PREPARED BY: GRIFFEN DEMPSEY & DATE OF MEETING: 09/22/2026
MEL MACKSON
SUBJECT:
TITLE
CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE CONTAINING AMENDMENTS TO MISCELLANEOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 17 “ZONING” OF THE SAN PABLO MUNICIPAL CODE IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW, MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY ACROSS CODE SECTIONS, REFLECT CURRENT PRACTICE, IMPLEMENT BEST PRACTICE, AND MAKE OTHER MINOR, ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL AND CLERICAL CHANGES
CEQA: The proposed amendments to the San Pablo Zoning Code are consistent with the General Plan and thus are within the scope impacts evaluated in the San Pablo General Plan EIR and addenda thereto (State Clearinghouse #2008082069), and no additional environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164. On a separate and independent basis, these amendments are exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061.b.3, which states that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential of causing significant effect on the environment. It can be seen with certainty that the proposed amendments have no possibility of a significant effect on the environment, as they are administrative, technical, and clerical in nature and authorize no construction or activities that could have any environmental impacts, and thus are exempt from CEQA.
Recommendation
Conduct public hearing; adopt Resolution
Body
REQUESTED ACTION
Approve Resolution recommending City Council approval of PLAN2608-0014, amending multiple sections of San Pablo Zoning Code Title 17 “Zoning”
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
The proposed amendments to the San Pablo Zoning Code are consistent with the General Plan and thus fall within the scope of the impacts evaluated in the San Pablo General Plan EIR and addenda thereto (State Clearinghouse #2008082069), and no additional environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164. On a separate and independent basis, these amendments are exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061.b.3, which states that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential of causing significant effect on the environment. It can be seen with certainty that the proposed amendments have no possibility of a significant effect on the environment, as they are administrative, technical, and clerical in nature and authorize no construction or activities that could have any environmental impacts, and thus are exempt from CEQA.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
A Public Hearing Notice was published in the West County Times (West Contra Costa edition of the East Bay Times) newspaper on Wednesday, September 2nd, 2026.
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. The first two batches of amendments have been presented as study sessions to the Planning Commission, providing an opportunity for the Commissioners to review and discuss the proposed draft changes and provide guidance to staff before taking any action. With feedback and direction by the Planning Commission from the study sessions, staff have combined the first two batches of proposed amendments and are bringing forward a final proposed ordinance for the Planning Commission to consider and to make a recommendation to the City Council.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES
The proposed amendments reflect several City and staff priorities. Many of the proposed changes are small fixes to administrative processes in order to reflect current practice and/or implement best practice. Some changes alter development regulations to improve consistency and clarity within the code and to improve its usability and applicability. Certain amendments reflect more significant enhancements and additions to the code to strengthen existing regulations, reflect new priorities, and ensure consistency with State Law. Attachment B contains the specific language of all proposed amendments. Below is a summary of the proposed amendments:
1. Zoning Administrator public noticing - Section 17.16.060
The proposed change would replace “interested parties” with a newly defined term, “adjoining properties”, and add the Planning Commission to the list of noticed entities for Zoning Administrator decisions where noticing is required. This amendment would clarify the code language to reflect current practice and reduce ambiguity in our noticing requirements and keep the Planning Commission informed of decisions made by the Zoning Administrator.
The Planning Commission study session did not include substantive discussion or questions around these proposed amendments. As a result, staff are not proposing any further changes.
2. Permit approvals, extensions, and expiration - Section 17.16.100
Section 17.16.100 requires land use and planning permits to be exercised within one year of approval, defined as performing substantial work and incurring substantial liabilities based on a building permit. A one-year extension can be granted by the original approving authority. If the permit is not exercised, then the permit expires. Several permit types, including Major Design Review, Variances, and CUPs contain timelines and extension procedures that conflict with this section. The proposed amendments align general permit expiration provisions with these sections, extend the initial period a permit holder must exercise the permit from one year to two years, and increase permit extensions from one year to no more than two years. Other sections of the code including Major Design Review, Variances, and CUPs will be updated for consistency as part of this text amendment.
The proposed changes also address delays common in large development projects, where evolving state and federal requirements lengthened the building permit process. These delays often lead to last-minute extension requests, and if the permit expires, the project must return to the Planning Commission again, creating unnecessary cost and workload for developers and City staff.
The Planning Commission study session raised no substantive concerns, and staff are not proposing any further changes.
