Agenda packet, regular meeting — San Mateo City Council, January 26, 2026 (part 5 of 5)

2 After careful consideration of all available information, the San Mateo Heritage Alliance has decided not to revise property classifications at this time. The Office of Historic Preservation will contact you directly once their formal review of the nomination is complete. Following that review, we plan to host community informational meetings to answer questions.

We are here to be a resource to the community and to educate the public about the importance of preserving the rich heritage of the Baywood neighborhood and the City of San Mateo.

Sincerely,
San Mateo Heritage Alliance
cc: Amy Crain, California Office of Historic Preservation Christina Dikas Brobst, Page & Turnbull
Barrett Reiter, Page & Turnbull
927 of 1110
1 From: Chris Eckert < >
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2026 7:00 PM
To: Clerk; City Council (San Mateo); Alex Khojikian
Subject: Agenda Item Request: Funding for Glazenwood Historic District Focus Group Dear City Clerk, City Manager and Honorable City Council Members, I respectfully request that the City allocate funding to conduct a focus group specifically for the Glazenwood residential historic district before the draft Historic Preservation documents move forward, to ensure that resident input is obtained and included in the administrative record.

Thank you for helping ensure that Glazenwood is included.

Chris Eckert
928 of 1110
January 25, 2026
San Mateo City Council
Via email: [email protected]
Re: Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
Dear Members of the City Council:

I write as a twenty-year resident of San Mateo in the Beresford Park area, concerned about the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance. Please consider the following comments and proposed revisions to the draft ordinance.

1. The City should expand its review to address the current Baywood dispute by considering relief to residents involuntarily included in historic districts.

The ordinance may be irrelevant to the current Baywood dispute if Baywood is not likely to be designated locally as a historic district. A supermajority favoring local designation is unlikely because, apparently, a majority of Baywood residents oppose the state listing.

Accordingly, the City should expand its review to consider how to provide relief to homeowners involuntarily included in historic districts through state or federal eligibility determinations. Please consider the suggestions below as part of that expanded review.

2. The City should treat design review as ministerial.

Even if no districts are designated locally under the proposed ordinance, Baywood is likely to become subject to CEQA’s historic impact assessment and mitigation mandates because it is likely to be found “eligible” for listing in the current state OHP process. The City can and should avoid unwanted and contentious consideration of historic resource impacts to buildings in historic districts for which the owner does not seek historic resource protection. It can do so by treating its Single Family Dwelling Design Review as exempt from CEQA.

The CEQA process, including its historic resource provisions, applies only to discretionary decisions. The City has been unnecessarily treating design review as a discretionary decision that triggers CEQA review. The City can and should revise its design review provisions to clarify that design review does not trigger CEQA review, and thus does not require consideration of historic resource impacts under CEQA.

The most straightforward way to avoid an unnecessary CEQA process for design review would be to adopt objective design standards to facilitate purely ministerial permitting of residential projects. Using objective standards makes it easier to undertake design review and makes it clear that there is no CEQA trigger. Indeed, objective standards are the way many jurisdictions are now streamlining permitting to encourage provision of deeply needed housing. There is no reason for redundant project-level CEQA review of infill 929 of 1110
projects after the City has already complied with CEQA to adopt its general plan, update its housing element, and adopt its zoning code.

Even if the City does not adopt objective design standards, it should clarify that its Single Family Dwelling Design Review is in intent and practice purely aesthetic. Under McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 80, 94, even a discretionary design review limited to aesthetic considerations does not trigger CEQA because City lacks discretion to address environmental impacts. The City should consider amendments to the design review provisions for single-family residences to clarify that CEQA does not apply to design review, as follows:
 Amend SMC Section 27.08.032 to retain only its objective criteria, i.e., the determination whether “the structures, site plan, and landscaping are consistent with the adopted R1 Single Family Dwelling Design Guidelines” and whether the “development meets all applicable standards as adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council, conforms with the General Plan, and will correct any violations of the zoning ordinance, building code, or other municipal codes that exist on the site.” (SMC Section 27.08.032(d)(1) and (4).) These are clearly objective criteria and a determination of consistency can be processed ministerially by the Zoning Administrator.
 Amend SMC Section 27.08.032 to eliminate the subjective and standardless findings now required that “[t]he development will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City” and “[t]he development will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the vicinity, and otherwise is in the best interests of the public health, safety, or welfare.” (SMC Section 27.08.032(d)(2) and (3).) These vaguely worded findings are not clearly related to design considerations and call for ad hoc and unguided discretion that, in the absence of objective standards, can be exercised arbitrarily.

3. The historic preservation ordinance should exempt projects from the Certificate of Appropriateness where compliance is infeasible.

In case historic districts are eventually designated locally under the proposed historic ordinance, the ordinance should incorporate an exception to compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards where the compliance is infeasible for economic or policy reasons and there are overriding considerations for approval of the project. CEQA provides this off-ramp. The City’s ordinance should not be more exacting than CEQA.

CEQA requires an agency to assess the significance of impacts and adopt mitigation or an alternative where feasible. If mitigation or alternatives are infeasible due to “[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,” the agency may approve the project despite its unmitigated impacts if it finds overriding circumstances. (14 CCR 15091(a)(2).) The overriding circumstances that permit an agency to approve a project despite significant adverse impacts include “specific economic, legal, social, technological, or 930 of 1110
other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits.” (14 CCR 15093(a).) The City might find, for example, that provision of housing and construction jobs outweighs some potential impacts to historic resources.

As drafted, Section 26.66.100(a) and (a)(1) of the ordinance would require that every project with a significant impact to a historic resource would have to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness. The only exception is for the unlikely case of a project undertaken by low and very-low income households, i.e., households that most typically rent rather than own their homes. Obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness mandates mitigation measures by meeting the Secretary of interiors Standards. (Draft Ordinance Section 26.66.100(a) and (a)(1).) Those standards are so exacting that demolition is not allowed unless the structure presents a health and safety risk that cannot be mitigated.

However, the purposes section of the draft ordinance indicates that the legislative intent is to consider feasibility, i.e., only to “[a]void demolition of the City’s historic resources, where feasible, through preservation, rehabilitation, or other available and appropriate alternatives. (Draft Ordinance Section 26.66.010(e).)
Accordingly, Section 26.66.100(a) should be revised to add the underlined language as follows: “No person shall demolish, construct, move or alter any Listed Resource or Contributor within a Historic District listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory without first obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness unless meeting the design standards set out in Section 26.66.100(a)(1) is infeasible due to specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers.” This is the same language that permits exceptions to mitigation of significant impacts under CEQA. Again, the City should not impose a more stringent mitigation obligation than is already required by CEQA.

4. The ordinance should provide a lesser mitigation burden for contributors to an historic district than for individually eligible or listed properties.

The ordinance’s definition of significant alterations and its conditions for a Certificate of Appropriateness treat contributors to historic districts as if they are individually listed or eligible historic resources and hold them to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for individually listed resources. The ordinance should be revised to recognize that a single contributor to a historic district may not be individually eligible for listing and that its demolition or alteration might not significantly impact the historic district as a whole.

Failure to recognize this would be contrary to San Mateo’s current treatment of historic districts, which, following CEQA, allows substantial alterations or demolition of contributors, as long as the district retains most of its historic qualities, as follows:

Under CEQA, impacts are usually analyzed to an entire historic district rather than to an individual contributor (unless the contributor itself qualifies as a historic resource). Therefore, substantial alterations or even demolition of a single district contributor that is not individually eligible might not amount to a significant impact 931 of 1110
932 of 1110
1 From: Oliver Shay < >
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 11:34 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: D2: Historic Ordinance - Consent, No Local Bypass, No Ref to Context Stmt NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk, I, Kate C O’Young, am an Owner in District 2. It has come to my attention that the new Historic Preservation Ordinance Language in the Municipal Code may not protect Owners Adequately. Please carefully check the language in these three areas.

CONSENT AT LEAST THAT FOR PARKING PERMITS!
67% must support. At least 50% must respond to the survey.

The threshold for historic resources should actually be higher. "Historic" is an additional disclosure at sale, the pool of buyers for historic homes is smaller than for homes not historic and historic homes cost more to maintain and insure.

Please add language to the Historic Ordinance whereby the City Manager requests that the OHP inform them immediately of any nominations of resources within their City Limits and that the OHP does not approve any historic resources that have not been reviewed and approved first by the City/Council via the local process.

NO REFERENCE TO THE CONTEXT STATEMENT IN THE ORDINANCE
City Council directed Staff to not put Owners at risk of their homes being made “historic” by reference.

I ask that the Historic Preservation Language in the Municipal Code be reviewed and approved by the Less Red Tape team with support from land use attorney Daniel Freedman who has been fighting the weaponization of historic districts up and down the State.

Thank you for ensuring that private citizens can't encumber their neighbors properties without the 933 of 1110
2 Owners awareness and consent!
Sincerely,
______________
Kate C O’Young (via my son in law, Oliver Shay)
934 of 1110
1 From: Paul Labagh < >
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 2:44 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Council should have a choice on the Historic Ordinance Language NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email. I await your reply!
Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk,

YOUR VOTERS CARE ABOUT HOUSING
As you know, affordable housing is a top issue for San Mateo Residents. Yet the proposed language for the Historic Preservation section of the Municipal Code was written by people clearly looking to exert their discretionary control over a wide-swath of properties which will slow down development.

COUNCIL DESERVES A CHOICE ON HISTORIC ORDINANCE LANGUAGE Today, only one version of the Historic Ordinance is being presented to you and that version wants the option to control remodel decisions over every house in San Mateo built before 1981! Since you can't possibly be expected to read and edit every line of the draft, you should have a choice.

In addition to the current version, Council should be able to consider a version which meets city requirements but is written by land-use experts. Experts who support appropriate historic preservation but who are intimately familiar with how historic preservation language has been weaponized against housing development up and down the State. The language for informing owners and consent would also be much stronger.

REPRESENT YOUR VOTERS
Council should have a choice. And their choice should support what their voters want...more/affordable housing. We do not believe our thoughts and views are being represented.

Thank you for supporting this path,
Paul Labagh
Get Outlook for iOS
935 of 1110
1 From: Liz Hall < >
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 3:58 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: D2: Historic Ordinance - Consent, No Local Bypass, No Ref to Context Stmt *Hello and noting that this is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email. *
Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk, I am an Owner in District 2. It has come to my attention that the new Historic Preservation Ordinance Language in the Municipal Code may not protect Owners adequately. Please carefully check the language in these three areas.

CONSENT AT LEAST THAT FOR PARKING PERMITS!
67% must support. At least 50% must respond to the survey. We don't need to reinvent the wheel and spend more money on this than necessary! San Mateo already has an existing, known process for gathering owner consent on residential programs...Parking Permits. The threshold for historic resources should actually be higher. "Historic" is an additional disclosure at sale, the pool of buyers for historic homes is smaller than for homes not historic and historic homes cost more to maintain and insure.

NO BYPASS OF CITY FOR HISTORIC RESOURCE NOMINATIONS
The OHP in Sacramento doesn't know the buildings of a City better than the locals. And as you know, the OHP does no independent due diligence on nominations. As a result, they have rubber stamped "historic" buildings up and down the state nominated by NIMBYs and controlling neighbors. Please add language to the Historic Ordinance whereby the City Manager requests that the OHP inform them immediately of any nominations of resources within their City Limits and that the OHP does not approve any historic resources that have not been reviewed and approved first by the City/Council via the local process.

NO REFERENCE TO THE CONTEXT STATEMENT IN THE ORDINANCE
City Council directed Staff to not put Owners at risk of their homes being made “historic” by reference.

For example, “Spanish Colonial Revival” is an example of a historic home. My understanding is if the Ordinance references the Context Statement and the Context Statement includes “Spanish Colonial Revival”, then all Spanish Colonial Revival homes in greater San Mateo could now be considered “historic”. I ask that the Historic Preservation Language in the Municipal Code be reviewed and approved by the Less Red Tape team with support from land use attorney Daniel Freedman who has been fighting the weaponization of historic districts up and down the State.

Thank you for ensuring that private citizens can't encumber their neighbors properties without the Owners awareness and consent!
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Hall
936 of 1110
2 937 of 1110
938 of 1110
2 as a theme, suddenly every home in that style across greater San Mateo could get swept up as "historic" without individual review or consent. That's exactly the kind of trap we're trying to prevent.

Finally, I strongly urge that the final Historic Preservation language in the Municipal Code be run through the Less Red Tape team, with direct input from land use attorney Daniel Freedman. He's been battling the weaponization of historic designations up and down the state—he knows exactly where these pitfalls hide.

Thanks for stepping up to make sure no private citizen (or small group) can tie up their neighbors' properties without full awareness and real owner consent. Property rights matter—let's keep them protected.

Sincerely, Chris Battles District 1 Owner
939 of 1110
940 of 1110
941 of 1110
1 From: Andrew Ryan < >
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 3:17 PM
To: Adam Loraine; Rob Newsom; Nicole Fernandez; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Alex Khojikian; Clerk; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Council: The draft historic ordinance MUST address Baywood. It's the whole reason we're here.

This weekend I heard an alarming meme from several councilmembers: that the new historic ordinance was never meant to address Baywood's issues. I want to cut this meme off quickly because it's false, and I think Council and Staff are trying to use it as a cop-out to kick the can down the road and avoid making hard decisions in 2026. Let's address the arguments I've heard in the "we're not touching Baywood" meme:

1. "Council never agreed to make an ordinance just because of Baywood" Totally false. Let's recap what happened. In 2024, when tensions were high around Baywood and national news stories were appearing covering San Mateo in a strongly negative light, City Manager Alex Khojikian asked both the SMHA and LRT for a "truce" while a local ordinance process could be pursued, and the fight over Baywood be moved from the State to the City. Assistant City Manager Christine Horrisberger was present and can validate this. While LRT agreed to the truce and maintained it, SMHA broke the truce and re-submitted their Baywood application to the state in 2024, before the Council even met to consider the new ordinance in 2025.

You're doing this whole ordinance because of Baywood. No way this exists otherwise.

2. "Baywood is being made historic under state law, therefore there's nothing the city can do for Baywood homeowners"
This is completely false. In fact *EVERYTHING* that happens to homeowners is EXACTLY under the City's control. All the state does is say "boop, you're historic." Everything else after that is up to the City:
how permits are granted, how demolitions are handled, how modifications are treated, etc. And the draft ordinance just adds MORE red tape, MORE confusion to this process. Even the dreaded CEQA could, in theory, be bypassed if we made historic home renovations ministerial, since CEQA only applies to discretionary permits. Not saying that's gonna happen, but the point is the City has all kinds of control here.

3. "This is a State process, so the City has no say in what happens." Again, totally false. The OHP in Sacramento is not completely insensitive to how preservation affects local communities. Here's one example of what San Mateo could do: when the City is explicitly asked for comment on Baywood as part of the state process, the City could comment "We are formally opposed to Baywood being a historic district because our local process was not followed first". That's not "interference," that's a city asserting its right to comment to a state agency. The City does this all the time on various matters. For example here is an example of an opposition letter written to the state by the City of Alameda in 2022 for a historic district which was ultimately denied. 942 of 1110
2 Council, your voters mostly HATE historic and think it's a waste of government time and money and recognize it as a pure NIMBY move. I know your voters are emailing you this, both at our urging and just on their own. Pro-historic wins you precious few votes in San Mateo, even in conservative areas like Baywood.

Please continue to work with residents to understand what they really want, especially in Baywood.

Unfortunately, Baywood's own representative is unwilling to put aside her own personal biases and advocate for what a majority of what Baywood residents want, so Baywood's interests are not being adequately represented in this process. This puts more pressure on the rest of you on Council, I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. I do not envy the job ahead of you but I'm happy to help you all if possible.

Andrew Ryan
Baywood Homeowner
943 of 1110
1 From: Colin Madere < >
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 1:57 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Historic Policy; Clerk
Cc: Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Rob Newsom
Subject: Agenda item 16: This is not historic preservation Dear City of San Mateo public servants:

I am wriƟng to you with great concern about what appears to be a mis-use of the concept of “historic preservaƟon”. I strongly believe in preserving historically significant buildings or facades. In no way do I nor any of the many neighbors I know in Central (and beyond) believe that creaƟng barriers to repair or remodel typical homes from the last 100+ years serves a public good, and I am very well aware of the extra Ɵme, costs and barriers to doing so when a property is designated “historic". I would further say that most residents would not consider tearing down an “average” home of any age of less than 150 years should consƟtute anything more than a simple check if it has a specific (not generic) historic significance to the area (unless you have full city populaƟon survey contradicƟng this?). Every home does not have specific historic significance. Every home in any neighborhood in this city does not. Therefore enƟre neighborhoods should NEVER fall under any language used in ordinances around historic preservaƟon.

Please do not spend more tax dollars or city Ɵme on this issue. We have far more important issues to handle. We have a funding shortage on major infrastructure and safety projects, do we not? Please direct your aƩenƟon there.

