PREPARED BY: G. DEMPSEY & M. MACKSON DATE OF MEETING: 11/16/2026
SUBJECT:
TITLE
CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN PABLO AMENDING 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 environmental review 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.
Label
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
Conduct public hearing; waive first reading; introduce Ordinance
Body
COMPLIANCE STATEMENTS
FY 2025-2027 Council Priority Workplan Compliance Statement
Amending the Zoning Ordinance 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 would help to promote the City Council Major Policy Goal of Expand Housing Options, Priority 301, Update/Certify the General Plan and Housing Element, 301.1.3, Promote Housing Production to Meet RHNA Requirements.
CEQA Compliance Statement
These amendments to miscellaneous sections of the Zoning Ordinance 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 Tuesday, October 27th, 2026.
BACKGROUND
In December 2025, the City Council adopted the San Pablo 2035 General Plan, establishing housing and economic development goals, policies, and implementation strategies to guide the City’s future growth. To support implementation of the General Plan, the 2023-2031 Housing Element, and ensure consistency with state law and current practices, Planning staff is working on a series of code “clean-up” text amendments to improve clarity, efficiency, and consistency in the interpretation and application of the Zoning Ordinance.
The first two batches of amendments were initially presented to the Planning Commission as study sessions during the summer of 2026. Following Planning Commission feedback, the batches were combined and subsequently presented at a public hearing on September 22, 2026, where they were recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.
Planning staff continue to develop and review additional batches of zoning code amendments with the Planning Commission. These future amendments will be presented for City Council consideration at a later date.
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. A section on Universal Design was included in the Planning Commission resolution but has been removed from the proposed ordinance as further review may be needed from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD); this section will be brought forward separately for consideration at a future date. Similarly, new findings for Conditional Use Permits were recommended for approval by the Planning Commission but are not included in the proposed ordinance due to the need for further HCD review. Attachment A contains the specific language of the remaining 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.
2. Permit approvals, extensions, and expiration - Section 17.16.100
The proposed amendments extend the initial period a permit holder must exercise a 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 Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) will be updated for consistency as part of this text amendment.
The proposed changes 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.
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.
• Clarifies the review process, allowing the Zoning Administrator to establish the forms, submittal requirements, and administrative procedures.
4. Minor Adjustments - Section 17.18.070
This section regulates small reductions/increases in development standards to “allow creative design solutions and to accommodate unique site conditions.” Issues include that the section allows for adjustments for fences, which creates potential neighbor issues and does not meet the intent of entitlement; poorly structured setback adjustments that do not adequately address the different nature of front, side, and rear setbacks; and problematic findings that make it difficult to objectively evaluate applications for minor adjustments. Several changes are proposed for the Minor Adjustment section of the zoning code, including:
• Minor adjustments for fence heights are removed from the table of allowed adjustments and would no longer be considered.
• Minor adjustments for setbacks are split out into different standards for front, side, and rear setbacks, reflecting that each type of setback is different and should be subject to different levels of allowable adjustment.
• Findings for Minor Adjustments are removed, as these required too much subjectivity for an administrative process. In their place, the Applicability section has been expanded, clarifying what types of situations and site conditions would make a property eligible to apply for a minor adjustment.
• Minor clerical changes for internal consistency.
5. Residential Development Standards- Section 17.32
This section sets regulations for the development of properties in residential zones. Issues with this section largely relate to the fact that these standards were written for a developing suburban community, and no longer match the reality of San Pablo’s urban, built-out setting. Other problems include inconsistency between standards, unnecessary and redundant regulations, and standards that are inconsistent with the City’s pro-housing stance. Proposed amendments include the following:
• Minimum parcel size is reduced to 3,000sf in all zones, with minimum parcel frontage reduced to 30ft. Corner parcels are no longer held to different standards than interior parcels. Changes to these standards are to reflect the existing reality of San Pablo’s lots, and ensure that owners of smaller parcels are not unreasonably restricted from developing their properties.
• Density maximum is removed in the R-1 zone, as this density has become obsolete in lieu of State laws allowing ADUs and second units by-right.
• Second-story side setback requirements in the R-1 and R-2 zones are removed. First-floor side setbacks are reduced from 4 feet to 3 feet. These changes are to allow for simpler and more attractive single-family home designs, and to better match the reality of San Pablo’s small and narrow parcels. Eliminating this requirement also reduces construction costs for second story additions.
• Height limits in the R-3, R-4, RMU, and PD zones are altered so that there are no longer separate height maximums between the eave and the roof peak, ensuring greater flexibility in building design. Height limit in the RMU zone is increased from 50 to 75 feet in order to match comparable zones.
• Maximum story requirements are removed, as these regulations are redundant with height regulations and more difficult to interpret and enforce.
• Minimum parcel sizes now only affect the creation of new parcels, eliminating separate standards for “substandard” parcels. This change removes a major barrier to redeveloping smaller lots, especially in the R-3 zone.