3. Plan Check/Zoning Clearance and Administrative Approvals- Section 17.18.020
This section establishes procedures for land use permits and entitlements that are decided administratively by city staff. Issues include lack of clarity around procedures, and conflicting language throughout the code, including interchangeable use of “plan check/zoning clearance” and “administrative approval.” Proposed amendments include:
• Adding “Administrative Approvals” to the title of the section.
• Clarifying the purpose of the section to denote the range of circumstances in which these approval types would come into play.
• Clarifying the review process, allowing the Zoning Administrator to establish the forms, submittal requirements, and administrative procedures.
The Planning Commission study session did not include substantive discussion or questions on this topic. Staff are not proposing any further changes to the amendments as a result.
4. Minor Adjustments - Section 17.18.070
This section provides standards for small increases or reductions in development regulations intended to “allow creative design solutions and accommodate unique site conditions.” However, several issues limit its effectiveness. The current section permits fence‑height adjustments, which can create neighbor conflicts and fall outside the intended scope of entitlement. Setback adjustments are not structured to reflect the differing purposes of front, side, and rear setbacks. In addition, required findings introduce subjectivity that makes Minor Adjustment applications difficult to evaluate objectively. Proposed amendments include:
• Removing fence height adjustments from the table of allowable minor adjustments.
• Revising setback adjustment standards so that front, side, and rear setbacks are addressed separately, recognizing that each has a distinct function and warrants different levels of flexibility.
• Eliminating required findings for Minor Adjustments, as they introduced excessive subjectivity for an administrative process. In their place, expanding the Applicability section to clearly define the types of site conditions and circumstances that make a property eligible for a minor adjustment.
• Minor clerical changes for internal consistency.
The Planning Commission study session did not include substantive discussion around these proposed amendments. As a result, staff are not proposing any further changes.
5. Conditional Use Permit findings - Section 17.20.040
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. In developing the revised findings, staff reviewed findings from cities of Richmond, El Cerrito, Pinole, Berkeley, and Alameda and ultimately worked with legal counsel on the proposed text. The Planning Commission study session discussion concerned the use of the word “harmonious” and applicability of findings to projects with city-wide impacts. The proposed amendments have been updated to reflect the discussion of the Planning Commission. The word “harmonious” has been replaced with “compatible” and the phrase “broader community” was added to proposed finding #3 in order to capture city-wide impacts. Various sections throughout the code that mention the CUP process and findings will also be updated to reflect the changes.
6. Residential Development Standards- Section 17.32
This section establishes development standards for properties in residential zones. Many of the existing regulations were designed for a growing suburban community and no longer reflect San Pablo’s urban, built‑out development pattern. Additional issues include inconsistencies between standards, unnecessary or redundant regulations, and requirements that conflict with the City’s pro‑housing objectives. Proposed amendments include:
• Reducing minimum parcel size to 3,000 square feet in all zones and reducing minimum parcel frontage to 30 feet. Corner parcels are no longer held to different standards than interior parcels. These updates reflect existing parcel conditions in San Pablo and ensure that owners of smaller lots are not unreasonably restricted from developing their properties.
• Removing the density maximum in the R-1 zone, as this limit has become obsolete due to State laws allowing ADUs and second units by-right.
• Eliminating second-story side-setback requirements in the R-1 and R-2 zones and reducing first-floor side setbacks from 4 feet to 3 feet. These changes support more flexible and attractive single-family home designs, better match San Pablo’s small and narrow parcels, and reduce construction costs for second story additions.
• Revising height limits in the R‑3, R‑4, RMU, and PD zones so that separate eave‑height and roof‑peak maximums are no longer required, providing greater design flexibility. Height in the RMU zone is increased from 50 to 75 feet in order to match comparable zones.
• Removing maximum story requirements because they are redundant with height regulations and more difficult to interpret and enforce.
• Applying minimum parcel sizes standards only to the creation of new parcels, thereby eliminating separate standards for “substandard” parcels. This change removes a major barrier to redeveloping smaller lots, especially in the R-3 zone.
• Removing the CUP requirement for second stories on single-family homes on narrow lots, as this requirement was unnecessarily burdensome and inconsistent with State law and General Plan goals to reduce housing cost.
• Removing lower height limits for high-density districts adjacent to low-density districts, which previously constrained housing capacity and conflicted with State law.
• Allowing flat roofs, removing an overly restrictive design limitation that will become unnecessary with forthcoming Objective Design Standards.
• Removing extraneous, outdated, or irrelevant footnotes from the residential development standards table.
• Minor clerical and technical corrections.
The Planning Commission study session did not include substantive discussion or questions around proposed amendments to residential development standards. Staff are not proposing any further changes to the amendments as a result.