Directly: Do not mark or designate or include my home in any ordinance or language or referred to language as “historic” without my or ANY owner’s express consent. NO referring to “Context Statements” in historic ordinances.

Thank you for your consideraƟon,
Colin Madere
Central resident for over 12 years
944 of 1110
1 From: cathie lesjak
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 2:19 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: D1: Historic Ordinance - Consent, No Local Bypass, No Ref to Context Stmt NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk, I am an Owner in District 1. It has come to my attention that the new Historic Preservation Ordinance Language in the Municipal Code may not protect Owners Adequately. Please carefully check the language in these three areas.

CONSENT AT LEAST THAT FOR PARKING PERMITS!
67% must support. At least 50% must respond to the survey.

NO REFERENCE TO THE CONTEXT STATEMENT IN THE ORDINANCE
City Council directed Staff to not put Owners at risk of their homes being made “historic” by reference.

Thank you for ensuring that private citizens can't encumber their neighbors properties without the 945 of 1110
2 Owners awareness and consent!
Sincerely,
Cathie Lesjak
946 of 1110
1 From: daniel ikeda < >
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 9:11 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Historic? Consent should be 2/3 FOR and Nominations shouldn't bypass the City NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk, I disagreed with the City spending $500K to update the Historic Ordinance. However, since we are here, now is the Ɵme to put in strong informed consent protecƟons and make sure historic resource nominaƟons don't bypass City Processes / the Council as the OHP does no independent due diligence of nominaƟons.

CONSENT AT LEAST THAT FOR PARKING PERMITS!
67% must support. At least 50% must respond to the survey.

We don't need to reinvent the wheel and spend more money on this than necessary! San Mateo already has an exisƟng, known process for gathering owner consent on residenƟal programs...Parking Permits. The threshold for historic resources should actually be higher. "Historic" is an addiƟonal disclosure at sale, the pool of buyers for historic homes is smaller than for homes not historic and historic homes cost more to maintain and insure.

NO BYPASS OF CITY FOR HISTORIC RESOURCE NOMINATIONS The OHP in Sacramento doesn't know the buildings of a City beƩer than the locals. And as you know, the OHP does no independent due diligence on nominaƟons. As a result, they have rubber stamped "historic" buildings up and down the state nominated by NIMBYs and controlling neighbors.

Please add language to the Historic Ordinance whereby the City Manager requests that the OHP inform them immediately of any nominaƟons of resources within their City Limits and that the OHP does not approve any historic resources that have not been reviewed and approved first by the City/Council via the local process.

Thank you for ensuring that private ciƟzens can't encumber their neighbors properƟes without the Owners awareness and consent!
Sincerely,
Dan & Jackie Ikeda
Sent from my iPhone
947 of 1110
1 From: daniel ikeda < >
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 9:10 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Council should have a choice on the Historic Ordinance Language NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk,

YOUR VOTERS CARE ABOUT HOUSING
As you know, affordable housing is a top issue for San Mateo Residents. Yet the proposed language for the Historic PreservaƟon secƟon of the Municipal Code was wriƩen by people clearly looking to exert their discreƟonary control over a wide-swath of properƟes which will slow down development.

COUNCIL DESERVES A CHOICE ON HISTORIC ORDINANCE LANGUAGE Today, only one version of the Historic Ordinance is being presented to you and that version wants the opƟon to control remodel decisions over every house in San Mateo built before 1981! Since you can't possibly be expected to read and edit every line of the draŌ, you should have a choice.

In addiƟon to the current version, Council should be able to consider a version which meets city requirements but is wriƩen by land-use experts. Experts who support appropriate historic preservaƟon but who are inƟmately familiar with how historic preservaƟon language has been weaponized against housing development up and down the State. The language for informing owners and consent would also be stronger.

REPRESENT YOUR VOTERS
Council should have a choice. And their choice should support what their voters want...more/affordable housing.

Thank you for supporƟng this path,
Dan & Jackie Ikeda
Sent from my iPhone
948 of 1110
1 From: Rick Bonilla
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 3:51 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Nicole Fernandez; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Adam Loraine; Clerk Subject: Historic preservation, stop the housing grab!
NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

1. CONSENT AT LEAST THAT FOR PARKING PERMITS!
67% must support. At least 50% must respond to the survey.

We don't need to reinvent the wheel and spend more money on this than necessary! San Mateo already has an existing, known process for gathering owner consent on residential programs...Parking Permits. The threshold for historic resources should actually be higher. "Historic" is an additional disclosure at sale, the pool of buyers for historic homes is smaller than for homes not historic and historic homes cost more to maintain and insure.

2. NO BYPASS OF CITY FOR HISTORIC RESOURCE NOMINATIONS
The OHP in Sacramento doesn't know the buildings of a City better than the locals. And as you know, the OHP does no independent due diligence on nominations. As a result, they have rubber stamped "historic" buildings up and down the state nominated by NIMBYs and controlling neighbors.

3. NO REFERENCE TO THE CONTEXT STATEMENT IN THE ORDINANCE City Council directed Staff to not put Owners at risk of their homes being made “historic” by reference.

For example, “Spanish Colonial Revival” is an example of a historic home. My understanding is that if the Ordinance references the Context Statement and the Context Statement includes “Spanish Colonial Revival”, then all Spanish Colonial Revival homes in greater San Mateo could now be considered “historic”.
949 of 1110
2 I ask that the Historic Preservation Language in the Municipal Code be reviewed and approved by the Less Red Tape team with support from land use attorney Daniel Freedman who has been fighting the weaponization of historic districts up and down the State.

Thank you for ensuring that private citizens can't encumber their neighbors properties without the Owners awareness and consent!
Sincerely,

RICK BONILLA
950 of 1110
1 From: Connie Weiss < >
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 9:32 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Historic Policy
Subject: Historic Policy Effort: San Mateo Historic Ordinance, Item 16 on 1/29/26 Agenda Hello San Mateo City Council Members,
I attended the San Mateo Historic Policy Virtual Workshop last week. I appreciate the work Rincon has done and the challenges they have had to manage in putting the draft ordinance together. Here is some background and critical issues to consider when determining the next steps in developing the ordinance:

1. A conversation between neighbors about historic properties began in 2023. Almost immediately, a small group of people, who would become Less Red Tape (LRT), decided to use misinformation and fear mongering to scare the daylights out of Baywood residents as the community began the process to become a historic district. Numerous meetings were held to discuss the fact-based aspects of becoming a historic district, including several hosted by the Baywood Neighborhood Association (BNA). Then the real dirty tricks by LRT began. In an attempt to intimidate and cause fear, several neighbors were viciously attacked by LRT members with lies and distortions. BNA stopped discussing the historic district as the issue was becoming so contentious it distracted from BNA’s focus of being a neighborhood uniting force. Our District 1 representative decided to recuse herself in any discussions on a Baywood historic district. This left only the Heritage Alliance to address the lies, fear mongering, and smears of this group. Heritage Alliance pleaded with the City to be the neutral body to make the truth known. The City dragged their feet. Heritage Alliance was the sole body to fight the misinformation, but fear is a very hard thing to overcome, especially when it comes to something as crucial as one’s home and perhaps largest investment. And sadly, there came a time when Heritage Alliance became vilified, but it continues to do everything possible to fight the misinformation.

2. Those devoted to special interest groups that focus on opposing historic districts are now attending meetings and repeating the lies of LRT. Rincon has valiantly tried to manage the combative atmosphere these groups have caused by answering questions truthfully, and patiently re-answering when the original answer isn’t deemed acceptable by those unable to accept facts. In addition to attendance by the LRT leaders on Wednesday night, there was solid representation of the YIMBY crowd, where they dutifully followed the YIMBY national mandate to oppose any historic districts. The main YIMBY talking point is that historic districts prevent housing (which they DO NOT). The results of the polls at the meeting reflect the fear instilled into residents by LRT, and the bullying by them and YIMBY representatives in skewing the polls on the call.

3. It is a clear mandate of fair and equitable governance that in your decisions during Monday night’s meeting, you must consider the following:
a. A super-majority vote, if adopted, will ensure San Mateo will lose all of its historic properties over time. The outside interests have no regard for the beauty our architecture bestows on our City. They are interested in building, and only building, and they want nothing in their way to stop them. San Mateo will lose its soul. The state and national processes for historic designation allow for a community’s approval to become 951 of 1110
2 a historic district. Let them do their job. Don’t try to duplicate or negate the years of expertise they provide.
b. And some questions: (1) Why should City Council have to make a resolution to include state or federally listed properties in the inventory? By default, they should be included in that inventory. (2) Where did the idea of a vote come from? Residents don’t vote whether or not to be included on state or federal flood zones, fire hazard zones, or wetland and riparian zones. (3) There is a huge omission in the draft ordinance in that there is no recognition of state and federally listed properties. Nor is there any provision documenting that the City has many eligible properties that they have not addressed for over 30 years. Is that really in line with the General Plan goals and policies? c. As to the focus groups, it would seem to be a no-brainer to ensure a focus group of Glazenwood residents was arranged, but it was not. Glazenwood residents love being in a historic district; they have direct experience in maintaining their homes under Historic District designation. Why were they left out? Why couldn’t the positive input they would have provided been reflected in the discussion? d. Further to the Glazenwood historic district designation, why is a City Staff Director unilaterally deciding that because a piece of paper cannot be found, Glazenwood is not a historic district but only “eligible”? I hope the Council will remind this person that he is not deputized to make such a decision. A ton of time was spent asking questions about this last Wednesday night and he only dug in deeper with his opinion. e. As part of this ordinance, I urge the Council to form an independent body of experts on historic architecture, not leave it to City staff or an existing Commission, such as Planning, that is well known for their anti-historic stance. This should be in the hands of experts, not anti-historic district ideologs.

Thank you for considering this information before moving forward with the Historic Ordinance. The City Council should NOT let the future of historic preservation in the City of San Mateo suffer because of the misinformation and deception promoted by LRT and YIMBY lobbyists.

Sincerely,

Connie Weiss
San Mateo Resident
952 of 1110
1 From: Kevin Cullinane >
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 3:22 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Council should have a choice on the Historic Ordinance Language NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk,

REPRESENT YOUR VOTERS
Council should have a choice. And their choice should support what their voters want...more/affordable housing.

Thank you for supporting this path,
________________
Regards,
Kevin Cullinane
SC Properties
953 of 1110
1 From: Kevin Cullinane < >
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 3:21 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Historic? Consent should be 2/3 FOR and Nominations shouldn't bypass the City NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk, I disagreed with the City spending $500K to update the Historic Ordinance. However, since we are here, now is the time to put in strong informed consent protections and make sure historic resource nominations don't bypass City Processes / the Council as the OHP does no independent due diligence of nominations.

CONSENT AT LEAST THAT FOR PARKING PERMITS!
67% must support. At least 50% must respond to the survey.

Thank you for ensuring that private citizens can't encumber their neighbors properties without the Owner’s awareness and consent!
Sincerely,
_______________
Regards,
Kevin Cullinane
SC Properties
954 of 1110
1 From: Barbara Alexander < >
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 9:18 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Council should have a choice on the Historic Ordinance Language NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk,

REPRESENT YOUR VOTERS
Council should have a choice. And their choice should support what their voters want...more/affordable housing.

Thank you for supporƟng this path,
Barbara Alexander
________________
Sent from my iPhone
955 of 1110
1 From: Kolja Schluetter
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 12:15 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk; Alex Khojikian; Historic Policy Cc: Zachary Dahl; Planning Commission
Subject: Request for legal safeguards in Historic Context Statement and draft ordinance Dear San Mateo City Council and Project Team,

As a follow up to my initial letter, I am writing to request that specific legal safeguards be added to both the Draft Historic Context Statement and the accompanying historic preservation ordinance before either document advances toward adoption.

As currently drafted, the Historic Context Statement functions as more than a neutral background document and creates a material risk that non-designated properties could be treated as “potential historical resources” for planning and CEQA purposes. Disclaimers alone are not sufficient to address this risk unless they are paired with clear, binding limitations in both the Context Statement and the ordinance.

To reduce legal exposure, prevent misuse, and provide clarity for homeowners, applicants, and City staff, I respectfully request the following changes. Without these changes consent will be significantly eroded.

1. Additions to the Historic Context Statement
The Context Statement should include clear, operative language stating that:
 The document is a narrative reference only and does not identify, designate, determine, or imply historic eligibility of any property, site, structure, district, or landscape.  The document may not be used, cited, or relied upon to support CEQA determinations or claims of historical resource status.
 References to architectural styles, neighborhoods, development patterns, social history, or cultural themes do not constitute identification of contributors, potential contributors, or eligible resources.
 In the event of any conflict, the adopted ordinance controls.

In addition, eligibility-style language should be removed entirely. This includes references to CRHR or NRHP criteria, integrity thresholds, or statements suggesting that properties, patterns, or areas may be eligible or warrant further study.

2. Additions to the ordinance
The ordinance should clearly limit what the City will treat as a historical resource for planning and CEQA purposes. Specifically, only the following should qualify:
 Properties formally designated as local landmarks
 Properties within locally designated historic districts  Properties listed on the California Register of Historical Resources 956 of 1110
2  Properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places

The ordinance should further state that:
 Non-designated properties shall not be treated as historical resources or potential historical resources for CEQA, discretionary review, demolition review, or project conditioning.  The Historic Context Statement may not be used as evidence of historical significance or eligibility.
 City staff, consultants, boards, or commissions may not independently determine historic eligibility outside the formal designation process.
 No historic survey, evaluation, or eligibility analysis of a privately owned property may be initiated or required without the written consent of the property owner, unless the property is already designated or listed.
 Compliance with the ordinance and reliance on designated resources constitutes the City’s complete consideration of historical resources under CEQA.

3. Importance of sequencing
These limitations should be adopted concurrently with, or prior to, adoption of the Historic Context Statement. Adopting an expansive context document without binding ordinance guardrails creates avoidable legal risk and unnecessary uncertainty.

These changes are necessary to ensure historic preservation policy is precise, defensible, and consistent with CEQA, state housing law, and basic principles of due process.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best regards,
Kolja Schluetter
On Jan 20, 2026 at 7:27 PM -0800, Kolja Schluetter , wrote:

Dear San Mateo Council Members and Project Team,

I have reviewed the Draft Historic Context Statement (November 2025), the accompanying draft ordinance framework, and the outreach conducted to date. My comments are not a critique of historic preservation as a goal, but of how this effort is currently structured, sequenced, and implemented.

As drafted, the combined approach creates unnecessary legal risk, policy imbalance, and public distrust.

1. Historic Context Statement – scope and downstream risk The Historic Context Statement goes well beyond its intended role as a neutral reference document. It repeatedly elevates broad development patterns, subdivision layouts, neighborhood form, and social history from contextual background to independently 957 of 1110
3 significant resources. This shifts preservation review away from discrete, evaluable resources toward open-ended, neighborhood-scale claims and materially lowers the threshold for asserting historical significance.

Although the document states it does not designate resources, its structure and language invite pre-designation eligibility arguments. By exhaustively mapping themes and associations while emphasizing that CRHR eligibility does not require NRHP-level integrity, the document enables almost any property older than roughly 45 years to be argued as historically eligible, even when physical integrity or architectural merit is weak. This effectively turns context into de facto regulation without legislative safeguards.

The heavy reliance on non-physical attributes such as association, feeling, setting, and cultural narratives further increases subjectivity and uncertainty. The extensive discussion of cultural and ethnic history, while important, is framed in a way that strongly ties social history to physical location. As written, code-compliant redevelopment can be challenged on the basis of alleged cultural erasure or displacement even where no designated resource exists. This moves preservation review into socio-political adjudication rather than objective resource evaluation.

Finally, by broadening what may constitute a “potential historical resource,” the City is materially increasing CEQA exposure. Projects that would otherwise qualify for ministerial or streamlined review can now be forced into discretionary review or an EIR. This risk is foreseeable and should be acknowledged directly.

2. Ordinance – missing guardrails and due process
Several elements of the draft ordinance require substantial correction before adoption.

First, the consent process for historic district applications is fundamentally flawed. Relying on applicant-collected petition signatures is not verifiable and is inconsistent with every other City process involving neighbor consent. The City, not the applicant, must manage notification and consent verification. A supermajority threshold of at least two-thirds of affected property owners should be required, with non-responses counted as no consent. This is consistent with existing City practice, for example the installation of public street speed bumps requires 67% approval of affected homeowners.

Second, if an applicant attempts to bypass the local process by submitting a district application directly to the Office of Historic Preservation, the City Manager should be required to formally notify OHP that the City does not support the application. This should explicitly include the pending Baywood state application.

Third, there should be no new standalone Historic Preservation Commission. Oversight should remain within the Planning Department to avoid duplicative bureaucracy and maintain accountability within existing structures.

958 of 1110
4 Finally, contributor status must be properly researched and documented. Drive-by or superficial assessments are inadequate. If a homeowner disputes contributor classification, the applicant must be required to meaningfully revise the application and address contrary evidence.

