review authority by project type and size (director vs. planning commission vs. council) in Table IV‑1; where the director is the review authority design review is administrative (no hearing) but commission/council matters follow public hearing procedures. See § 6.04.5001 (Table IV‑1) and § 6.04.6625.

  • Standards used for evaluation: compliance with ordinance development standards, adopted design guidelines/policies, General Plan consistency, site layout/compatibility, parking and access, water‑efficient landscaping, and other items the director identifies. These evaluation criteria are listed in § 6.04.6620.

  • Preliminary concept review: the director may require a pre‑application or preliminary design concept submittal for projects deemed significant to advise the applicant on applicable design guidelines and constraints. § 6.04.6620(4).

  • Findings for approval: the review authority may approve only if required findings (consistency with district provisions and design guidelines, General Plan, site suitability, CEQA compliance, public services, and public welfare/safety) can be made. See § 6.04.6630.


District-by-district breakdown (design review implications)

Note: the code contains many districts. Below are the Fillmore districts with explicit, ordinance-level design standards and site‑plan/design review rules that are directly referenced in the design review article. Bold the district names and the key numeric standards.

Business Park — BP, BP‑1, BP‑2

  • Purpose: The Business Park is intended to provide park-like office, commercial and industrial campuses with a high level of design quality and site amenities; approvals establish an approved site plan and site arrangement for the district. § 6.04.1201.
  • Typical permitted uses: campus retail/commercial, light industrial (BP‑1), and light/medium industrial with supportive retail (BP‑2). See the permitted/use matrix and accessory use list. § 6.04.1202–1206 / 6.04.1203.
  • Key dimensional/design controls that design review enforces:
    • Ventura Street front yard: 20 ft (landscaped); Ventura Street side & rear: 15 ft (landscaped). § 6.04.1210(B).
    • Building Height: 45 ft maximum in the Business Park District. § 6.04.1214(F).
    • Landscaping standards (trees per frontage, parking‑lot trees 1 per 15 spaces, permanent irrigation) are mandatory and must be submitted as part of site plan review. § 6.04.1215(4) / § 6.04.1210.
  • Where this matters: projects in BP/BP‑1/BP‑2 require site plan review and approval by the planning commission and council for uses in the district (and community development director for accessory uses) — design review is thus central to permit approval. § 6.04.1205 / 6.04.1206.

Residential Planned Development — RPD‑R, RPD‑L, RPD‑M, RPD‑M/H, RPD‑H

  • Purpose: residential planned development zones with graduated density and development standards; the code presents Table II‑1 with the development standards by RPD subtype which design review enforces. (Table II‑1; general purpose language in the RPD article.) Table II‑1 / § 6.04.?? (RPD intro).
  • Typical permitted uses: residential of varying densities (e.g., net units/acre from ~1 to 35 depending on subtype) and accessory uses consistent with the residential character. Table II‑1.
  • Key dimensional/design controls (select examples from Table II‑1):
    • Front setback (main structure): 18 ft (many RPD subtypes; some subtypes show 15 ft or 10 ft—see table). Table II‑1.
    • Maximum building height: 35 ft or 2 stories (most RPD‑R/L/M) and 40 ft or 3 stories (RPD‑H) where shown. Table II‑1.
    • Lot area, lot width, coverage, and private/outdoor space standards are listed in Table II‑1 and are enforced through design review and development permit findings. Table II‑1.
  • Where this matters: multi‑unit residential projects and planned developments routinely require development permits and design review per § 6.04.6601–6615 and must meet Table II‑1 standards.

Other districts / general rule (how to tell if your district is different)

  • The ordinance establishes that any use or change that is a listed “D” (development permit) in the zoning district, and many variances/minor modifications, are subject to design review. That means commercial, industrial and most multi‑family projects will hit design review even if the detailed design rules differ by district. See § 6.04.6610 and § 6.04.6620.