7. Mobile Vending approval process- Section 17.34.030 & 17.62.140
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.”
Mobile vending is not allowed by right and is either prohibited or subject to discretionary review, and it is also prohibited in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan area. The proposed change would allow mobile vending in the CMU and IMU districts with an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) instead of a CUP, reflecting best practice and the scale of this use.
The CUP process is intended for projects or uses involving a higher intensity requiring Planning Commission review and involve greater cost, time, and reduced flexibility, particularly because relocating a vendor requires amending the CUP. An AUP, reviewed at the staff level, provides sufficient scrutiny and aligns with the administrative review process established in the Rumrill Corridor Plan, where multiple AUPs have successfully been issued for Mobile Vending. Peer jurisdictions such as Richmond, Hercules, and El Cerrito also issue mobile vending permits administratively.
The Planning Commission study session did not include substantive discussion or questions around proposed amendments to the mobile vending approval process. As a result, staff are not proposing any further changes.
8. Universal Design Ordinance- New Proposed Chapter 17.41
According to the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element, approximately one in four San Pablo residents age 65 and older has a mobility impairment. In response, Housing Element policies call for expanding the supply of special needs housing. The proposed Universal Design Ordinance would establish residential development standards aligned with Universal Design principles, ensuring that new homes are accessible to people of all ages and abilities. This approach promotes equitable housing for residents with mobility limitations and supports aging in place within the community. The proposed ordinance would apply to new residential developments with 10 or more units, with certain exemptions for small-footprint townhouses and small mixed-use developments. Provisions of the ordinance include:
• Requirements for visitability for all applicable units: an accessible exterior entrance; an accessible common area or bedroom and bathroom; wall blocking to support future grab bars or handrails in bathrooms; and an accessible path of travel to shared open spaces.
• Requirements for universal design in 30 percent of applicable units: full living quarters accessible from an accessible entryway.
• Additional universal design features and requirements.
• An exemption for projects with fewer than 10 units, ensuring that the regulations do not unduly burden smaller developments with limited project scale and design flexibility.
• Exemptions for unit types and projects where compliance would not be feasible, such as two‑story buildings without elevators and townhomes with less than 150 square feet of habitable space on the ground floor.
The Planning Commission study session did not include substantive discussion or questions on this topic. Staff are not proposing any further changes to the amendments as a result.
9. Fences, Walls, Gates, and Screening - Section 17.45
This section establishes standards for the height, location, materials, and other requirements for fences and other barriers. Current issues include a unclear measurement methods, unnecessary administrative approval requirements, height limits that are too low, utility screening rules that conflict with utility agency standards, and minor clerical inconsistencies. Collectively, these issues result in a fence ordinance that is contradictory and misaligned with existing development patterns in San Pablo, and difficult to interpret, implement, and enforce. Proposed amendments include:
• Removing subjective administrative approvals for residential fencing
• Revising how fence height is measured when fences are placed on top of landscape or retaining walls. Height would now be measured from the midpoint of the wall, and this method would apply to fences within two feet of the top of the wall.
• Clarifying wood latticework requirements by establishing minimum transparency standards and allowing additional materials. Administrative approval requirements for latticework are removed.
• Increasing residential height limits as follows:
a. Front yard fence height increases from 3 feet to 4 feet, provided the top foot has at least 50% transparency.
b. Interior side and rear yard fence height increases from 6 feet to 7 feet, with up to 8 feet allowed if the top foot has at least 50% transparency.
• Increasing nonresidential interior side and rear yard fence height limits from 6 feet to 7 feet.
• Elevating the level of review for nonresidential front and corner-side yard fences to require Minor Design Review, recognizing that such fences are atypical in commercial areas and can detract from walkability, accessibility, and commercial character.
• Adjusting materials standards to clarify that no form of chain-link fencing is allowed in residential zones and that plastic panels and plexiglass are prohibited in all cases.
• Updating utility screening requirements to allow utilities to be placed on the front of a building when required by a utility agency and to provide greater flexibility in screening methods.
• Updating diagrams for clarity and to reflect revised height and permitting standards.
• Minor clerical and technical fixes.
Study session discussion on fence regulations included comments regarding ensuring that residential front yard fences are not too tall, and clarifying material standards. No changes are proposed in response to the study session discussion.
10. Outdoor Lighting Standards- Section 17.56
This section currently regulates lighting only for parking lots. Because the municipal code lacks standards for lighting outside of parking areas, the City faces challenges in addressing nuisance lighting and ensuring an appropriate balance between safety and security needs and the preservation of dark skies. Updated lighting regulations are needed to minimize light trespass and glare on surrounding properties and roadways while still maintaining adequate illumination for public safety. Proposed amendments include:
• Replacing the existing parking‑lot lighting section with a new section that includes similar but enhanced standards applying to all exterior lighting citywide.