3. Outreach – failure to meet Council direction
The outreach conducted to date does not comply with Council’s direction from last year.

Rincon and staff were explicitly tasked with collecting input on the ordinance itself.

Instead, meetings focused largely on general sentiments about San Mateo.

Rincon’s own materials show only 163 community member touchpoints, many of which represent repeat participants counted multiple times. With the exception of the mobile workshops, attendance was dominated by SMHA and LRT members. This is not a broad or representative cross-section of the community. Critically, Council-directed questions, such as what consent thresholds are meaningful to residents, were not addressed at all.

In effect, approximately $60,000 was spent to hear from roughly 95 new voices about what they like about San Mateo, not about the policy choices at issue.

Conclusion
Taken together, the Historic Context Statement, ordinance draft, and outreach process reflect a flawed sequencing and an imbalance between preservation objectives, housing obligations, and property rights. The current approach expands regulatory reach, lowers evidentiary thresholds, and defers critical policy decisions while exposing the City to avoidable legal and political risk.

I strongly urge the City to pause adoption, revise the Historic Context Statement to clearly separate background history from eligibility frameworks, complete and tighten the ordinance guardrails, and conduct ordinance-focused outreach that reflects the broader community.

Thank you for considering these comments. I would welcome further discussion.

Best regards,

Kolja Schluetter
959 of 1110
1 From: Hanish Rathod
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 12:28 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: Support User; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Council should have a choice on the Historic Ordinance Language NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk,

REPRESENT YOUR VOTERS
Council should have a choice. And their choice should support what their voters want...more/affordable housing.

Thank you for supporting this path,
Hanish
________________
960 of 1110
1 From: Jean Garcia
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 2:20 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Historic? Consent should be 2/3 FOR and Nominations shouldn't bypass the City NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash, who ignores the interests of those in her district ) plus Clerk, We need strong informed consent protecƟons and make sure historic resource nominaƟons don't bypass City Processes / the Council as the OHP does no independent due diligence of nominaƟons.

NO BYPASS OF CITY FOR HISTORIC RESOURCE NOMINATIONS The OHP in Sacramento doesn't know the buildings of a City beƩer than the locals. And as you know, the OHP does no independent due diligence on nominaƟons. Our house was listed as a contributor in the current applicaƟon for a Baywood historic district, without our consent even though there was an addiƟon, remodel and eliminaƟon of some windows and addiƟons of others. The OHP have rubber stamped "historic" buildings up and down the state.

Thank you for ensuring that private ciƟzens can't encumber their neighbors properƟes without the Owner’s awareness and consent!
Sincerely,
____Jean Garcia___________
Sent from my iPhone
961 of 1110
1 From: Jamie Curry Hwang
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 4:49 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Historic? Consent should be 2/3 FOR and Nominations shouldn't bypass the City NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk, I STRONGLY disagree with the City spending $500K to update the Historic Ordinance. However, since we are here, now is the time to put in strong informed consent protections and make sure historic resource nominations don't bypass City Processes / the Council as the OHP does no independent due diligence of nominations.

CONSENT AT LEAST THAT FOR PARKING PERMITS!
67% must support. At least 50% must respond to the survey.

Thank you for ensuring that private citizens can't encumber their neighbors properties without the Owners awareness and consent!
Sincerely,
Jamie Hwang
--
There are those that give with joy, and that joy is their reward - Khalil Gibran 962 of 1110
1 From: Hoa Le
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 6:10 PM
To: Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Historic? Consent should be 2/3 FOR and Nominations shouldn't bypass the City Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk, I disagreed with the City spending $500K to update the Historic Ordinance. However, since we are here, now is the time to put in strong informed consent protections and make sure historic resource nominations don't bypass City Processes / the Council as the OHP does no independent due diligence of nominations.

CONSENT AT LEAST THAT FOR PARKING PERMITS!
67% must support. At least 50% must respond to the survey.

Thank you for ensuring that private citizens can't encumber their neighbors properties without the Owners awareness and consent!
Sincerely,
Hoa Le
963 of 1110
1 From: Mike Feng < >
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 8:00 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Historic? Consent should be 2/3 FOR and Nominations shouldn't bypass the City NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

CONSENT AT LEAST THAT FOR PARKING PERMITS!
67% must support. At least 50% must respond to the survey.

Thank you for ensuring that private citizens can't encumber their neighbors properties without the Owners awareness and consent!
Sincerely,
Michael Feng
21 year resident of San Mateo
964 of 1110
1 From: Peter Stone < >
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 8:36 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Subject: Re: Council should have a choice on the Historic Ordinance Language Dear City Council Members:

I am writing as a fed-up San Mateo resident who is tired of seeing City Hall captured by the private priorities of Lisa Diaz Nash and her husband, Mike Nash, at the expense of the rest of us.

The Baywood “historic district” push is not about history. It is about power, control, and protecting one wealthy enclave from change while the city burns time and money on “process theater.” The fact that the Mayor’s own household is deeply entangled in this effort is a glaring conflict of interest, and everyone on this council knows it.

I am sick of watching staff hours, consultant dollars, and political capital poured into a vanity of useless projects that exist to give a small circle of insiders more leverage over their neighbors’ property. Ordinary residents are struggling with real issues: crime, homelessness, filthy and unsafe streets, traffic, schools under pressure, and a brutal cost of living. Instead of tackling those important issues, you are pouring fuel on a manufactured “heritage” drama for one of the richest neighborhoods in the city.

I attended the City Council meeting last January, where you approved a historic district preservation consulting contract with Rincon Consultants for a total not-to-exceed amount of approximately $328,000. Last Thursday I attended the Rincon virtual meeting, and I believe that you’ve already incurred $550K. My understanding is that we’re already running a multi-million deficit, and taxes go up every single year. This is just more government regulation and more waste! We don’t have revenue problems at the Federal, State, or Local levels. We have spending problems! In 2022, the Council voted 4-1 to install the Humboldt / Popular lanes as part of a federal-funded safer project. By early 2025 you voted 3-2 to partially remove the lanes and spend up to ~$2 million to restore roughly half the parking, while proposing a less-protected bike-boulevard alternative.

Why are you so incompetent?

Let me be crystal clear:
- Shut down the Baywood historic district process and any related “heritage” overlays immediately - Stop burning staff time and legal resources to engineer special protections for the Mayor’s neighborhood - Refuse any new commission, design review, or overlay that gives politically connected homeowners a veto over by-right projects
- Start cutting waste and lowering the tax and fee burden instead of inventing new layers of government to micromanage private property
You were not elected to be hall monitors for rooflines and paint colors. You were elected to keep this city safe, clean, and functional, and to respect the basic principle that residents – not a handful of well-connected activists and their spouse – decide what happens on their own lots within the law.

I expect you to end this Baywood historic-district nonsense, stop enabling conflicts of interest around the Nash household, and get back to doing the core job you were elected to do.

Respectfully,
Peter R. Stone
965 of 1110
2 On Sun, Jan 25, 2026 at 8:59 PM Peter Stone wrote:

NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk,

REPRESENT YOUR VOTERS
Council should have a choice. And their choice should support what their voters want...more/affordable housing.

Thank you for supporting this path,
________________
Sent from my iPhone
966 of 1110
1 From: Allison MacQueen Felder
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 9:40 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk; Lisa Diaz Nash
Cc: Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Vote No on Historic Ordinance
Dear San Mateo City Council,
I am a home owner in District 2 (home built in 1948). This starter home was a total fixer upper when we bought it and required extensive work, both inside and outside. It has come to my attention that the new Historic Preservation Ordinance Language in the Municipal Code may not protect Owners adequately.

This restrictive ordinance will cause less building in San Mateo, less remodeling, and extensive red tap for what aim??
This ordinance seeks to embrace the past instead of readying San Mateo for future population growth and a modernization of existing housing stock.

Thank you.

Allison MacQueen
North Shoreview Resident
967 of 1110
Norma Formanek
January 26, 2026
VIA EMAIL TO: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] cc: [email protected], [email protected] SUBJECT: Initial Draft Update San Mateo Historic Preservation Ordinance Dear Council Members:

The draft Historic Preservation ordinance is overly broad and contains ambiguities that must be resolved before it can be evaluated for Council action. I will address only section 27.66.100, Certificate of Appropriateness, which places broad new burdens on homeowners and the City.

Scope of the Ordinance. The ordinance would require the owner of a “Contributing” home in an Historic District to apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness for virtually any “alter[ation]” to
structural, architectural details or visual characteristics; additions; and placement or removal of any significant objects affecting the significant exterior visual and/or historical qualities of the property. (Definitions, Major Alteration)
This requirement applies even if “no other permits or entitlements” are needed. As a result, any “visual” change to my home not requiring a permit today would likely trigger the Certificate requirement.

As drafted, this clause seems also to mean:
 Alterations that are “structural” and “visual” are covered, whether or not they are also historic .
968 of 1110
 The Ordinance isn’t limited to changes to the home’s exterior or to street elevations. The reference to “exterior” in the above definition appears to apply only the “placement or removal” of a significant “object,” not to changes to the building itself. Three limitations to street elevations are narrow:
demolition; work requiring a permit on street-facing or side elevations but only if the structure is a Historic Resources, not a Contributor; and addition of square footage (see 27.66.020(a)(2), (a)(3) and (g). Addition of a backyard deck, for example, would appear to be trigger City review.
 The Certificate is required for “new” construction on a property that contains a Historic Resource or Contributing Property if that construction “could affect its visual appearance,” whether or not it does. This seems to support media speculation that this entire effort is an end-run around the State’s recent adoption of laws encouraging development of ADUs, in which case litigation seems inevitable. Then again, it may just be an example of early drafting that needs tightening up.
 The “exemption” for repair and maintenance applies only if the work is determined (by whom?) not to involve “change in exterior design, material, or appearance. Simply repainting a home would at a minimum require someone to “determine” that the paint doesn’t result in an “alteration.”  Even so-called “Minor Alterations” that have been “determined to have limited potential to affect the defining character and architectural style of a Listed Resource or Contributor” require a certificate.

Is it the City’s intent to place such broad range of new restrictions on home ownership?
Who Decides? The Ordinance draft doesn’t tell us who decides whether a Certificate of Appropriateness is needed or will be granted. It refers to unnamed “reviewing” and “approval” bodies, which the City may not yet have decided. That decision must consider important questions such as:
 What is the role of the City’s professional staff? The Zoning Administrator is given limited power to review and approve Certificates, but that is subject to both public notice and further review by the “reviewing body.” 969 of 1110
 What subject-matter expertise will required of the officials charged with enforcement of this ordinance? Does the City have sufficient resources for timely processing of applications?
 How will the objectivity of the decision-maker be ensured. Many cities “outsource” historic preservation review. Does San Mateo intend to do that and if so, how?
 Are there any objective, measurable standards under which a Certificate can be denied?
 What recourse does the homeowner have after denial?
Crafting ordinances that are clear and workable for both the City and its residents is a complex process. If this Ordinance is to go forward, it needs significant rethinking, redrafting and public comment to allow the Council to make a reasoned decision. I urge the Council to take that time and not rush to adoption of an overbroad and ambiguous set of regulations.

Sincerely,
Norma Formanek

970 of 1110
1 From: Kira Tsu
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 10:18 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: D5: Historic Ordinance - Consent, No Local Bypass, No Ref to Context Stmt NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk, I am an Owner in District 5. It has come to my attention that the new Historic Preservation Ordinance Language in the Municipal Code may not protect Owners Adequately. Please carefully check the language in these three areas.

CONSENT AT LEAST THAT FOR PARKING PERMITS!
67% must support. At least 50% must respond to the survey.

NO REFERENCE TO THE CONTEXT STATEMENT IN THE ORDINANCE
City Council directed Staff to not put Owners at risk of their homes being made “historic” by reference.

Thank you for ensuring that private citizens can't encumber their neighbors properties without the 971 of 1110
2 Owners awareness and consent!
Sincerely,
Kira Tsu
972 of 1110
1 From: Jon New
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 10:21 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk; Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: D2: Historic Ordinance - Consent, No Local Bypass, No Ref to Context Stmt NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council, plus Clerk,
I am a homeowner in District 2, and personally, I think the historic designations are a tremendous waste of city resources. Not only is this obviously a ploy to deny housing, but the idea of strongly limiting what people can do on their own property is appalling, and quite frankly, unamerican. It has come to my attention that the new Historic Preservation Ordinance Language in the Municipal Code may not protect Owners Adequately. Please carefully check the language in these three areas.

NO REFERENCE TO THE CONTEXT STATEMENT IN THE ORDINANCE
City Council directed Staff to not put Owners at risk of their homes being made “historic” by reference. For example, “Spanish Colonial Revival” is an example of a historic home. My understanding is if the Ordinance references the Context Statement and the Context Statement includes “Spanish Colonial Revival”, then all Spanish Colonial Revival homes in greater San Mateo could now be considered “historic”.

Thank you for ensuring that private citizens can't encumber their neighbors properties without the Owners awareness and consent! Sincerely,
Jonathan New
______________
973 of 1110
1 From: Liz Magnee-Schalch
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 11:40 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: D3: Historic Ordinance - Consent, No Local Bypass, No Ref to Context Stmt NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk, I am an Owner in District 3. It has come to my aƩenƟon that the new Historic PreservaƟon Ordinance Language in the Municipal Code may not protect Owners Adequately. Please carefully check the language in these three areas.

CONSENT AT LEAST THAT FOR PARKING PERMITS!
67% must support. At least 50% must respond to the survey.

NO BYPASS OF CITY FOR HISTORIC RESOURCE NOMINATIONS The OHP in Sacramento doesn't know the buildings of a City beƩer than the locals. And as you know, the OHP does no independent due diligence on nominaƟons. As a result, they have rubber stamped "historic" buildings up and down the state nominated by NIMBYs and controlling neighbors.

NO REFERENCE TO THE CONTEXT STATEMENT IN THE ORDINANCE City Council directed Staff to not put Owners at risk of their homes being made “historic” by reference. For example, “Spanish Colonial Revival” is an example of a historic home. My understanding is that if the Ordinance references the Context Statement and the Context Statement includes “Spanish Colonial Revival”, then all Spanish Colonial Revival homes in greater San Mateo could now be considered “historic”.

I ask that the Historic PreservaƟon Language in the Municipal Code be reviewed and approved by the Less Red Tape team with support from land use aƩorney Daniel Freedman who has been fighƟng the weaponizaƟon of historic districts up and down the State.

Thank you for ensuring that private ciƟzens can't encumber their neighbors properƟes without the Owners awareness and consent!
Sincerely,
Liz Magnee- Schalch
______________
Sent from my iPhone
974 of 1110
975 of 1110
1 From: Maria Sagullo < >
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 12:16 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: D1: Historic Ordinance - Consent, No Local Bypass, No Ref to Context Stmt No historic district pls!
Dear San Mateo City Council, plus Clerk,
I am an Owner in District 1. It has come to my aƩenƟon that the new Historic PreservaƟon Ordinance Language in the Municipal Code may not protect Owners Adequately. Please carefully check the language in these three areas.

CONSENT AT LEAST THAT FOR PARKING PERMITS!
67% must support. At least 50% must respond to the survey.

NO BYPASS OF CITY FOR HISTORIC RESOURCE NOMINATIONS The OHP in Sacramento doesn't know the buildings of a City beƩer than the locals. And as you know, the OHP does no independent due diligence on nominaƟons. As a result, they have rubber stamped "historic" buildings up and down the state nominated by NIMBYs and controlling neighbors.

NO REFERENCE TO THE CONTEXT STATEMENT IN THE ORDINANCE City Council directed Staff to not put Owners at risk of their homes being made “historic” by reference. For example, “Spanish Colonial Revival” is an example of a historic home. My understanding is that if the Ordinance references the Context Statement and the Context Statement includes “Spanish Colonial Revival”, then all Spanish Colonial Revival homes in greater San Mateo could now be considered “historic”.

Thank you for ensuring that private ciƟzens can't encumber their neighbors properƟes without the Owners awareness and consent!
Sincerely,
Maria Monica Sagullo
Sent from my iPhone
976 of 1110
1 From: Michelle Hudson < >
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 1:12 PM
To: Adam Loraine; Rob Newsom; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Subject: Historic Ordinance - Consent should be 2/3 and Nominations shouldn't Bypass the City Dear Members of San Mateo City Council,
I disagreed with the City spending $500K to update the Historic Ordinance. However, since we are here, now is the time to put in strong informed consent protections and make sure historic resource nominations don't bypass City Processes / the Council as the OHP does no independent due diligence of nominations.

CONSENT SHOULD BE AT LEAST THE SAME AS THAT FOR PARKING PERMITS 67% must support. At least 50% must respond to the survey.

We don't need to reinvent the wheel and spend more money on this than necessary. San Mateo already has an existing, known process for gathering owner consent on residential programs, namely Parking Permits. The threshold for historic resources should be higher. "Historic" is an additional disclosure at sale, the pool of buyers for historic homes is smaller than for homes not historic and historic homes cost more to maintain and insure.

