PREPARED BY: MEL MACKSON DATE OF MEETING: 07/28/2026
SUBJECT:
TITLE
PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO MISCELLANEOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 17 “ZONING” OF THE SAN PABLO MUNICIPAL CODE IN ORDER TO: MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY ACROSS CODE SECTIONS, REFLECT CURRENT PRACTICE, IMPLEMENT BEST PRACTICE, AND MAKE OTHER MINOR, ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES
CEQA: This is not a project subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Recommendation
For Informational Purposes Only
Body
BACKGROUND
Staff is working on a series of code “clean-up” text amendments to comply with state law, reflect current practice, implement best practice, and facilitate efficient, consistent, and clear interpretation and application of the Zoning Ordinance. Each batch will first be presented as a study session to the Planning Commission. This is an opportunity for the Commissioners to review and discuss the proposed draft changes with no action item. With feedback and direction by the Planning Commission from the study session, staff will then bring the final proposed text amendments back to a future Planning Commission meeting as a public hearing to consider a recommendation for City Council to adopt the amendments.
DISCUSSION
The first batch of proposed amendments are small fixes to administrative processes in order to reflect current practice and/or implement best practice. The proposed amendments include the following:
• Conditional Use Permit findings
The findings that must be made by the Planning Commission in order to grant a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) are proposed to be repealed and replaced. The proposed language is similar to what is existing, but is more objective, clear, and practical. Various sections throughout the code that mention the CUP process and findings will also be updated to reflect the changes.
Section 17.20.040(B) Conditional use permit
EXISTING:
“Findings. In order to grant any use permit, the findings of the planning commission shall be that the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use of the building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the city.”
PROPOSED:
“In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission shall make the following findings:
1. The proposed location and use are consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The design and operating characteristics of the proposed use are appropriate for their intended function and are harmonious with, and properly related to, the surrounding environment, adjacent properties, and the site itself.
3. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare of the surrounding neighborhood.
4. The site of the proposed use is adequately served by highways, streets, pedestrian and bicycle access, and other public service facilities.”
• Permit approvals, extensions, and expiration
When land use and planning permits and entitlements are granted, the existing code says that the property owner must “exercise” the permit within one year of approval. The code defines exercising a permit as follows: “The exercise of a permit occurs when the property owner has performed substantial work as determined by the zoning administrator and the building official and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance on the building permit.” [Section 17.16.100(B)]
An extension of up to one year can be granted by the same approving authority that granted the original permit, to include public notice and/or a public hearing. If the time limits are reached without exercising the permit, it is deemed expired. However, many permit types that would be subject to this section have their own provisions that contradict this section. For example, Major Design Review, Variances, and CUPs are all approved by the Planning Commission, but their respective sections require the issuance of a building permit within one year, and direct the Zoning Administrator to evaluate extension requests.
The proposed changes would amend the language regarding general permit expiration to be consistent with the sections subject to the existing language. The proposed changes would also extend the permit time limit from one year to two years, and increase permit extensions from one year to no more than two years. Other sections of the code that outline expiration timelines and extension would be updated in accordance with the proposed changes.
The proposed changes are also a response to the reality of large development projects in San Pablo today. The process of having plans reviewed and revised to meet changing state and federal requirements has lengthened the time it takes to obtain a building permit. Staff has experienced a trend of large development projects that receive planning approval but face obstacles trying to obtain building permits. This creates a scramble for the developer and staff to process an extension before the expiration date. If the permit expires, the project has to obtain approval from the Planning Commission again, creating a redundant, costly, and unnecessary obstacle for developers, as well as a drain on staff time.
Proposed language is in draft stages and will be shaped by input from the Planning Commission during the study session.
Section 17.16.100 Permit time limits, extensions, and expiration
PROPOSED:
“A. Time limits. Unless a condition of approval or other provision of this title establishes a different time limit, any permit not exercised within two one years of approval shall expire and become void, except where an extension of time is approved pursuant to this section.
B. Exercising permits. The exercise of a permit occurs when the property owner has performed substantial work as determined by the zoning administrator and the building official and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance on the building permit. A permit may be otherwise exercised pursuant to a condition of the permit or corresponding legal agreement that specifies that other substantial efforts or expenditures constitute exercise of the permit. Unless otherwise provided, permits that have not been exercised prior to a zoning amendment, which would make the permitted use or structure nonconforming, shall automatically be deemed invalid on the effective date of the zoning amendment.
C. Permit extensions. The approval of an extension extends the expiration date for up to two years from the permit’s expiration original permit date.
1. Process. The Zoning Administrator same approving authority that granted the original permit may extend the period within which the exercise of a permit must occur. Notice and/or public hearing shall be provided in the same manner as for the original permit. An application for extension shall be filed not less than thirty days prior to the expiration date of the permit, along with appropriate fees and application submittal materials.