Decision‑relevant quick table

Topic What the code requires (short) Code reference
When design review applies For any project requiring a development permit (listed “D”), exterior alterations/enlargements (except some single‑family alterations), relocations, expansions of nonconforming structures, rebuilding without prior permit. § 6.04.6610
Design review procedures & criteria Director/Staff reviews complete application package; criteria include compatibility, parking/access, open space, landscaping, General Plan consistency, and adopted design guidelines. § 6.04.6620
Review authority / hearings Threshold table shows director vs. commission vs. council; where director is review authority there is no hearing; commission/council cases require notice/hearing. § 6.04.5001 (Table IV‑1) & § 6.04.6625
Business Park setbacks & height Ventura St front yard 20 ft; side/rear 15 ft; height 45 ft; landscaping and parking‑lot tree ratios required. § 6.04.1210–1215
Findings required to approve Must be permitted in zone, comply with ordinance/guidelines, consistent with General Plan, CEQA compliance, site suitability, public service adequacy, and not detrimental to public welfare. § 6.04.6630

Checklist — what an applicant must provide (minimum)

  • A complete development‑permit application per Section 6.04.78 (applications & fees) — Verify with the department for the current application packet. § 6.04.6605 / 6.04.78.
  • Full set of plans: site plan, floor plans, elevations, material/color samples, landscape plan with irrigation (landscape details are mandatory in many districts). § 6.04.6620; § 6.04.1215(4).
  • Parking and access plan complying with parking standards referenced in the ordinance; off‑street parking and loading must follow Sections 6.04.32/34. § 6.04.1218 / 6.04.1220.
  • Photos of existing conditions and context (adjacent uses and structures) for compatibility assessment. § 6.04.6620.
  • Any technical studies specifically required (grading plans, engineering, sewer, water availability, noise study if relevant). § 6.04.6615; § 6.04.6630(4–6).
  • If project is in BP or other districts with master plans, include design guideline compliance statement and any required Master Plan materials. § 6.04.1215(1).
  • Payment of fees and any performance security required by commission conditions. § 6.04.78; § 6.04.5210(5) (see applicable sections). Verify with the jurisdiction.

Risks & Ambiguities

Issue Why it matters What to verify
ADU design‑review applicability State ADU law interacts with local design standards; local ordinance text about ADUs is not present in the retrieved materials. Without local ADU rules you may not know whether ADUs are exempt or subject to design review. Verify with Community Development whether ADUs are handled ministerially or routed to design review; consult local ADU ordinance and state ADU rules. Not found in retrieved materials.
Whether a small exterior alteration triggers full commission hearing Director can approve many smaller projects administratively; commission/council involvement depends on thresholds in Table IV‑1. Misreading the threshold can add weeks/months. Check Table IV‑1 and confirm which review authority applies to the specific project type/size. § 6.04.5001
Vague guideline language (subjective design terms) The ordinance references “design guidelines/policies” that may be interpretive; this can produce different staff/commission outcomes. Request adopted design guidelines from the department early; ask for preliminary design concept review if project is significant. § 6.04.6620(2–4)
CEQA triggers tied to design changes Design changes can create environmental review needs; overlooking required studies can delay approval. Confirm CEQA screening requirements with staff and include required technical studies in the submittal. § 6.04.6615; § 6.04.6630(4)
District‑specific numeric standards (setbacks, height) Different districts have different numeric standards (e.g., BP setbacks/height vs. RPD table). Using the wrong standard can force redesign. Pull the exact district table (e.g., Table II‑1 for RPD; §§ 6.04.1210–1215 for BP). Verify with parcel zoning. § 6.04.1210; Table II‑1

Plain‑English summary

If your project requires a development permit or any exterior work beyond minor single‑family alterations, expect Fillmore staff to review the architecture, site layout, parking, landscaping and materials for consistency with the zoning district standards and the city’s adopted design guidelines; smaller projects may be approved administratively by the director, larger or more impactful projects will go to the planning commission (or council) and need the specific findings listed in the code. § 6.04.6610; § 6.04.6620; § 6.04.6630.


Source References

  • City of Fillmore Zoning Ordinance — Design review procedures: § 6.04.6620.
  • City of Fillmore Zoning Ordinance — Development permits: applicability and review: § 6.04.6601–6615 (including applicability rules).
  • City of Fillmore Zoning Ordinance — Threshold of Review / Table IV‑1 (director vs commission vs council): § 6.04.5001.
  • City of Fillmore Zoning Ordinance — Hearings / Findings / Expiration: § 6.04.6625; § 6.04.6630; § 6.04.6635.
  • City of Fillmore Zoning Ordinance — Business Park District standards (BP / BP‑1 / BP‑2): § 6.04.1201–1218 (setbacks, landscaping, height, permitted uses).
  • City of Fillmore Zoning Ordinance — Residential Planned Development (Table II‑1) (RPD‑R, RPD‑L, RPD‑M, etc.): Table II‑1.