Thank you for ensuring that private citizens can't encumber their neighbors properties without the Owners awareness and consent!
Michelle Hudson
Baywood Homeowner
977 of 1110
1 From: Belinda Steyer
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 1:15 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Subject: DISTRICT #5: Historic Ordinance - Consent, No Local Bypass, No Ref to Context Stmt
NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk, I am an Owner in District FIVE. It has come to my attention that the new Historic Preservation Ordinance Language in the Municipal Code may not protect Owners Adequately. Please carefully check the language in these three areas.

1. CONSENT AT LEAST THAT FOR PARKING PERMITS!
67% must support. At least 50% must respond to the survey.

3. NO REFERENCE TO THE CONTEXT STATEMENT IN THE ORDINANCE City Council directed Staff to not put Owners at risk of their homes being made “historic” by reference. For example, “Spanish Colonial Revival” is an example of a historic home. My understanding is that if the Ordinance references the Context Statement and the Context Statement includes “Spanish Colonial Revival”, then all Spanish Colonial Revival homes in greater San Mateo could now be considered “historic”.

Thank you for ensuring that private citizens can't encumber their neighbors properties without the Owners awareness and consent!
Sincerely,
Belinda Steyer
978 of 1110
2 979 of 1110
1 From: Maggie Trinh
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 1:21 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Strong Opposition to Historic Preservation Language Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Diaz Nash) plus Clerk and City Attorney, I am a homeowner in District 3 writing as an individual. I recently learned that there is an effort to designate homes as "historic" using Historic Preservation Language in the Municipal Code that could potentially affect many, if not most, homes across the city. This is a giant step backwards when we are trying to build more, not less, housing, to address the acute housing shortage and affordability crisis in the region.

Historic homes cost more to maintain and insure. We need to make it easier to build, not harder. An overwhelming majority of homeowners do *not* want their house designated as historic, especially houses barely older than Diet Coke, rollerblades, and Cabbage Patch Kids.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Maggie Trinh
980 of 1110
1 From: Laurie Hietter
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 1:46 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Adam Loraine; Lisa Diaz Nash; Rob Newsom; Nicole Fernandez; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Clerk
Subject: San Mateo Heritage Alliance Comments on the draft Context Statement and Historic Preservation Ordinance
Attachments: 1.26.26SMHA CommentsonContextandOrdinance.docx.pdf Good afternoon,
Please see the attached comments on the Historic Context Statement and the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance.

Thank you for your consideration.

Laurie Hietter
San Mateo Heritage Alliance
www.smheritage.org
Protecting Our Past for a Better Future
M m m
981 of 1110
1 From: Joel Scott
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 1:26 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: D1: Historic Ordinance - Consent, No Local Bypass, No Ref to Context Stmt NOTE: This is NOT an AI-generated message and I am a real person. You can verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council and City Clerk,
I am a homeowner in District 1. It has come to my attention that proposed updates to the Historic Preservation Ordinance may not adequately protect property owners. I ask that the draft be carefully reviewed and clarified in the three areas below.

1. CONSENT (AT LEAST THE PARKING PERMIT STANDARD)
At a minimum: (i) 67% of affected property owners must affirmatively support designation, and (ii) at least 50% of affected property owners must respond to the survey/ballot.

San Mateo already has a known process for obtaining owner consent for residential programs (parking permits). A historic designation can create additional permitting complexity and cost, ongoing maintenance/insurance issues, and a reduced pool of prospective buyers. The consent standard for any historic designation should be at least as protective as existing City programs.

2. NO BYPASS OF THE CITY FOR HISTORIC RESOURCE NOMINATIONS The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) is not positioned to evaluate San Mateo properties better than local processes. As you know, the OHP have approved "historic" buildings up and down the state with no independent due diligence on nominations. This is problematic and raises serious concerns for homeowners impacted by the "historic" designation.

Please add clear language requiring that the City Manager be notified immediately of any OHP nomination affecting property within City limits, and that the City will not support (and requests OHP not to approve) any nomination that has not first been reviewed and acted on through the City’s local process.

3. NO INCORPORATION OF THE “CONTEXT STATEMENT” BY REFERENCE My understanding is that if the Ordinance incorporates the Citywide Historic Context Statement by reference, then broad categories included in that Context Statement (e.g., “Spanish Colonial Revival”) could be treated as presumptively “historic” in a way that risks sweeping in large numbers of homes without clear, individualized review and affirmative owner consent. Please ensure the Ordinance does not incorporate the Context Statement by reference in a way that expands designation scope, and clarify that the Context Statement is informational/guidance only and does not itself create designations.
982 of 1110
2 I ask that the final Historic Preservation Ordinance language be reviewed with input from the Less Red Tape team and land use attorney Daniel Freedman, given their experience with the downstream impacts of historic designations on owners and communities.

Thank you for ensuring that private citizens cannot impose significant encumbrances on their neighbors’ properties without owners’ clear awareness and affirmative consent.

Sincerely,
Joel Scott
983 of 1110
P.O. Box 146 San Mateo, CA 94402
www.smheritage.org
January 26, 2026
City Council
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Street
San Mateo, CA 94402
SUBJECT: Comments on the Draft Historic Context Statement and Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
Dear Mayor Lorraine and Members of the City Council:

Thank you for preparing the draft Citywide Historic Context Statement and draft Historic Preservation Ordinance as part of implementing the 2040 General Plan. The San Mateo Heritage Alliance appreciates the opportunity to provide input and urges the City to ensure these documents maintain—and ideally strengthen—San Mateo’s longstanding commitment to historic preservation.

San Mateo’s preservation framework has developed over decades through City Council resolutions, General Plan policies, cooperative agreements with the State Office of Historic Preservation, the 1989 City of San Mateo Historic Building Survey Final Report (accepted by the State in 1990), and subsequent ordinance updates (originally adopted in 1993, expanded citywide in 1995, refined in 2010, and aligned with state law in 2022). The 1989 Survey remains the foundational record for identifying resources, evaluating districts, and supporting programs like the Mills Act.

KEY COMMENTS
The draft documents are incomplete and risk weakening existing protections:

1. Incomplete Documents and Non-Compliance with State Guidance The Historic Context Statement lacks required sections (including critical policy content) and fails to reference known historic districts, nominations (e.g., the proposed Baywood Historic District, now advancing toward National Register listing), and other elements of San Mateo’s preservation history. Meaningful public review requires complete, consistent documents. The draft Ordinance omits several elements recommended in the State Office of Historic Preservation’s Technical Assistance Bulletin #14, including:
• Identification of enabling authority with qualified experts (e.g., architectural historians and architects)
• Establishment of a dedicated Historic Preservation Commission with qualified members • Appeals procedures
• Severability clause
984 of 1110
City Council
January 26, 2026

Page 2 ends

2 • Clear policies on what the City considers important to preserve • Detailed definitions (e.g., major/minor alterations, adverse effect, Historic Resources Inventory, character-defining features, important architectural styles, design trends, complementary design)
ACTION: The missing information must be included in the Statement and Ordinance and provided for meaningful public review.

2. Weakened Protections Compared to Current Practices and Neighboring Cities The draft is minimalist and reduces safeguards relative to existing regulations (as described on the City’s website) and ordinances in comparable cities like Palo Alto, Burlingame, and Redwood City. Notable differences include:
• No dedicated, qualified historic commission (all three neighbors have one) • Stringent owner-consent requirements (supermajority for districts; owner-only nominations), unlike neighbors’ more proactive and city-led processes with fewer consent hurdles
• Arbitrary percentage thresholds for contributing properties in districts (inconsistent with state/federal practices, which define districts by geography and integrity, not fixed percentages)
• Discretionary Historic Resource Evaluations (HREs) for buildings over 45 years old (weakens current CEQA-informed requirements)
• Reliance on outdated surveys (e.g., 1989 Survey >35 years old; standard validity is 5–10 years) without mandating updates
• Broad exemptions for safety-related work (buildings can often be repaired without exemption)
• Weak enforcement, penalties, maintenance definitions (“good repair” should specify full paint coverage, repair of exposed wood, etc.), and incentives (expand beyond Mills Act basics, e.g., reduced fees, grants)
ACTIONS:

1. Include an architectural historian and architect to be the reviewing body.

2. Follow state and federal policies using >50% approval for owner consent in historic districts.

3. Remove provision for an arbitrary percentage of properties that must be contributors in historic districts.
985 of 1110
City Council
January 26, 2026

Page 3 ends

3 3. Failure to Recognize State- and Federally-Listed Resources It is profoundly inappropriate—and contrary to shared cultural heritage, democratic processes, and community well-being—for the City to disregard or exclude properties listed on the California Register of Historical Resources or National Register of Historic Places. These listings already reflect rigorous, expert evaluation (including owner consent where applicable) and should trigger ordinance protections without requiring redundant local adoption. The ordinance must apply to development projects.

ACTIONS: Revise the ordinance to ensure that State and National Register properties are included in the inventory and are subject to the Historic Preservation Ordinance.

4. Unclear Historic Resources Inventory
The draft does not clearly define the Inventory or fully incorporate prior Council actions, surveys, and resolutions (e.g., omitting key references to the 1989 Survey, 1990 General Plan, Mills Act implementations, Glazenwood and Downtown Historic Districts, Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District, survey-identified contributors, and proposed Baywood Historic District). The 1988 resolution 113 to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the State Office of Historic Preservation identified the 1989 Survey as the city historic resources inventory states “2. The City shall f. compile and [sic] inventory of historic resource that are of importance to the community;” This omission risks inconsistent enforcement, erosion of longstanding records, and loss of public confidence.

5. Identify Glazenwood as a local historic district. Glazenwood, identified in multiple General Plans and Housing Elements as one of two historic districts, must not be downgraded through administrative ambiguity. Glazenwood is listed as a historic district in the 1989 Survey, and as specified in the 1988 Memorandum of Agreement, is part of the city inventory.

ACTIONS: Identify Glazenwood as an historic district, similar to the Downtown Historic District.

6. Other Specific Improvements/Actions Needed
• Strengthen purpose/intent to align fully with General Plan policies CD 5.1–5.6 (remove or clarify ambiguous terms like “use” of resources; define “where feasible,” “infeasible,” and “appropriate alternatives” for avoiding demolition) • Add local designation criteria highlighting San Mateo’s special features (e.g., pre-1950 homes, Eichlers, Downtown integrity, “City of Beautiful Homes” legacy) • Require review by qualified architectural historians for exterior modifications to older buildings (not just staff)
986 of 1110
City Council
January 26, 2026

Page 4 ends

4 • Mandate timelines for all review steps to prevent delays. • Include community education provisions during designations (with knowledgeable staff at meetings to counter misinformation, as seen in Baywood discussions) • Revise consent to match state/federal norms: allow nominations by anyone (as historic value is a public good), but require owner consent for individual listings and majority (>50%) support for districts.
• Expand incentives, detail Mills Act processes, define/enforce “good repair,” and strengthen penalties/abatement.
• Apply HREs mandatorily for relevant projects; tie Certificate of Appropriateness conditions explicitly to Secretary of the Interior’s Standards; exempt interior work with unchanged openings.

Requested Actions
We respectfully request that the City Council direct staff to implement the above actions including:
• Clarify and confirm that the Historic Resources Inventory includes all resources and districts identified through prior Council actions, the 1989 Survey, and state/federal listings (without requiring redundant local adoption for the latter).
• Direct staff to complete and correct both the Context Statement and Ordinance, incorporating the above refinements, for additional public review before adoption. • Ensure the final documents are at least as protective as current practices and comparable to those in Palo Alto, Burlingame, and Redwood City—robust, equitable, expert-driven, and balanced with housing and property rights goals.

These changes seek continuity with existing Council intent, not new expansions. They would enhance transparency, legal defensibility, and effectiveness while honoring San Mateo’s irreplaceable architectural and cultural heritage.

Thank you for your commitment to this important work. We look forward to reviewing the revised drafts.

Sincerely,
Laurie Hietter
President
San Mateo Heritage Alliance
987 of 1110
January 26, 2026
Historic Policy
Update Study
Session
988 of 1110
Project Team
City of San Mateo Consultant
Community Development Rincon Consultants
• Zachary Dahl, Director Margo Nayyar, Principal-in-Charge • Sung Kwon, Deputy Director JulieAnn Murphy, Architectural Historian • Joanna Winter, Planning Manager Kassandra Gale, Community Engagement Manager • Somer Smith, Senior Planner
• Mary Way, Administrative Tech
City Attorney’s Office
• Prasanna Rasiah, City Attorney
• Mazarin Vakharia, Assistant City Attorney
2 989 of 1110
Study Session Objectives and Overview
• Project Basis
• Implement General Plan 2040
• Action CD 5.8 – Update the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance • Action CD 5.9 – Prepare a Citywide Historic Context Statement • Staff Presentation
• Community Outreach and Engagement Overview
• Draft Historic Context Statement Overview
• Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance Overview
• Next Steps
• Public Comments
• Council Discussion and Direction 3
990 of 1110
Project Timeline
4 991 of 1110
Community Outreach and Engagement
5 Activity Date Estimated # of
Participants
Focus Group 1 July 8, 2025 4
Focus Group 2 July 16, 2025 5
Workshop 1 July 28, 2025 42
Workshop 2
(Mobile Workshop 1)
September 18, 2025 50
Workshop 2
(Mobile Workshop 2)
September 25, 2025 25
Workshop 2
(Mobile Workshop 3)
October 7, 2025 20
Focus Group 3 December 11, 2025 7
Workshop 3 January 21, 2026 55
992 of 1110
• Participation Goals
• Reaching at least 20 attendees per
workshop
• Collecting 50 Digital Time Capsule
contributions
• Engaging 8-10 participants per
focus group
• Expanding email sign up list over
the course of the project
Community Outreach and Engagement
6 • Results
• Heard from and engaged with over
200 residents
• There have been 11 Digital Time
Capsule contributions and 13
reactions
• Focus groups have been slightly
smaller in scale, but provided
opportunities for focused, small
group perspectives
• Email list has grown significantly
and has 175 subscribers
993 of 1110
Community Outreach and Engagement
7 994 of 1110
• Key Takeaways – Focus Group Discussions
• Residents Cautious of Preservation Efforts
• Desire for transparency, owner consent, and local control • Concern about financial and procedural burdens
• Conditional support for a historic context statement
• Residents Supportive of Preservation Efforts
• Preservation seen as essential to community identity
• Need for stronger tools, standards, and professional oversight • Support for inclusive, educational, and adaptive approaches • Business, Real Estate, and Development Community
• Need for clear, practical guidance, including coherence across plans • Support for flexible solutions for historic buildings • Concern about financial burdens to projects
Community Outreach and Engagement
8 995 of 1110
• Key Takeaways – Workshops
• Broad recognition of San Mateo’s cultural
and architectural diversity
• Desire for transparent, consistent, and
educational preservation processes
• Support for inclusive storytelling and
representation in the Historic Context
Statement
• Interest in balanced policies that protect
heritage while allowing flexibility for
property owners
Community Outreach and Engagement
9 996 of 1110
• Key Takeaways – Time Capsule and Written Comments
• Interest in knowing more about San Mateo's history and development • Expressed appreciation for historic places and events that shaped San Mateo • A desire to understand the role of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in relation to historical resources
• Concerns over the future recognition and treatment of Glazenwood and Baywood
• Input on how to address owner consent in the ordinance update • Desire to understand the effects of local designation Community Outreach and Engagement
10 997 of 1110
• Key Takeaways – Workshop #3
• Questions and concerns over the recognition of Glazenwood and Baywood • Thresholds for consent for local designation of historic districts • Audience poll (46 respondents)
• General support for more incentives for designated properties • A desire for more information on how Mills Act contracts would be administered • Interest in understanding the relationship between the local ordinance and CEQA • Desire to understand effects of designation
Community Outreach and Engagement
11 A simple majority (50% +1) 26%
A super majority (2/3) 24%
A super majority (3/4) 41%
None 9%
998 of 1110
• Planning document that highlights
trends and patterns of development
• Provides a framework/consistency for
evaluating a property organized into a
series of context and
themes/subthemes
• Draft San Mateo Historic Context
organized by:
• Significant Periods
• Themes
• Property Types
Draft Historic Context Statement
12 999 of 1110
• Significant Periods
• Precontact History
• Spanish and Mexican Period (1769-1848)
• Early Settlement (1849-1893)
• Incorporation and Suburban Growth (1894-1940)
• World War II and Post-War Development (1941-1979)
• Modern San Mateo (1980-2025)
• Themes
• Residential Development
• Commercial Development
• Civic and Institutional Development
• Transportation Infrastructure
• Industrial Development
• Cultural and Ethnic Groups
• Property Types
Draft Historic Context Statement
13 1000 of 1110
• Overview of Architectural Styles
• Biographies of Architects, Developers,
Builders (under development)
• Guidance for Assessing Significance
(under development)
• Draft provided for public review November
2025
Draft Historic Context Statement
14 1001 of 1110
• Tells the how, when, and why of San Mateo’s development. • Focuses on development trends and property types.
• Provides a basis of information that can aide in the identification, evaluation, and treatment of historic resources.
• Facilitates a better understanding of the relative importance of resources.
• Provides a framework for evaluation, does not designate.