• CUP requirement for second stories on single-family homes on narrow lots is removed, as this requirement was unnecessarily burdensome to homeowners and not consistent with State law and General Plan goals to reduce housing cost.
• Lower height limits for high-density districts near low-density districts are removed, as this significantly reduced housing development capacity and was not in line with State law.
• Flat roofs are no longer prohibited, as this requirement was overly restrictive on residential design, and will become unnecessary with the forthcoming implementation of Objective Design Standards.
• Several extraneous, outdated, or irrelevant footnotes are removed from the table of residential development standards.
• Minor clerical and technical fixes.
6. 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.
7. Fences, Walls, Gates, and Screening - Section 17.45
This section sets regulations for height, location, materials, and other standards relating to fences and other barriers. Issues include a lack of clarity regarding measurement, unnecessary “administrative approval” requirements, certain height standards that are too low, utility screening standards that conflict with utility agency requirements, and minor clerical/consistency issues. These issues add up to a fence ordinance that is conflicting, mismatched to the existing development patterns in San Pablo, and difficult to interpret, implement, and enforce. Proposed amendments include:
• Removing subjective administrative approvals for residential fencing
• Changing how fences are measured when located on top of landscape/retaining walls. New rules specify that height is to be measured from the midpoint of the wall, and that such measurements shall apply to fences within 2 feet of the top of the wall.
• Clarifying wood latticework requirements to provide for a minimum transparency and allowing for other materials. Administrative approval requirements for latticework are removed.
• Increasing residential height limits as follows:
a. Front yard fence heights are increased from 3 feet to 4 feet, so long as the top foot is built to a minimum of 50% transparency.
b. Interior side and rear yard fence heights are increased from 6 feet to 7 feet, with up to 8 feet allowed with 50% transparency in the top foot.
• Increasing nonresidential height limits for interior side and rear yard fences from 6 feet to 7 feet.
• Increasing the standard of review for nonresidential front and corner side yard fences so that such fences would now require Minor Design Review, as fences in commercial areas are atypical and may detract from the walkability, accessibility, and commercial character of the area.
• Adjustments to materials standards, clarifying that no types of chain link are allowed in residential zones and prohibiting plastic panels and plexiglass in all scenarios.
• Updating utility screening requirements to allow for utilities to be placed on the front of a building when required by a utility agency and allowing for greater flexibility in screening approaches.
• Diagrams are updated for clarity and to reflect new height and permitting regulations.
• Minor clerical and technical fixes.
Discussion on fence regulations by the Planning Commission included comments regarding ensuring that residential front yard fences are not too tall and clarifying material standards. The proposed amendments include address these concerns.
8. Outdoor Lighting Standards- Section 17.56
This section currently sets regulations for parking lot lighting. There is currently no section of the municipal code that regulates lighting outside of parking lots, presenting issues with regulating nuisance lighting and ensuring that the City can appropriately balance safety and security needs for lighting with the desire to preserve dark skies and ensure that light trespass and glare have negligible impact on surrounding property and roadways. Proposed amendments include:
• Repealing and replacing the existing parking lot lighting section with a section that contains similar and enhanced standards applying to all lighting citywide.
• Certain exemptions are provided for a range of lighting scenarios where broad standards may not apply, such as sports field lighting, historical-themed lighting, water features, construction lighting, signs, and more.
• Obtrusive types of lighting such as searchlights and aerial lasers are prohibited.
• Standards for specific lighting scenarios are detailed, such as ATMs, pedestrian tunnels, loading docks, landscape lighting, service station canopies, and public art.
• Security lighting standards are provided.
• General standards allow for prevention of nuisance lighting and preservation of dark skies.
9. 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.
GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
The proposed ordinance is consistent General Plan policies and implementation strategies that promote high-quality design, encourage streamlining of regulations, and reduce barriers to development, 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.
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
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed amendments would have a positive fiscal impact on the City of San Pablo as they will streamline planning practices by increasing efficiency through the implementation of current practice and best practice. This will facilitate development, increased investments and improvements to property values.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The San Pablo Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed amendments at its regular meeting on September 22, 2026 and approved PC26-11, recommending adoption of the proposed Ordinance by the City Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Conduct public hearing; waive first reading and introduce 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 Planning Commission approved Resolution PC26-11 recommending approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to City Council. Staff recommends that the City Council review the proposed zoning ordinance amendments, take public testimony, and introduce the attached ordinance amending miscellaneous sections of the Zoning Ordinance (Title 17). The proposed Ordinance (Attachment A) includes the new proposed text of the miscellaneous sections of the Zoning Ordinance, which will replace or amend the existing sections.
ATTACHMENTS
Att A. Proposed City Council Ordinance
Att B. Resolution PC26-11 recommending approval of the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to the City Council.
Att C. Proof of Publication