If you want the exact adopted design guidelines or the department’s current application packet, request those from the Community Development Department; the ordinance directs the director/commission to maintain and use adopted design guidelines for review. § 6.04.6620(2).

Sources

Retrieved passages

  • Fillmore Zoning Code (section and) High relevance
  • Fillmore Zoning Code (§ 5) High relevance
  • Fillmore Zoning Code (Section 6.04.38) High relevance
  • Fillmore Zoning Code (Section 6.04.78) High relevance
  • Fillmore Zoning Code (Section 6.04.80) High relevance
  • Fillmore Zoning Code (Section 6.04.80) High relevance
  • Fillmore Zoning Code (Section 6.04.0225) High relevance
  • Fillmore Zoning Code (Section 6.04.78) High relevance
  • Fillmore Zoning Code High relevance
  • Fillmore Zoning Code (Chapter 2.32) Medium relevance
  • CBC § 66314 (§ 66314) Medium relevance

Cited sections

Frequently asked questions

Do I need design review in Fillmore?

If your project requires a development permit (a use or structure listed as “D”) or involves an enlargement/ exterior alteration (other than some single‑family alterations), it is subject to design review and the department will evaluate plans for consistency with the ordinance and adopted design guidelines. See § 6.04.6610 and § 6.04.6620.

Which approval authority (director vs. planning commission) will do the design review?

The review authority is determined by the threshold matrix (Table IV‑1). Smaller residential projects and non‑residential projects under 10,000 sq ft are commonly director‑level; larger projects and many conditional uses are commission or council level — check § 6.04.5001 (Table IV‑1).

What materials do I have to submit for design review?

A complete application must include site plans, elevations, material/color samples, landscape plan with irrigation, and any technical studies requested (grading, utilities, CEQA) — the director may require additional information for a thorough review. See § 6.04.6620 and § 6.04.6615.

What standards will the planner apply when judging "good design"?

Staff and the review authority apply the ordinance development standards, the General Plan, and any adopted design guidelines/policies. Specific criteria listed in the code include compatibility with neighboring properties, parking/access safety, appropriate open space and water‑efficient landscaping, and overall visual compatibility. § 6.04.6620.

What are Fillmore’s Business Park setbacks and height limits I should design to?

In the Business Park district the Ventura Street front yard is 20 ft (landscaped), side and rear 15 ft, and building height is 45 ft maximum; landscaping (trees per frontage and parking trees) and irrigation plans are required as part of site plan review. See § 6.04.1210–1215.

Are minor variances subject to design review?

Yes — minor variances (and other minor permits) that involve physical alteration are reviewed in compliance with the design review procedures; the director’s minor variance approvals are also analyzed under § 6.04.6620 prior to action. § 6.04.6215; § 6.04.6620.

If staff recommends major design changes, can I resubmit revised plans?

Yes — staff provides written findings and recommendations to the review authority and may request revised plans if staff recommendations would substantially alter the design; the director may require preliminary design concept review before a formal application. § 6.04.6620(3–4).

How do the design review rules interact with parking and landscaping rules?

Design review explicitly evaluates vehicular and pedestrian access, circulation, and parking — and the code requires landscaping plans and specific parking‑lot landscaping ratios; compliance with Off‑Street Parking sections is part of the design review. See § 6.04.6620 and § 6.04.1215 / 6.04.1220.

Can the director approve small design deviations (minor modifications) without commission review?

Yes — the director may approve minor modifications and certain minor variances administratively; however, the director may also refer any entitlement application to the commission at their discretion. Check Table IV‑1 and the minor modification rules. § 6.04.5001; § 6.04.60.

Where can I review the City’s adopted design guidelines that staff will use?

The ordinance states adopted design guidelines/policies are maintained by the department and used in review; ask the Community Development Department for the current adopted guidelines (code reference: § 6.04.6620(2)).

More in Fillmore code

Ask about any Fillmore property

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

Start Free Trial

More Fillmore zoning topics