Draft Historic Context Statement
15 1002 of 1110
City Council Direction – June 2, 2025
16 1. Should staff proceed with drafting updates to the Historic Preservation Ordinance to:

Direction from Council How/where it was incorporated in draft ordinance Identify the enabling authority 27.66.101-Purpose and Intent Establish a reviewing body Council advised against creating a new reviewing body and suggested Community Relations Committee. Draft language leaves committee unnamed pending final direction.

Provide procedures for designation of resources 27.66.060-Procedure for Designating Listed Resources

27.66.070-Procedure for Designating Historic District
Recognize the economic effects of designation 27.66.060(d)-Certificate of Appropriateness – Economic Hardship

27.66.120-Incentives for Preserving Historic Resources
Describe appeals and enforcement provisions 27.66.060-Procedure for Designating Listed Resources

27.66.070-Procedure for Designating Historic District

27.66.140-Enforcement and Penalties
Include a set of concise definitions 27.66.020-Definitions Update language that is too rigid, inconsistent, and/or detailed?
All Sections
1003 of 1110
City Council Direction – June 2, 2025
17 2. Should the criteria for a local historic designation conform to the California Register of Historical Resources requirements, or should additional criteria be included to acknowledge the City’s unique history and development?
Direction from Council How/where it was incorporated in draft ordinance Yes. Suggested that local designation
criteria should align with California Register
criteria, but allow for additional criteria based
on information and responses collected
from outreach and engagement activities

27.66.040-Designation Criteria
Draft designation criteria language mirrors the
California Register.

No additional criterion have emerged from outreach to
date, but revisions are possible.
1004 of 1110
Designation Criteria
18 • Is associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of San
Mateo’s or California’s history and cultural heritage;
or
• Is associated with the lives of persons or
communities important to San Mateo’s or
California’s past; or
• Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type,
period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of an important creative
individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
• Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information
important to prehistory or history.
1005 of 1110
City Council Direction – June 2, 2025
19 3. Should the Historic Preservation Ordinance include a mechanism to designate historic districts locally? If yes, should owner support be required and at what level? Direction from Council How/where it was incorporated in draft ordinance Yes. Council provided direction that the ordinance
should provide for a way to designate local historic
districts. Owner support should be required.

Council expressed support for a majority of owner
support, but no specific threshold was decided, with
direction to get additional feedback on this question.

27.66.070-Procedure for Designating
Historic Districts
Outlines the process for designating a local
historic district. It includes a petition requirement
that a certain percentage of property owners must
support the application for designation to occur.
1006 of 1110
City Council Direction – June 2, 2025
20 4. What form of owner consent should be included in the Historic Preservation Ordinance - affirmative, expressed consent; owner veto, or protest provisions? And should the owner consent requirement apply to all local designations or just to historic districts? Direction from Council How/where it was incorporated in draft ordinance Affirmative consent. Council provided direction that
affirmative consent, the requirement of the property
owner’s clear agreement to designation, should be
required for designation of local individual resources.

27.66.060-Procedure for Designating Listed
Resources
The nomination to add a Listed Resource to the San
Mateo HRI shall be made by application of the
property owner.

Affirmative consent. Council provided direction that
affirmative consent, the requirement of the property
owner’s clear agreement to designation, should be
required for designation historic districts.

27.66.070-Procedure for Designating Historic Districts
• Application. The application shall be made by property owner(s) in the proposed district.
• Notification. The application must include documentation that all potentially affected property owners were notified of the application.
• Petition. The application requires a petition that a
threshold percent of property owners support the application. • Community Meeting. Requirement for community meeting
once nomination application is deemed complete.
1007 of 1110
Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
21  Purpose
 Enabling Authority
 Establishment of a Preservation
Commission
 Procedures and Criteria for Designation
of Historical Resources
 Procedures and Criteria for Actions
Subject to Review
 Consideration of Economic Effect of
Designation or Review of Action
 Appeals
 Enforcement
 Definitions
 Purpose
 Enabling Authority
 Establishment of a Preservation
Commission (Planning Commission)
 Procedures and Criteria for Designation of
Historical Resources
 Procedures and Criteria for Actions Subject
to Review
 Consideration of Economic Effect of
Designation or Review of Action
 Appeals
 Enforcement
 Definitions
San Mateo| Chapter 27.66 Recommended
1008 of 1110
Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
22  Establishes the San Mateo Historic Resources
Inventory (HRI)
 Local register of historic resources
 Ordinance will no longer include references to specific listed resources or districts
 Does not include state (CRHR) or federal (NRHP) listings automatically
 Provides eligibility requirements and procedure for adding resources to the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory  27.66.090 - Procedure for Development Proposals
 Added for clarity and transparency – it’s an existing requirement under CEQA to assess when a Planning Application includes a site with a structure over 45 years old.
1009 of 1110
Effects of Designation - Certificate of Appropriateness 23  A Certificate of Appropriateness is the approval document issued by the City to approve an alteration to a Listed Resource or Contributor within a Historic District listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory.
 Not required for non-contributors within a Historic District  Two types of projects subject to COA
 Minor Alteration – An alteration that has been determined to have a limited potential to affect the defining character and architectural style of a resource.  Removal of insignificant exterior features (non-historic or lacking historic integrity)  Replacing windows in-kind
 Reroofing
 Demolition of a detached garage
 Major Alteration – An alteration that results in significant changes or modifications affecting the exterior visual and/or historical qualities of the property.  Demolition
 Addition of square footage and/or architectural features to street-facing elevations 1010 of 1110
Historic District Designation Process
24  27.66.070 Procedure for Designating Historic Districts

1. Application. Application made by property owner/group of property owners within HD boundary. Application includes:
 Description of significance/applicability of local criteria for designation  Documentation that notification was provided to all potentially affected property owners  Documentation that % of potentially affected property owners support the application

2. Application Review. Application is reviewed by Planning Division to assess application if application is complete and if notification/consent information was included.

3. Community Meeting. Applicant holds a community meeting to provide information to potentially affected property owners on the status of the application.

4. Designation Recommendation. The reviewing body reviews the application at a public meeting and makes a recommendation to City Council.

5. Designation Action. City Council holds a public hearing to consider the application and adopt a resolution to approve or deny the application.
1011 of 1110
• Thresholds for Affirmative Owner
Consent in Historic Districts
• 27.66.070 Procedure for Designating Historic
Districts
• (a)(1) Owner Notification and Consent. (C) Documentation by petition establishing at least XX percent of property owners in the proposed historic district as listed in San Mateo County’s most recent property ownership assessment roll support the potential designation by affixing their signatures to the petition
Owner Consent
25 1012 of 1110
• 22.66.030-San Mateo Historic
Resources Inventory
• Comprised of two types of resources:
• Individual Resources = Listed Resources
• Historic Districts
• Other options for Listed Resources
• Landmarks
• Historic Resources Inventory Property
• Protected Resource
• Designated Resource
Ordinance Naming Convention
26 1013 of 1110
• Responsibilities
• Consider applications for San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory and make determinations that Listed Resource and Historic Districts meet the eligibility requirements for designation and make recommendations for City Council action. • Consider applications to remove properties from the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory. Determinations to be based on a finding that the property meets conditions that warrant removal.
• Review applications for Certificates of Appropriateness for projects that are making Major Alterations and evaluate the project against the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Design Guidelines, as applicable.
• Review applications for Mills Act contracts and make recommendation on their approval to City Council.

Ordinance Reviewing Body
27 1014 of 1110
• Considerations
• Professional qualifications
• Tasked with providing recommendations on
preservation and design review. Credentials and
expertise should be consistent with responsibilities.
• If interested in pursuing Certified Local Government
program later, at least two professionally qualified
members (history, architectural history, historic
architect, landscape architect, archaeology) are
required.
• Many communities have reviewing bodies made up of
a mix of professionally qualified members and lay
members.

Ordinance Reviewing Body
28 1015 of 1110
• Staff research found the following:
• 1989 Survey noted Glazenwood appeared to meet NRHP criteria for a historic district
• 1994 Study Session on potential district designation, but no subsequent action • 1995 ordinance update noted downtown district, but not Glazenwood • 2009/2010 General Plan Updates noted Glazenwood as a historic district • But no mention of a local designation action or supporting documentation • Evidence/documentation supports Glazenwood as an NRHP eligible historic district
• Neighborhood subject to historic review under CEQA
• But local action by City Council required to apply Historic Preservation Ordinance Glazenwood Neighborhood Questions
29 1016 of 1110
• Will the updated ordinance be applied to eligible historic resources? • No - the Ordinance only applies to locally listed historic resources • Downtown Historic District and two properties
• Assessment of all eligible, or potentially eligible, historical resources is based on CEQA requirements.
• Only a small percentage of properties subject to additional review due to age and potential historic eligibility
• Over past three years, over 500 single-family applications with exterior alterations, additions and/or new construction.
• 28 were identified as potentially eligible resources that required preparation of an HRE • Only six (1%) were identified as eligible, which required some design modifications to avoid any potential impacts under CEQA before permits could be issued Historic Preservation Ordinance Applicability
30 1017 of 1110
• Final Focus Groups (February)
• Underrepresented
Communities
• Youth
• Revisions to Policy Documents (February)
• Final Drafts Published (February/Early March)
• Ordinance and Context Statement
• Planning Commission Public Hearing (March)
• City Council Adoption Hearing (April)
• Post Adoption Workshop #4 (Late Spring/Early Summer)
Next Steps
31 1018 of 1110
• Outreach and Engagement
• Should any additional activities be completed before public hearings are scheduled? • Historic Context Statement
• Any updates or revisions to the draft document?
• Historic Preservation Ordinance
• What percentage of property owners within a proposed historic district should be required to support a historic district nomination?
• Any additional criteria that should be included in the local designation criteria? • Any opinion on the drafted naming conventions?
• Any other updates or revisions to the draft ordinance? • Historic Review Body
• Which commission should be the reviewing body for the Historic Preservation Ordinance? Council Direction
32 1019 of 1110

CITY OF SAN MATEO

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 17 Section Name: PUBLIC HEARING Account Number: 25-3112 File ID: 26-10814 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Community Development Department
MEETING DATE: January 26, 2026
SUBJECT:

Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance - Zoning Code Amendments — Ordinance Introduction RECOMMENDATION:

Introduce an Ordinance to amend San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 27.19, “Accessory Dwelling Unit and Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit – Residential Zones” to address comments from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to align with current state law, and to address Housing Element programs, and find it exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15282(h) of the CEQA Guidelines.

BACKGROUND:

Since 2016, the State Legislature has passed several state laws to streamline permitting and promote construction of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) across California. The City of San Mateo adopted its current local ADU Ordinance on March 21, 2022 to implement local regulations for ADUs in alignment with State law, and with City Council directing staff to provide annual updates on implementation. Since adoption in 2022, the City has seen significant ADU permitting and construction activity, with over 300 permits issued (164 of which have been finalized) over the past three and half years (an average of 87 permits issued per year).

As part of the City’s adopted Housing Element (2023-2031), the City prioritized increased ADU production (Policy H1.4) and supported it with six implementation actions, including an action focused on amending the City’s ADU Ordinance to align it with current State law and to resolve any inconsistencies identified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). HCD has had statutory authority to review local agencies’ ADU Ordinances since 2016, and as of January 1, 2024, also has authority to enforce all State ADU laws. In October 2024, the City received a letter from HCD summarizing the agency’s review of the City’s ADU Ordinance (Attachment 3). The HCD letter identified specific ordinance provisions requiring updates or clarification. An official City response letter was sent to HCD in November 2024 (Attachment 4), with a stated goal to update the ADU Ordinance by the end of 2025.

In January 2025, HCD also published an updated ADU Handbook1 addressing frequently asked questions and summarizing recent changes to State ADU law. One notable change is Senate Bill (SB) 1211, effective January 1, 2025, which allows for up to eight detached ADUs to be constructed on a lot with an existing multifamily dwelling, provided that the number of ADUs does not exceed the number of existing units on the lot.

On August 26, 2025, a Planning Commission study session was held to introduce ADU Ordinance updates and receive Commission feedback. There were a total of four public comments submitted in writing and three public speakers provided verbal comments (two of which also submitted their comments in writing). The comments are included as 1 ADU Handbook link
1020 of 1110

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Attachment 5.

During this study session, the Planning Commission provided staff with feedback on specific local changes, outside of those required for State law compliance, in order to address community needs. Following the study session, staff conducted outreach and hosted a virtual workshop on local ADU regulations and proposed changes on September 25, 2025. The workshop included a staff presentation, polling questions to collect information and feedback, and time for attendees to ask questions related to the proposed ADU Ordinance update effort. Information related to this policy effort is included on the City’s Policy and Zoning Code Update page.

On December 9, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the updated ADU Ordinance. There was one comment submitted in writing and no public speakers provided verbal comments at the meeting. The written comments provided were from the California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF) regarding ADU size limits, parking, and the ADU Discretionary Review process (Attachment 5). Based on the fact that HCD has reviewed and provided input on the draft ADU Ordinance and did not raise concerns with any of the items noted by CalHDF, staff did not identify any changes that were legally required based on this comment letter.

Following the staff presentation and deliberation, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the updated ADU Ordinance with one modification proposed by staff and three additional modifications for City Council consideration.

These recommendations are as follows:

1. Per staff recommendation, amend Section 27.19.070 to add the following subsection: 27.19.070(b)(2)(C) “Any additional ADUs as allowed pursuant to State law”.

2. ADU Discretionary Review (ADUDR) application appeals in Section 27.19.045 should be heard by the Planning Commission, and if appealed again, by City Council. This is in conformance with other appeals procedures in the Zoning Code (Title 27), and was recommended by the Planning Commission, rather than for appeals to be heard by the City Manager or their designee.

3. Clarify Section 27.19.045 to state that the ADUDR process may be used to review an ADU proposal that is not compliant with any objective standard in the ADU Ordinance, with the exception of FAR maximums.

4. Change the standard for location of second story decks or balconies proposed with an ADU in Section

27.19.060(h)(5) to state that the deck or balcony “shall not face adjacent residential properties.” DISCUSSION:

Proposed Ordinance Amendments
The proposed ADU Ordinance amendments are included in the Draft Ordinance (Attachment 1). A version with tracked changes to show where edits have been proposed to the existing ADU Ordinance text is also included as Attachment 2.

Some of these edits are more minor/structural to improve organization for clarity, while others would result in a change to existing ADU development standards. A complete summary of those changes that result in a new or changed ADU development standard is given below.

Changes Proposed in Response to HCD Comments and State Law Compliance The changes listed below have been made primarily to address specific comments provided by HCD in their review of the City’s ADU Ordinance. These changes include updates to areas of the Ordinance either that are inconsistent with State ADU law, or where additional clarification was requested by HCD to demonstrate State law compliance.

1. ADU Definition
HCD commented that the City’s ADU definition only includes reference to single-family ADUs. This is inconsistent with State law, as ADUs must be allowed on lots with single-family or multifamily dwellings. In response, the ADU definition has been revised to clarify that ADUs are allowed on lots with either single-family or multifamily dwellings.
1021 of 1110

CITY OF SAN MATEO

2. Multifamily Dwelling Structure Definition
The City’s zoning ordinance currently distinguishes between two-family and multifamily dwellings in a manner that is not fully consistent with State ADU law. To resolve this, the City added a new definition of “Multifamily Dwelling Structure” applicable only to ADU development, consistent with State law, to clarify that a multifamily structure consists of two or more attached primary dwelling units.

3. Allowance for Separate Sale of ADUs per Government Code Section 66341 The City’s existing ordinance prohibits ADUs from being sold separately from the primary residence, with no exceptions specified. HCD identified that this is inconsistent with Government Code Section 66341, which requires that the City allow for separate sale of ADUs that are built or developed by a qualified nonprofit corporation, with additional specific qualifying criteria. Therefore, the update references this statute to allow for separate sales of ADUs, only when specified criteria are met.

4. Proportionality for ADU Impact Fees
The City’s existing ordinance allows ADU impact fees to be set by City Council resolution. HCD noted that the ordinance should clearly reflect State law by exempting ADUs under 750 square feet from impact fees and requiring proportional fees for larger ADUs. The ordinance has been revised to explicitly incorporate these requirements.