• Providing specific exemptions for lighting types where broad standards may not be appropriate, including sports field lighting, historically themed lighting, water features, construction lighting, signs, and other specialized scenarios.
• Prohibiting obtrusive lighting such as searchlights and aerial lasers.
• Establishing standards for specific lighting contexts, including ATMs, pedestrian tunnels, loading docks, landscape lighting, service‑station canopies, and public art.
• Adding security‑lighting standards.
• Introducing general lighting standards aimed at preventing nuisance lighting, minimizing glare and light trespass, and preserving dark skies.
• Establishing minimum and maximum lighting performance metrics, including standards for footcandles, lumens, and correlated color temperature.
The Planning Commission study session did not include substantive discussion or questions on this topic. Staff are not proposing any further changes to the amendments as a result.
11. Home Occupations and Cottage Food Operations- Sections 17.60.30 and 17.62.060
This section sets regulations for commercial and office uses within and accessory to residential dwellings, with the intent to allow for certain home-based businesses while ensuring that such businesses do not negatively impact the overall quality and character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. Issues include overly restrictive limitations on employees of home occupation businesses, and the misplacement of the Cottage Food operation section within the zoning code. Proposed amendments include:
• Allowing home occupation businesses to have up to one employee on-site who is not a member of the family residing on the premises. This aligns home occupation standards with State law on cottage food operations.
• Clarifying that there is no limit to the number of off-premise employees who may be engaged in a home occupation business.
• Moving the Cottage Food Operation section from Chapter 17.62, Special Nonresidential Uses, to Chapter 17.60, Special Residential Uses, as the use is accessory to residential uses and was misplaced within the code.
The Planning Commission study session did not include substantive discussion or questions on this topic. Staff are not proposing any further changes to the amendments as a result.
GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
The proposed ordinance is consistent General Plan policies and implementation strategies that promote high-quality design, encourage streamlining of regulations, reduce barriers to development, and implement universal design, such as the following:
ED-G-11: Support and contribute to a clean, attractive, and safe environment for residents, business owners, employees, visitors, and shoppers.
ED-I-11: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to remove unnecessarily burdensome regulations that can hinder development, and provide authority for fee waivers for targeted businesses locating in San Pablo.
LU-G-1: Promote a sustainable, balanced land use pattern that responds to existing and future needs of the City, as well as physical and natural constraints.
LU-I-1: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to:
• Implement General Plan land use designations;
• Implement the Sustainable Transit Oriented Development Master Plan;
• Promote Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) at appropriate locations; and
• Reduce minimum parcel size for multifamily development and incorporate development standards to facilitate high-quality multifamily projects on opportunity sites in San Pablo.
LU-I-21: Support residential infill on vacant and underused lots within existing neighborhoods.
LU-I-35: Screen and buffer nonresidential projects to protect adjacent residential property and other sensitive land uses when necessary to mitigate noise, glare and other adverse effects on adjacent uses.
CHEJ-I-26: Evaluate and make changes to the project review and permitting process to encourage and facilitate incorporation of universal, lifecycle design principles in new residential development, allowing community members to stay in their homes and neighborhoods longer, and increasing community cohesion.
The proposed zoning text amendment would also implement policies and programs of the 2023-31 Housing Element, helping to reduce regulatory barriers to housing and reduce minimum lot sizes. Examples include:
Housing Element Policy 1-3: Identify and work to reduce or remove regulatory and process-related barriers to housing development in San Pablo.
Housing Element Program 1-D: Revise Multifamily Minimum Parcel Size.
Housing Element Program 3-A: Housing for Extremely Low-Income Households and Special Needs Groups
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve Resolution recommending approval of PLAN2608-0014. This is a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the City Council for approval of an ordinance amending the Zoning Code of the City of San Pablo to update miscellaneous sections for the purposes of complying with state law, improving clarity and consistency, reflecting current practice, implementing best practice, and making other minor technical, administrative, and clerical changes.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this public hearing is for the Planning Commission to review the proposed zoning ordinance amendment, take public testimony, and make a recommendation to the City Council. The Draft Text Amendment (Attachment B) includes the new proposed text of the miscellaneous sections of the Zoning Ordinance, which will replace or amend the existing sections.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution PC26-11 - Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
B. Exhibit A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
C. Proof of Publication