2. Conditions. The permit, as extended, may be conditioned to comply with any development standards that may have been enacted since the permit was initially approved.
3. Permit extension findings. The extension may be granted only when the designated approving authority finds that the original permit findings can still be made and there are no changed circumstances or there has been diligent pursuit to exercise the permit that warrants such extension.
4. Expiration. If the time limits are reached with no extension requested, or a requested extension is denied or expires, the permit expires.
D. Permit expiration for a closed business. All permits and entitlements shall expire when a business is closed for more than one calendar year. Approval of new permits and entitlements based on current requirements shall be required prior to any business activity on the site.”
Section 17.20.040 Conditional use permit
PROPOSED:
“Expiration. A use permit shall automatically expire if thea building permit has not been issuedexercised within one year two years from the date of final approval. A time extension not exceeding one year two years beyond the initial onetwo-year period may be granted by the zZoning aAdministrator. A public hearing is not required for the extension.”
Additional sections of the Zoning Code that reference other entitlement permits and their expiration timelines will have similar proposed changes as the Conditional Use Permit section shown above.
• Mobile Vending approval process
The Zoning Code defines "Mobile vending” as the following: “Mobile food trucks on private or public property as defined in California Vehicle Code Section 670 as any vehicle that is equipped and used for retail sales of prepared, prepackaged or unprepared, unpackaged food or foodstuffs of any kind. Push carts are not included.”
The Mobile Vending use is not allowed by right in any district, but is instead either prohibited, or subject to approval processes in the districts where it may be allowed. Please note that it is also prohibited within the boundaries of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan regardless of zoning district. The required approval process regulates the use in accordance with the Mobile Vending section of the code (17.62.140). The proposed change would require an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) instead of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the CMU and IMU districts. This change acknowledges the existing process and regulation for this use, and seeks to make the approval process proportionate to the use, and implement best practice for permitting this use.
The CUP process is intended for projects or uses involving a higher intensity such that they may impact an entire neighborhood or even the whole city. Therefore, a public hearing before the Planning Commission is the appropriate forum for review and deliberation. It requires more staff time to prepare a CUP than an AUP, and is a higher bar for applicants to meet in terms of cost, application materials, and time. In addition, use permits are tied to the parcel where they are granted. A CUP is a less flexible permit for Mobile Vending because a change in location requires an amendment, which must be brought before the Planning Commission again for review and approval.
The AUP process occurs at the staff level, and is intended for uses or activities whose effects on immediately adjacent properties and surroundings need to be evaluated in terms of the specific proposal for the specific site. Coupled with the Mobile Vending section, the AUP process provides sufficient scrutiny and regulation of the Mobile Vending use. Last year, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the Rumrill Corridor Plan, which may allow Mobile Vending with an AUP on EMU and MUCW sites along the Rumrill Corridor. Multiple AUPs have successfully been issued for Mobile Vending since its adoption.
Peer jurisdictions also consistently grant Mobile Vending permits at the administrative level, and seldom, if at all, require Planning Commission approval. These include Richmond, Hercules, and El Cerrito.
Section 17.34.030 Uses allowed.
PROPOSED
|
Table 17.34-A-Commercial and Industrial Districts: Use Regulations |
|
|
Land Use/Zoning District |
NC |
CR |
CMU |
IMU |
EMU |
MUCW |
|
Retail, Service, and Office Uses |
|
|
Mobile Vending3 |
― |
― |
UA |
UA |
A |
A |
Notes:
3. Food truck festivals require a temporary use permit.
Section 17.62.140(B) Mobile vending
PROPOSED
“Findings.Approvals. In approving an application for a mobile vending truck, the planning commission Zoning Administrator must find the application to be compliant with this section, as well as grant an Administrative Use Permit and make the findings pursuant to section 17.18.080 find that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such use or be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the city.”
• Zoning Administrator public noticing
The proposed change would replace “interested parties” with “adjoining properties”, and add the Planning Commission to the list of noticed entities for Zoning Administrator decisions. This amendment would clarify the code language to reflect current and reduce ambiguity in our noticing requirements. It would also include the Planning Commission in the noticing process to keep them apprised of staff level decisions made by the Zoning Administrator.
Section 17.16.060(A) Notice of zoning administrator decisions.
PROPOSED
“Notice. For applications decided by the zoning administrator as listed in Table 17.16-A-Approving Authority for Land Use Entitlements, the notice of decision of a zoning administrator shall be provided, in writing, to the applicant, interested parties adjoining properties, and members of the Planning Commission and cCity cCouncil. If no concerns are expressed, the application will be rendered without appeal…”
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study session is for the Planning Commission to review and discuss proposed text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. There is no action to be taken on this item. Staff will incorporate input from the Commissioners and bring a finalized text amendment proposal to a future Planning Commission meeting as a public hearing.