5. Utility Fee Clarification
Separate from impact fees, State law allows for a jurisdiction to charge a connection fee or capacity charge for utilities. This charge must be proportionate to the burden of the proposed ADU, based either on square footage or number of drainage fixture unit values. Currently, the City’s ADU Ordinance does include a provision to require payment of a connection fee or capacity charge for ADUs that are separate from an existing structure. However, this connection fee or capacity charge may only be imposed when an ADU is constructed with a new single-family dwelling. Therefore, language has been added to clarify that, “An ADU shall not be considered a new residential use for the purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and sewer service, except when the ADU is constructed with a new primary residential dwelling unit.”

6. Removal of Reference to Variance Process
The City’s existing ADU Ordinance includes a statement that, “All other zoning requirements shall be complied with unless an authorized variance is approved.” HCD commented that the City should amend the Ordinance to “bolster clarity regarding the ADU approval process,” which must provide for ministerial review under State law.

This reference to the variance process has been removed from the ADU Ordinance.

7. Number of ADUs Permitted with Single-Family
HCD has now interpreted that State law requires that single-family lots be allowed to develop up to three types of ADUs, as is reflected in Government Code Section 66323. The three required types are:
a. One Attached or Conversion ADU (from existing or proposed space within a structure); b. One Detached New Construction ADU; and
c. One JADU, located within the walls of an existing or proposed Single-Family Dwelling.

HCD’s January 2025 ADU Handbook (p. 19), confirms that all three types must be allowed concurrently when a lot has an existing or proposed single-family dwelling, and local agencies may not restrict a property to fewer than these three units if each meets the applicable development standards. Current City regulations allow only two ADUs (one ADU and one JADU). To comply with State law and HCD’s interpretation, the ADU Ordinance will now allow up to three ADUs on a single-family lot.

8. Front Setback Clarification
HCD commented that the City may not impose a front setback requirement that would preclude construction of an ADU of up to 800 square feet with four-foot side and rear setbacks. Under current local ADU regulations, all new construction ADUs are subject to the front setback of the underlying zoning district. Therefore, language has been added to clarify that “no front setback is required for a State Exempt ADU.” The City may still impose a front 1022 of 1110

CITY OF SAN MATEO
setback on other new construction ADUs that are not considered state-exempt units. “State Exempt ADU” means an accessory dwelling unit that is created pursuant to Government Code Section 66323. This includes conversion ADUs within an existing single-family residence or accessory structure, as well as a new detached ADU of not more than 800 square feet, with four-foot side and rear setbacks.

9. Architectural Standards – Not Applicable to State Exempt ADUs The City’s existing ADU Ordinance includes several architectural standards for ADUs. HCD provided a comment to clarify that these architectural standards may not preclude development of “State Exempt ADUs.” This has been addressed in the update, which includes definitions of “State Exempt ADUs” and “Nonexempt ADUs”, and clearly states that the architectural standards shall only apply to Nonexempt ADUs.

10. Design Standards – Removal of Subjective Standards
State ADU law allows for local ordinances to impose only objective standards on accessory dwelling units. In their review of the City’s existing ADU Ordinance, HCD noted that some of the design standards such as requiring similar exterior materials to the main home, and windows that maximize privacy, are subjective in nature and therefore must be either removed or amended to be objective in nature. To address this comment, the subjective standards have been removed.

11. JADU Interior Access Requirements
Under current local requirements, all JADUs are required to have an interior access between the JADU and the single-family dwelling. State law only requires an interior access when the JADU does not include a separate bathroom. City staff met with HCD to discuss these requirements and identified that shared utility controls would also create a need for interior access between units. The update amends the code to specify that interior access is required between the JADU and single-family dwelling when they share restroom facilities and/or utility controls such as a thermostat.

12. Maximum JADU Size
HCD commented that the City’s current JADU size maximum of 650 square feet exceeded the maximum unit size of 500 square feet for a JADU allowed under State law. The update includes a revision to reflect this HCD guidance, reducing the JADU maximum unit size from 650 square feet to 500 square feet.

13. JADU Deed Restriction Requirements
All JADUs are required by State Law to record a deed restriction with the following provisions:
a. A prohibition on the sale of the junior accessory dwelling unit separate from the sale of the single-family residence, including a statement that the deed restriction may be enforced against future purchasers; and b. A restriction on the size and attributes of the junior accessory dwelling unit.

The City’s current ordinance includes provisions consistent with the two listed in State law (above), plus two additional provisions that are included in JADU deed restrictions:
c. The property owner must occupy either the single-family residence or the JADU; and d. If the JADU is rented, the unit shall not be rented for a period of less than 30 consecutive calendar days.

HCD noted that these two additional deed restriction provisions go beyond what is explicitly listed by State law, and therefore must be removed from the City’s deed restriction requirements. However, while not explicitly listed in a JADU deed restriction, the JADU owner occupancy requirement and prohibition on using JADUs for short-term rentals are both still requirements under State law and in the City’s ADU Ordinance.

Assembly Bill 1154, signed by the Governor on October 10, 2025, effective January 1, 2026, amended owneroccupancy requirements to only apply if the JADU has shared bathroom facilities with the existing structure.

Therefore, this requirement has been updated to clarify that owner-occupancy is not required if the JADU has its own bathroom.
1023 of 1110

CITY OF SAN MATEO

14. Addition of Multifamily ADU Development Standards
The current ADU Ordinance does not include specific standards for multifamily ADUs. Rather, there is a reference within the local Ordinance to Government Code Section 65852.2(e)(1), which previously included standards for multifamily ADU development. However, State Law standards for multifamily ADUs were updated under Senate Bill 1211 and renumbered under Senate Bill 477 thereby making the cross-references the local ADU Ordinance incorrect.

Most notably, SB 1211 included a change to the number of ADUs permitted on a lot with an existing multifamily dwelling. Previously, up to two new detached ADUs were permitted on a lot with an existing or proposed multifamily dwelling. However, this has been updated to allow up to eight new detached ADUs on a lot with an existing multifamily dwelling, provided that the number of ADUs cannot exceed the number of existing primary multifamily dwelling units on the lot. To provide more clarity and reduce the need to cross reference Government Code sections the ordinance update includes a new section for Multifamily ADU Development Standards.

Other Changes Proposed to Address Local Needs and Ordinance Functionality The below changes have been added, in addition to the changes specifically required by HCD, in order to address issues identified by City staff to improve functionality and clarity in implementing the ADU Ordinance. The Planning Commission Study Session on August 26, 2025 and community workshop on September 25, 2025 introduced these topic areas for discussion and feedback to help inform how to proceed with these updates. Based on the input received, below is a summary of the additional proposed changes.

15. Addition of Definitions Section
The ordinance update includes a new section at the beginning of the chapter with ADU-related definitions, with the definitions only applicable to the ADU Ordinance (Chapter 27.19).

16. Updates to Discretionary Review as Alternative to Ministerial Review The City’s existing ADU Ordinance provides two paths for ADU review. The first is a ministerial building permit for any ADU that meets all of the development standards of the Ordinance. The second option is for an Accessory Dwelling Unit Discretionary Review (ADUDR), subject to a Planning Application approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to building permit application for any ADU that is not in compliance with the development standards of the ADU Ordinance.

At the Planning Commission Study Session, staff provided background on the ADUDR process and sought recommendation from the Planning Commission on potentially removing the ADUDR process, paired with more permissive objective design standards for ADU height and allowances for second-story decks and balconies.

The Commission recommended the City keep the ADUDR process in the updated Ordinance as an alternative to ministerial review to provide a pathway for consideration of ADU designs that exceed the specified objective standards to address certain site-specific design needs. The Commission was also in favor of staff’s recommendation to propose more permissive objective standards, expressing support for the idea that these changes would result in more ADU projects qualifying for the more streamlined ministerial review process – the proposed changes to height, setback, and second story deck standards are discussed in more detail below. a. Clarification of ADUDR Applicability – The ordinance update includes added language to clarify that the ADUDR process may be used to review any ADU that is not in full compliance with height, setback, or daylight plane provisions of the ADU Ordinance. However, the ADUDR process may not be used to increase the maximum allowable floor area of an ADU.
i. The Planning Commission recommended updating this language to clarify that the ADUDR may be used to review any ADU that is not in full compliance with any objective standard in the ADU Ordinance, including but not limited to, height, setback, or daylight plane provisions (excluding maximum allowable floor area of an ADU).
1024 of 1110

CITY OF SAN MATEO
b. ADUDR Requirement for Second-Story Decks and Balconies – Under current ADU Ordinance provisions, any second-story deck or balcony proposed with an ADU requires ADUDR. The ordinance update includes new objective standards for second-story balconies (discussed further below), which would allow for small interior facing second-story decks or balconies to be reviewed ministerially. Any proposed larger second-story decks or balconies that do not meet these objective standards will still require an ADUDR under the ordinance update. c. Updated ADUDR Findings – The ordinance update revises the ADUDR findings to improve clarity, objectivity, and consistency with State law and City policies. More objective findings have been added to address privacy impacts from larger second-story decks, require justification for deviations from height, setback, or daylight plane standards due to site-specific hardship, and confirm consistency with the General Plan, aligning the ADUDR process with other planning applications.
d. Appeal Process for ADUDR – The appeal process for the decision of the Zoning Administrator for an ADUDR had been streamlined in the ordinance update to provide for appeals to the City Manager or their designee, which could be a hearing officer. However, under the current draft Ordinance, the appeal would go to Planning Commission first, and then to City Council if further appealed, consistent with state law. i. The Planning Commission recommended not changing the appeals process to the City Manager or their designee. Instead the current process of the Planning Commission hearing appeals first, and then City Council if further appealed, would remain.

17. Clarification on Max. ADU Unit Size and FAR Exemption for ADUs The City’s current regulations do not include any specified maximum ADU size limit. Any ADU floor area exceeding 800 square feet is regulated by the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) of the underlying zoning. Up to 800 square feet of ADU floor area is exempt from the total FAR calculation for a lot. ADUs cannot exceed the size of the primary residential unit on the property (either the single-family residence, or any individual unit within a multifamily building), with the exception that if the primary residence is less than 800 square feet, an 800 square-foot ADU would still be allowed per State law. The existing maximum unit size standards have not been substantially changed.

Since the December 9, 2025 Planning Commission public hearing, several changes to State ADU law have become effective, including Senate Bill 543 (SB543), which became effective January 1, 2026. SB543 includes an update to specify that requirements for JADU and ADU square footages are based on interior livable space. The proposed update includes a definition for “ADU Living Area” that is consistent with how State law defines interior livable space. To address this change, a minor edit has been made to the draft Ordinance language to refer to “ADU Living Area” in the Maximum Unit Size and Floor Area sections.

18. Height of Detached ADUs
The City’s current ADU Ordinance sets a maximum height for detached ADUs at 16 feet to top plate and 24 feet to roof peak. The ordinance update would increase the plate height requirement by two feet, resulting in a maximum height for detached ADUs of 18 feet to top plate and 24 feet to roof peak, which is consistent with state law. The increase in height allowance would allow for more standard two-story construction. No change is proposed to the height requirements for attached ADUs, which are currently set at 24 feet to plate and 32 feet to peak, consistent with the maximum height requirements for single-family residences.

19. Setback Exception for ADUs in Rear Third of a Lot Meeting Specific Standards The proposed ordinance update would allow ADUs built in the rear one-third of a parcel to use the same zerosetback allowances currently permitted for accessory structures. Under existing zoning, accessory structures in this area may be built to a zero setback if they meet established height, daylight plane, yard coverage, and floor limitations, and these structures may later be converted to ADUs. To streamline ADU production and avoid this two-step process, the Planning Commission supported applying the accessory structure setback standards directly to new ADUs constructed in the rear one-third of a property. 1025 of 1110

CITY OF SAN MATEO

20. Removal of ADU Parking Requirements
The City’s current ADU ordinance requires one off-street parking space per ADU but includes several Statemandated exemptions, which apply to most properties in San Mateo, such as proximity to transit, location within existing structures, or access to car-share services. HCD also noted an additional required exemption when an ADU is proposed with a new single- or multifamily dwelling. Because these exemptions already cover nearly all ADUeligible parcels in the City, the ordinance update proposes to eliminate all off-street parking requirements for ADUs to ensure equitable treatment. This change would not materially alter existing regulations, but the updated ordinance would continue to encourage voluntary off-street parking through new supportive provisions, an approach that was discussed at the Planning Commission Study Session and generally supported by the Commission.

21. Additional Voluntary Parking Standards
To support additional creative approaches to encourage voluntary off-street parking for ADUs and to help address the constraints to on-street parking in many residential areas of the City, staff have included additional provisions to incentivize voluntary off-street parking for ADUs and JADUs, as follows:
a. Voluntarily provided parking associated with ADU or JADU development must be located entirely on the same lot, and may be provided in a garage, carport, uncovered, or in tandem orientation. When a garage or carport is converted to an ADU or JADU, or demolished in conjunction with construction of an ADU, the existing driveway and curb cut are not required to be removed and may be maintained as parking area. b. A maximum of up to two voluntarily provided parking stalls may be provided for each ADU or JADU. c. The maximum driveway width for single-car garages may be up to 20 feet to accommodate additional offstreet parking. d. Uncovered parking for an ADU or JADU may be located in the required front, side, and rear yard setback areas. If a covered parking structure is proposed to provide voluntary parking below a second-story ADU, the parking structure may be located within the footprint of the proposed ADU, provided that it is outside of the front yard setback of the underlying zoning district. When a parking structure is proposed within a required side or rear setback of the underlying zoning district, the plate height of the parking structure shall not exceed nine feet in height.

22. Prohibition of Rooftop Decks or Terraces above an ADU A standard has been added in the ordinance update to specify that rooftop decks or terraces above any portion of an ADU are prohibited. This provision is added to clarify a distinction between rooftop decks and terraces, and small second-story decks or balconies.

23. Allowance of Small Second-story decks or balconies with ministerial review if specific standards are met Under the City’s current ADU Ordinance, all second story decks and balconies require ADUDR review. At the Planning Commission Study Session, the Commission provided staff with feedback on this process, expressing support for creating objective standards to allow for some second story decks and balconies to be considered ministerially. The Commission expressed the importance of providing standards that would ensure deck and balcony designs are sensitive to potential privacy impacts to adjacent neighbors. As a part of the ordinance update, staff have proposed that small second story decks or balconies may be considered as part of an ADU design for ministerial review, provided that the following standards are met:
a. Second story decks or balconies shall not be larger than 50 square feet in size. b. No portion of a second story deck or balcony shall be located within the setbacks of the underlying zoning, regardless of the ADU setbacks.
c. Second story decks or balconies shall only face the interior of the subject property. i. The Planning Commission recommended changing this to instead specify that second story decks or 1026 of 1110

CITY OF SAN MATEO
balconies shall not face abutting residential properties. The Commission’s recommendation was based on the idea that a deck or balcony facing a street, nonresidential property, park, etc. would not create the same privacy concerns as a deck facing into a neighboring home or residential yard area.

These proposed standards would allow for small second story balconies and decks to be proposed with ADUs considered for ministerial review, while addressing concerns about privacy impacts to adjacent properties. This would also provide for additional streamlining for decks and balconies that meet these standards, reducing the need for ADUDR review. Second story decks or balconies that do not meet these standards could still be considered under the ADUDR process.

NEXT STEPS:

Following introduction, the Ordinance will be brought back for a second reading and adoption at the next available City Council meeting, and the Ordinance will go into effect 30 days afterwards. In addition, the City is required to submit the approved ordinance to HCD within 60 days of adoption for final review and acceptance by the State. If HCD identifies any inconsistencies between the City’s Ordinance and State law, a follow-up code amendment may be necessary. However, based on prior discussions with HCD and internal review, Draft Ordinance appears to be fully consistent with State law.

Once the ADU Ordinance is adopted, staff will update all ADU related handouts, educational materials, and website information to reflect the updated requirements for development of ADUs and JADUs.

BUDGET IMPACT:

Zoning Code Amendments to implement the Housing Element are funded in the Community Development Department’s annual operating budget, utilizing the Advanced Planning Fund (Fund 225), and does not impact the City’s General Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The proposed ordinance is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15282(h) of the CEQA Guidelines because it is an accessory dwelling unit ordinance that is implementing the provisions of the Government Code related to ADUs and JADUs.

NOTICING AND COMMENTS:

All meeting noticing requirements were met. Additionally, staff sent meeting details in the Planning Division eNewsletter, citywide eNewsletter, the Housing Element interested parties list and posted to the Planning Division’s What’s Happening in Development webpage. Prior to this public hearing, notice was also provided in the Planning Division eNewsletter, the citywide eNewsletter, and on City Social Media to advertise the August 26, 2025 Planning Commission Study Session and September 25, 2025 Virtual Outreach Webinar.

Staff has not received any public comments on this item since the Planning Commission public hearing on December 9, 2025. All public comments received prior to this public hearing at included in Attachment 5. Any public comments received after agenda publication will be posted to this item on the City’s Public Meeting Portal as “Post Packet Public Comments.”

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Draft ADU Ordinance
Att 2 – ADU Ordinance (Track Changes)
Att 3 – HCD Review Letter
Att 4 – City Response Letter to HCD
Att 5 – Public Comments

STAFF CONTACT
Elizabeth Gagliardi, Associate Planner
[email protected]
1027 of 1110

CITY OF SAN MATEO
(650) 522-7206
1028 of 1110

CITY OF SAN MATEO

DRAFT ORDINANCE
Introduce an Ordinance to amend the San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 27.19, “Accessory Dwelling Unit and Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit – Residential Zones” to address comments from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to align with current State law, and to address Housing Element programs, and find the Ordinance exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 21080.7 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15282(h) of the CEQA Guidelines.

WHEREAS, an existing ordinance addressing Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units is codified as Chapter 27.19, as adopted on March 21, 2022; and WHEREAS, several amendments to State Accessory Dwelling Unit law have been adopted since adoption of Chapter 27.19; and
WHEREAS, Policy LU 3.1 - Housing Diversity of the Land Use Element of General Plan 2040, promotes safe, attractive, and walkable residential neighborhoods with diverse types and sizes of homes for individuals, families, and households of all income levels; and
WHEREAS, under Policy H1.4 - Support Increased Accessory Dwelling Unit Development of the Housing Element of General Plan 2040, the City is to amend the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance to align with current State law and to resolve any inconsistencies identified by the California Housing and Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, on October 18, 2024, the City received a letter from the California Housing and Community Development Department outlining provisions in the City of San Mateo Zoning Ordinance that were inconsistent with State Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations; and
WHEREAS, these changes to State Accessory Dwelling Unit law necessitate amendments to Chapter

27.19; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15282(h) of the CEQA Guidelines because it is an accessory dwelling unit ordinance that is implementing the provisions of the Government Code related to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.

WHEREAS, on December 9, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, received all written and oral public comments, and recommended that the City Council approve the proposed ordinance to amend Chapter 27.19.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The title of Chapter 27.19 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 1029 of 1110
Section 2. The title that precedes Section 27.19.010 of the San Mateo Municipal Code, and that reads, “Article I Accessory Dwelling Unit” is deleted.

Section 3. Section 27.19.020 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

27.19.020 Definitions.

The definitions in this Section shall apply only to this Chapter. (a) “Accessory dwelling unit” (ADU) means an attached or detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, is accessory to the primary residential dwelling unit(s), and includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking facilities and sanitation on the same lot as a Single-Family Dwelling Structure or Multifamily Dwelling Structure is or will be situated. (1) “Attached ADU” means an accessory dwelling unit that is attached to a primary residential dwelling unit, or portion thereof (including an attached garage or accessory structure). (2) “Conversion ADU” means any accessory dwelling unit created by the conversion of any existing structure or portion thereof. The Conversion ADU may be created using existing structural components of the existing structure, or may be reconstructed to the same extent as the existing structure. (3) “Detached ADU” means an accessory dwelling unit that is separated from a primary residential dwelling unit.
(4) “New Construction ADU” means any accessory dwelling unit that does not meet the definition and requirements of a Conversion ADU.
(5) “Nonexempt ADU" means an accessory dwelling unit that does not meet the definition of a State Exempt ADU.
(6) “State Exempt ADU” means an accessory dwelling unit that is created pursuant to Government Code Section 66323.
(7) “Multifamily ADU” means an accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed Multifamily Dwelling Structure.
(8) “Single-Family ADU” means an accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed SingleFamily Dwelling Structure. (b) “ADU Living Area” means the interior conditioned space within an Accessory Dwelling Unit, such as areas used for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation, and may also include attic or basement areas connected to the ADU. ADU Living Area does not include non-habitable spaces such as garages, carports, unconditioned utility rooms, enclosed storage areas not internally accessible by the ADU, or other accessory structures attached to the ADU.
1030 of 1110
(c) “Junior accessory dwelling unit” (JADU) means a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within an existing or proposed Single-Family Dwelling. (d) “Multifamily Dwelling Structure” means a structure with two or more attached primary residential dwelling units.
(e) “Single-Family Dwelling Structure" means a one-family dwelling primary residential unit that either stands alone on a lot or is detached from other primary residential dwelling unit(s) on the same lot.

Section 4. Section 27.19.030 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

27.19.030 Prohibition on Sale and Limitation on Rental. (a) An ADU shall not be sold separately from the primary residence, except as allowed by Government Code Section 66341.
(b) A JADU shall not be sold separately from the primary residential dwelling unit. (c) If an ADU or JADU is rented, the unit shall not be rented for a period of less than 30 consecutive calendar days.

Section 5. Section 27.19.040 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

27.19.040 Ministerial Permit Approval.

A permit application for an ADU and/or a JADU is required in order to demonstrate that the unit is in compliance with the provisions of this Chapter. If the ADU is in full compliance with the provisions of this Chapter, a ministerial, non-discretionary permit will be issued. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Code, the issuance of a ministerial ADU or JADU permit may not be appealed.

Section 6. Section 27.19.045 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

27.19.045 Discretionary Review as Alternative to Ministerial Approval. (a) As an alternative to ministerial review, an applicant may submit an application for discretionary review of an ADU proposal that is not in full compliance with the height, setback, or daylight plane provisions of this Chapter, and/or for an ADU that proposes a second story deck or balcony exceeding the standards outlined in this Chapter. The discretionary review application shall not be used to increase the maximum allowable floor area of a lot. The application for discretionary approval shall be granted if the Zoning Administrator finds all of the following:
(1) The proposed ADU is consistent with all applicable objective design standards in the adopted R1 Single-Family Dwelling Design Guidelines.
(2) The proposed ADU would not result in a negative impact to public health, safety, or welfare. 1031 of 1110
(3) If the proposed ADU does not comply with height, setback, or daylight plane standards, there are exceptional circumstances applicable to the property that would make compliance with the standard(s) an undue hardship, and the deviations from applicable standards are minimized. (4) If the proposed ADU includes a second story deck larger than 50 square feet, the deck or balcony is located and oriented to minimize direct views into neighboring windows or yard spaces, and screening is incorporated where necessary to minimize such views. (5) The proposed ADU is consistent with all applicable provisions of the General Plan. (b) The decision of the Zoning Administrator shall not preclude the ability of an applicant to receive a ministerial permit for an ADU that is in full compliance with the provisions of this Chapter. (c) The decision of the Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the City Manager or designee, which may be a hearing officer.

Section 2. Section 27.19.050 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

27.19.050 General Requirements.

Applicability. The following shall apply to ADUs and JADUs in all zoning districts that allow for residential uses:
(a) The provisions of this Chapter apply only to ADU Living Area. Accessory structures, such as garages, carports, non-habitable utility rooms, storage areas, or sheds, whether detached or attached to an ADU, shall be subject to the requirements of the underlying zoning district and other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code. (b) Development Impact Fees. Development impact fees for ADUs shall be established in an amount set forth by resolution of the City Council. No impact fees shall be charged for ADUs 750 square feet in size or smaller. Any impact fees charged for an ADU over 750 square feet shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary residential dwelling unit. (c) Utility Service. For Conversion ADUs, a separate water connection, a sewer service connection, or power connection is not required. If an ADU is not converted from existing space, the City may require new or separate utility connections.
(d) Utility Fees. For a Conversion ADU, payment of a connection fee or capacity charge is not required.

For an ADU that is separate from an existing structure, the City will require payment of a connection fee or capacity charge that is proportionate to the ADU's burden. An ADU shall not be considered a new residential use for the purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and sewer service, except when the ADU is constructed with a new primary residential dwelling unit. (e) Address Assignment. An application for a building permit for an ADU must include application for a separate address assignment.

Section 3. Section 27.19.060 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:
1032 of 1110

27.19.060 Single-Family ADU Development Standards.
(a) Applicability. This section applies to ADUs located on a lot with an existing or proposed Single-Family Dwelling Structure. Number of Units. A lot with an existing or proposed Single-Family Dwelling Structure may include any combination of the following three types of ADUs, provided that each meets the applicable development standards.
(1) One Attached or Conversion ADU.
(2) One Detached New Construction ADU.
(3) One JADU, provided it is located within the walls of an existing or proposed Single-Family Dwelling Structure.
(b) Maximum Unit Size and Floor Area Ratio (FAR). FAR and unit size maximums for both Attached and Detached ADUs in excess of 800 square feet are governed by the maximum FAR established by the underlying zoning district and remaining floor area allowance available on the lot. Up to 800 square feet of ADU living area, including New Construction State Exempt ADUs, is exempt from the maximum FAR for each lot with a SingleFamily Dwelling Structure. This exemption does not apply to JADU living area. In addition, the following shall apply:
(1) An ADU shall not be larger, in terms of living area, than the primary residential dwelling unit.

However, when the primary residential dwelling unit is less than or equal to 800 square feet in size, a State Exempt ADU of up to 800 square feet is allowed.
(2) A Conversion ADU within the walls of an existing primary dwelling unit or accessory structure is not subject to size requirements. ADU conversions may be expanded up to 150 square feet beyond the existing footprint provided the expansion is used to accommodate ingress and egress to the ADU. (c) Height. The specific height maximums are applicable to all zoning districts which permit ADUs. (1) Attached Accessory Dwelling Units. Maximum building height for an attached ADU is 24 feet to top plateline and 32 feet to roof peak as measured from existing grade. (2) Detached Accessory Dwelling Units. Maximum building height for a detached ADU is 18 feet to top plateline and 24 feet to roof peak as measured from existing grade. (d) Setbacks. An ADU shall have setbacks as follows:
(1) No setback shall be required for an existing garage or accessory structure that is converted to an ADU which is constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions, footprint, and height as the existing structure; or for a Detached ADU that is proposed in the rear one-third of a lot that otherwise meets all requirements of accessory buildings and structures in required yards of R1 districts pursuant to Chapter 27.70. 1033 of 1110
(2) A minimum setback of four feet shall be required from the side and rear lot lines for all new ADU construction not meeting the criteria set forth in subsection (1) above, including ADUs constructed above an existing garage.
(3) A minimum setback from the front lot line, as required in the lot's underlying zone district, shall be required for all New Construction ADUs not meeting the criteria set forth in subsection (1) above, including ADUs constructed above an existing garage. No setback is required for a State Exempt ADU.
(e) Unit Access. An ADU must include a separate exterior entrance from the primary residential dwelling unit. An interior access may be provided between the two units, but is not required. (f) ADU and JADU Parking Standards.
(1) General Requirements. No off-street parking shall be required for any ADU or JADU. The required parking for the primary residential dwelling unit(s) must comply with the underlying zoning district’s current standards, except when an existing garage, carport, covered parking structure, or uncovered parking space is converted to an ADU or JADU or demolished in conjunction with construction of an ADU. When this occurs, no replacement off-street parking is required for the primary residential dwelling unit.
(2) Voluntary Parking. Off street parking for an ADU or JADU may be provided voluntarily.

Voluntarily provided parking associated with ADU or JADU development must be located entirely on the same lot, and may be provided in a garage, carport, uncovered, or in tandem orientation. Additionally, the following provisions may be applied to create voluntary parking for an ADU or JADU. (A) When a garage or carport is converted to an ADU or JADU, or demolished in conjunction with construction of an ADU, the existing driveway and curb cut are not required to be removed, and may be maintained as parking area.
(B) A maximum of up to two voluntarily provided parking stalls may be provided for each ADU or JADU.
(C) The maximum driveway width for single-car garages may be up to 20 feet to accommodate additional off-street parking.
(D) Uncovered parking for an ADU or JADU may be located in the required front, side, and rear yard setback areas. If a covered parking structure is proposed to provide voluntary parking below a second-story ADU, the parking structure may be located within the footprint of the proposed ADU, provided that it is outside of the front yard setback of the underlying zoning district. When a parking structure is proposed within a required side or rear setback of the underlying zoning district, the plate height of the parking structure shall not exceed 9 feet in height.
1034 of 1110
(g) Architectural Standards. Nonexempt ADUs shall be designed to comply with the following standards, as applicable:
1035 of 1110
(1) Be designed to meet the daylight plane requirements of the R-1 zoning district as applied to the nearest adjacent side and rear lot lines.
(2) Provide and maintain obscured glazing on second-story windows up to five feet from the finished floor when the windows are located within five feet of a lot line with an abutting residential lot. (3) When an exterior staircase is proposed, it shall have a setback of at least five feet from the nearest lot line and the size of the second story landing shall be limited to the minimum area required to allow ingress and egress as specified by the California Building Code. (4) Rooftop decks or terraces above any portion of an ADU are prohibited. (5) When a second-story deck or balcony is proposed within a two-story ADU, the following shall apply:
(A) Second story decks or balconies shall not be larger than 50 square feet in size; and (B) No portion of a second story deck or balcony shall be located within the setbacks of the underlying zoning, regardless of the ADU setbacks; and (C) Decks shall only face the interior of the subject property.

Section 9. The title that precedes Section 27.19.070of the San Mateo Municipal Code, and that reads, “Article II Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit” is deleted.

Section 10. Section 27.19.070 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

27.19.070 Multifamily ADU Development Standards.
(a) Applicability. This section applies to all ADUs located on lots with existing or proposed Multifamily Dwelling Structure(s).
(b) Number of Units Allowed.
(1) On a lot with a proposed Multifamily Dwelling Structure, up two new Detached ADUs may be allowed.
(2) On a lot with an existing Multifamily Dwelling Structure, the following ADUs may be permitted in combination:
(A) Up to eight New Construction Detached ADUs may be allowed, provided that the number of ADUs shall not exceed the number of existing primary residential dwelling units on the lot. (B) Conversion ADUs created by converting non-living space within an existing Multifamily Dwelling Structure. The number of non-living space Conversion ADUs may be at 1036 of 1110
least one, and not more than 25 percent of the number of existing primary residential dwelling units.
(C) Any additional ADUs as allowed pursuant to State law. (c) Maximum Unit Size.
(1) An ADU shall not have a larger living area than the smallest primary residential dwelling unit on a lot. When the smallest primary residential dwelling unit is less than 800 square feet, then a State Exempt ADU of up to 800 square feet is allowed.
(2) A Conversion ADU within the existing space of a Multifamily Dwelling Structure is not subject to size requirements.
(3) Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Floor area size maximums for both Attached and Detached ADUs are governed by the floor area maximum established by the underlying zoning district and remaining floor area allowance available on the lot. Up to 800 square feet of ADU Living Area is exempt from total FAR for the lot. The exemption for ADU floor area up to 800 square feet shall be applied individually to each new Detached ADU proposed on a lot with an existing or proposed Multifamily Dwelling Structure. (4) In instances when the existing floor area allowance of a lot has been fully utilized, only New Construction State Exempt ADUs of up to 800 square feet are allowed. (d) Height - Maximum building height for a new Detached Multifamily ADU is 18 feet to top plateline and 24 feet to roof peak as measured from existing grade. (e) Setbacks.
(1) For new Detached Multifamily ADUs, a minimum setback of four feet from side and rear property lines is required.
(2) A minimum setback from the front lot line, as required in the lot's underlying zone district, shall be required for all new Multifamily ADUs. No front setback is required for a New Construction Detached State Exempt ADU.
(f) Parking. The single-family ADU development parking standards of this Chapter shall apply to Multifamily ADUs.
(g) Architectural standards. The single-family ADU development architectural standards of this Chapter shall apply to Nonexempt ADUs on lots with an existing or proposed Multifamily Dwelling Structure. (h) Separation between structures. New Detached Multifamily ADUs shall be separated from the primary structure by a minimum of four feet, open to the sky. Where multiple new Detached ADUs are proposed, the ADUs may be attached to each other, but must be detached from the primary structure. 1037 of 1110
Section 4. Section 27.19.080 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:
1038 of 1110

27.19.080 JADU Development Standards.
(a) Applicability. The development standards in this section shall apply to all JADUs. (b) Permitted Zoning Districts. JADUs shall only be constructed on lots zoned to allow single-family residential use, or for which a Single-Family Dwelling Structure exists or is proposed to be built. The residential lot shall not be part of a condominium, townhouse, or other Multi-Family Dwelling Structure. (c) Limit to the Number of JADUs permitted. The number of JADUs is limited to one per residential lot with a Single-Family Residential Dwelling Structure. Lots with Multi-Family Dwelling Structures are not eligible for JADUs.
(d) Setback and Other Zoning Regulations. For purposes of setbacks and other zoning regulations, the JADU shall be considered to be a part of the principal use of subject site and shall be subject to the same requirements of the underlying zoning district.
(e) Maximum Unit Size. The living area of a JADU shall not exceed 500 square feet, including attic and basement areas as defined in Section 27.04.200 for the applicable zoning district. (f) Construct within Existing Structure. The JADU shall be constructed within the walls of the proposed or legally existing Single-Family Dwelling Structure, including an attached garage. Detached accessory structures, including detached garages or carports, are not permitted to be converted into a JADU. (g) Unit Access. A JADU must include:
(1) A separate exterior to serve the JADU only; and
(2) When a JADU shares sanitation facilities or utility controls (such as a thermostat for heating and cooling), an interior entry access between the JADU and the Single-Family Dwelling Structure is required. For a JADU with its own sanitation facilities and utility controls, interior access is not required, but may be provided voluntarily.
(h) Efficiency Food Preparation Area. A JADU shall include an efficiency kitchen that includes the following components:
(1) Cooking facility with appliances; and
(2) Food preparation counter and storage with cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the JADU.
(i) Sanitation Facilities. A JADU may include its own separate sanitation facilities or may share sanitation facilities with the primary dwelling unit.
(j) Building and Fire Requirements.
(1) No fire wall separation or noise attenuation measures are required between the main dwelling and the JADU. No fire sprinklers are required for the JADU, unless the associated improvements 1039 of 1110
meet the threshold for a "substantial remodel" as defined by Chapter 23, Building and Construction, of the San Mateo Municipal Code. The JADU shall have an adjoining door connected to the main living area for fire separation. A smoke alarm shall be required in the JADU and shall be connected to the smoke alarm in the main residence.
(2) The JADU shall be equipped with a carbon monoxide detector. (k) Utility Service. Separate water connection, a separate sewer service connection, and power connection as water, sewer, and power service are not required for a JADU. (l) Parking. No additional off-street parking is required for a JADU. (m) Address Assignment. An application for a building permit for a JADU must include application for a separate address assignment.
(n) Owner Occupancy. If the JADU has shared sanitation facilities with the existing structure, owneroccupancy shall be required. The owner may reside in either the remaining portion of the structure or the newly created JADU. Owner-occupancy shall not be required if the JADU has its own sanitation facilities, or if the owner is another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.

Section 12. Section 27.19.090 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

27.19.090 JADU Deed Restriction.
(a) Prior to building permit issuance for a JADU, a deed restriction shall be recorded to indicate the following:
(1) Sale of the JADU separately from the single-family residence is prohibited. (2) The approved size and attributes of the JADU.
(b) A copy of this deed restriction must be given to each prospective occupant.

Section 13. Section 27.19.100 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is deleted.

Section 14. Section 27.19.110 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is deleted.

Section 15. Section 27.19.120 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is deleted.

Section 16. Environmental Determination. In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 27080.7 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, section 15282(h), this action is statutorily exempt from the requirements of CEQA because it is an accessory dwelling unit ordinance that is implementing provisions of the Government Code related to ADUs and JAUDs.
1040 of 1110
Section 17. Severability. In the event any section, clause or provision of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section, clause or provision shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect.
1041 of 1110
Section 5. Publication. This ordinance shall be published in summary in a newspaper of general circulation, posted in the City Clerk's Office, and posted on the City's website, all in accordance with Section 2.15 of the City Charter.

Section 6. Legislative History and Effective Date. This ordinance was introduced on Clerk to complete., and adopted on Clerk to complete., and shall be effective 30 days after its adoption.

Place attachments here
1042 of 1110
Chapter 27.19
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS—

RESIDENTIAL ZONES
Article I Accessory Dwelling Unit

27.19.010 Purpose.

The purpose of this Article is to set forth regulations to permit accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in accordance with state law.

27.19.020 ReservedDefinitions.

The definitions in this Section shall apply only to this Chapter. (a) “Accessory dwelling unit” (ADU) means an attached or detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, is accessory to the primary residential dwelling unit(s), and includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking facilities and sanitation on the same lot as a Single-Family Dwelling Structure or Multifamily Dwelling Structure is or will be situated.
(1) “Attached ADU” means an accessory dwelling unit that is attached to a primary residential dwelling unit, or portion thereof (including an attached garage or accessory structure).
(2) “Conversion ADU” means any accessory dwelling unit created by the conversion of any existing structure or portion thereof. The Conversion ADU may be created using existing structural components of the existing structure, or may be reconstructed to the same extent as the existing structure. (3) “Detached ADU” means an accessory dwelling unit that is separated from a primary residential dwelling unit.
(4) “New Construction ADU” means any accessory dwelling unit that does not meet the definition and requirements of a Conversion ADU. (5) “Nonexempt ADU" means an accessory dwelling unit that does not meet the definition of a State Exempt ADU.
(6) “State Exempt ADU” means an accessory dwelling unit that is created pursuant to Government Code Section 66323.
(7) “Multifamily ADU” means an accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed Multifamily Dwelling Structure.
(8) “Single-Family ADU” means an accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed Single-Family Dwelling Structure.
1043 of 1110
(a) “ADU Living Area” means the interior conditioned space within an Accessory Dwelling Unit, such as areas used for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation, and may also include attic or basement areas connected to the ADU. ADU Living Area does not include non-habitable spaces such as garages, carports, unconditioned utility rooms, enclosed storage areas not internally accessible by the ADU, or other accessory structures attached to the ADU. (b) “Junior accessory dwelling unit” (JADU) means a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within an existing or proposed Single-Family Dwelling. (c) “Multifamily Dwelling Structure” means a structure with two or more attached primary residential dwelling units.
(d) “Single-Family Dwelling Structure" means a one-family dwelling primary residential unit that either stands alone on a lot or is detached from other primary residential dwelling unit(s) on the same lot.

27.19.030 Prohibition on Sale and Limitation on Rental. (a) An ADU shall not be sold separately from the primary residence, except as allowed by Government Code Section 66341.
(a)(b) A JADU shall not be sold separately from the primary residential dwelling unit. (b)(c) If an ADU or JADU is rented, the unit shall not be rented for a period of less than 30 consecutive calendar days.

27.19.040 Ministerial Permit Approval.

An ADU permit application for either an attached or a detached ADUan ADU and/or a JADU is required in order to demonstrate that athe unit is in compliance with the provisions of this ArticleChapter. If the ADU is in full compliance with the provisions of this ArticleChapter, a ministerial, non-discretionary permit will be issued. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Code, the issuance of a ministerial ADU or JADU permit is not appealablemay not be appealed.

27.19.045 Discretionary Review as Alternative to Ministerial Approval. (a) As an alternative to ministerial review, an applicant may submit an application for discretionary review of an ADU proposal that is not in full compliance with the provisions of this Articleheight, setback, or daylight plane provisions of this Chapter, and/or for an ADU that proposes a second story deck or balcony exceeding the standards outlined in this Chapter. The discretionary review application shall not be used to increase the maximum allowable floor area of a lot.
1044 of 1110
(a) The application for discretionary approval shall be granted if the Zoning Administrator finds each all of the following:
(1) The proposed ADU is consistent with all applicable objective design standards in the adopted R1 Single-Family Dwelling Design Guidelines.; (2) The proposed ADU would not result in a negative privacy impact on an abutting residential lot; and
(3)(2) The proposed ADU would not result in a negative impact to public health, safety, or welfare.
(4) The proposed ADU, when detached and exceeding the height limit, should provide at least one additional off-street parking space. (3) If the proposed ADU does not comply with height, setback, or daylight plane standards, there are exceptional circumstances applicable to the property that would make compliance with the standard(s) an undue hardship, and the deviations from applicable standards are minimized.
(4) If the proposed ADU includes a second story deck larger than 50 square feet, the deck or balcony is located and oriented to minimize direct views into neighboring windows or yard spaces, and screening is incorporated where necessary to minimize such views.
(5) The proposed ADU is consistent with all applicable provisions of the General Plan.
(b) The decision of the Zoning Administrator shall not preclude the ability of an applicant to receive a ministerial permit pursuant to Section 27.19.040 for an ADU that is in full compliance with the provisions of this ArticleChapter.
(c) The decision of the Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the City Manager or designee, which maybe a hearing officer. Planning Commission, and the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council, in accordance with SMMC

27.08.090.
(a) 27.19.050 Development Standards27.19.050 General Requirements Applicability. The following shall apply to ADUs and JADUs in all zoning districts that allow for residential uses:
(a) The provisions of this Chapter apply only to ADU Living Area. Accessory structures, such as garages, carports, non-habitable utility rooms, storage areas, or sheds, whether detached or attached to an ADU, shall be subject to the requirements of the underlying zoning district and other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code. 1045 of 1110
(a) Development Impact Fees. Development impact fees for ADUs shall be established in an amount set forth by resolution of the City Council. No impact fees shall be charged for ADUs 750 square feet in size or smaller. Any impact fees charged for an ADU over 750 square feet shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary residential dwelling unit.
(b) Utility Service. For Conversion ADUs, a separate water connection, a sewer service connection, or power connection is not required. If an ADU is not converted from existing space, the City may require new or separate utility connections. (c) Utility Fees. For a Conversion ADU, payment of a connection fee or capacity charge is not required. For an ADU that is separate from an existing structure, the City will require payment of a connection fee or capacity charge that is proportionate to the ADU's burden. An ADU shall not be considered a new residential use for the purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and sewer service, except when the ADU is constructed with a new primary residential dwelling unit. (a) Address Assignment. An application for a building permit for an ADU must include application for a separate address assignment.

27.19.060 Single-Family ADU Development Standards
An ADU, as defined in Section 27.04.165, shall comply with the following development standards:
(a) Applicability. This section applies to ADUs located on a lot with an existing or proposed Single-Family Dwelling Structure. Number of Units. A lot with an existing or proposed Single-Family Dwelling Structure may include any combination of the following three types of ADUs, provided that each meets the applicable development standards. (1) One Attached or Conversion ADU.
(2) One Detached New Construction ADU.
(3) One JADU, provided it is located within the walls of an existing or proposed Single-Family Dwelling Structure.
(a) Permitted Zoning Districts. ADUs shall only be constructed on a lot zoned to allow residential uses.
(b) Number of Units. No more than the number of ADUs allowed by state law may be constructed on any lot.
(c) State Exempted "By Right" ADUs. An attached or detached ADU of at least 800 square-feet in size and of at least 16 feet in building height with four-foot side and rear setbacks may be constructed on a lot regardless of any size limitation based on the size of the proposed 1046 of 1110
or existing primary dwelling, lot coverage, floor area ratio, daylight plane, open space, or minimum lot size that would otherwise preclude or limit its construction. The floor area of any new ADU in excess of 800 square feet shall be applied to the maximum floor area allowance of the subject lot as prescribed by the underlying zoning district. (d) Maximum Unit Size and Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Floor areaFAR and unit size maximums for both Aattached and Ddetached ADUs development in excess of 800 square feet are governed by the floor area maximum FAR established by the underlying zoning district and remaining floor area allowance available on the lot. In instances when the existing floor area allowance of a lot has been fully utilized, only the state exempted "by right" ADU of up to 800 square feet is permitted. Up to 800 square feet of ADU floor Living Area, including New Construction State Exempt ADUs, is exempt from the maximum FAR for each lot with a SingleFamily Dwelling Structure. This exemption does not apply to JADU floor living area. In addition, the following shall apply:
(1) An ADU shall not be larger, in terms of floor living area, than the primary residential dwelling unit. However, when the primary residential dwelling unit is less than or equal to 800 square feet in size, a State Exempt ADU of up to 800 square feet is allowed.
(e)
(1)(2) Accessory Dwelling Unit Conversions. An ADU Ac Conversion ADU within the walls of an existing primary residence dwelling unit or accessory structure is not subject to size requirements. ADU conversions may be expanded up to 150 square feet beyond the existing footprint provided the expansion is used to accommodate ingress and egress to the ADU.
(2) Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit and Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit.

Subject to the floor area requirements, one new detached ADU may be constructed on a lot with a junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU).
(f)(e) Height. The specific height maximums are applicable to all zoning districts which permit ADUs.
(1) Attached Accessory Dwelling Units. Maximum building height for an attached ADU is 24 feet to top plateline and 32 feet to roof peak as measured from existing grade. (2) Detached Accessory Dwelling Units. Maximum building height for a detached ADU is 16 18 feet to top plateline and 24 feet to roof peak as measured from existing grade.
(3) Alternative Discretionary Review for Detached Accessory Dwelling Units. For a detached ADU proposed to exceed the height limit, an application for discretionary review, pursuant to Section 27.19.045, shall be submitted. 1047 of 1110
(g) Setbacks. An ADU shall have setbacks as follows:
(1) No setback shall be required for an existing legally permitted garage or accessory structure that is converted to an ADU which is constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions, footprint, and height as the existing structure; or for a Detached ADU that is proposed in the rear one-third of a lot that otherwise meets all requirements of accessory buildings and structures in required yards of R1 districts pursuant to Chapter 27.70.
(2) A minimum setback of four feet shall be required from the side and rear lot lines for all new ADU construction not meeting the criteria set forth in subsection (1) above, including ADUs constructed above an existing legally permitted garage. (3) A minimum setback from the front lot line, as required in the lot's underlying zone district, shall be required for all Nnew Construction ADUs construction not meeting the criteria set forth in subsection (1) above, including ADUs constructed above an existing legally permitted garage. No front setback is required for a State Exempt ADU. (h) Unit Access. AnThe ADU , whether attached or detached, shallmust include provide a separate exterior entrance from the primary residential dwelling unit. An interior access may be provided between the two units, but is not required., and permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation.
(i) Location of Accessory Dwelling Unit. The ADU may be within, attached to, or detached from the primary dwelling unit. ADUs shall be accessory to the primary residence and are permitted in the same locations on the parcel as the primary residence as specified in the underlying zoning district.
(j)(i) Number and Type of Required Parking SpacesADU and JADU Parking Standards. (1) General Requirements. There shall be a minimum of one standard size offstreet parking space for each ADU. All required parking spaces shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide by 18 feet long without any obstructions. Parking associated with ADU or JADU development, whether required or voluntary, must be located entirely on the same lot, and may be provided in a garage, carport, uncovered, or in tandem orientation.

Additionally, maximum driveway width for single-car garages may be up to 20 feet to accommodate additional off-street parking. The required parking for the primary residential dwelling unit must comply with current standards, as specified by the underlying zoning district.
(2) Location of Parking for Accessory Dwelling Units. Parking for the accessory dwelling unit may be located in the required front, side, and rear yard setback areas. (3) Replacement off-street parking is not required when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU or converted to an ADU.
1048 of 1110
(4) Parking Exemptions. No additional off-street parking shall be required for an ADU in the following instances:

A) The ADU is located within one-half (1/2) mile walking distance of public transit; or
B) The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district; or
C) The ADU is in part of the proposed or existing legally permitted primary residence or an existing legally permitted accessory structure; or D) In an area requiring on-street parking, permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the ADU; or
E) When the ADU is located within one block of a car share location. (1) General Requirements. No off-street parking shall be required for any ADU or JADU. The required parking for the primary residential dwelling unit(s) must comply with the underlying zoning district’s current standards, except when an existing garage, carport, or covered parking structure, or uncovered parking space is converted to an ADU or JADU or demolished in conjunction with construction of an ADU. When this occurs, no replacement off-street parking is required for the primary residential dwelling unit.
(1) Voluntary Parking. If no parking space is required, a maximum of one offstreet parking space per ADU or JADU may be voluntarily provided Off street parking for an ADU or JADU may be provided voluntarily. Voluntarily provided parking associated with ADU or JADU development must be located entirely on the same lot, and may be provided in a garage, carport, uncovered, or in tandem orientation. Additionally, the following provisions may be applied to create voluntary parking for an ADU or JADU.

A) When a garage or carport is converted to an ADU or JADU, or demolished in conjunction with construction of an ADU, the existing driveway and curb cut are not required to be removed, and may be maintained as parking area.

B) A maximum of up to two voluntarily provided parking stalls may be provided for each ADU or JADU.

C) The maximum driveway width for single-car garages may be up to 20 feet to accommodate additional off-street parking.

D) Uncovered parking for an ADU or JADU may be located in the required front, side, and rear yard setback areas. If a covered parking structure is proposed to provide voluntary parking below a second1049 of 1110 story ADU, the parking structure may be located within the footprint of the proposed ADU, provided that it is outside of the front yard setback of the underlying zoning district. When a parking structure is proposed within a required side or rear setback of the underlying zoning district, the plate height of the parking structure shall not exceed 9 feet in height.
(1)
(k) Architectural Standards. New Nonexempt ADUs and conversions of an existing legally permitted structure shall be designed to comply with the following standards, as applicable:
(1) Attached Accessory Dwelling Units. ADUs that are attached to the primary dwelling unit shall:

A) Be of the same architectural style as the primary dwelling unit; B) Be constructed of similar exterior materials, finishes, and family of colors as the primary dwelling unit;
C) Offset windows from neighbor's windows to maximize privacy; and D)(1) Be designed to meet the daylight plane requirements of the R-1 zoning district as applied to the nearest adjacent side and rear lot lines. (i) Application of the daylight plane requirement shall not preclude a State Exempted "By Right" ADU as defined in this Chapter. (2) Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit. An ADU that is detached from the primary dwelling unit shall:

A) In instances when an ADU is attached to an accessory structure, provide a uniform and integrated design with that accessory structure; B) Offset windows from neighbor's windows to maximize privacy; C)(2) Provide and maintain obscured glazing on second-story windows up to five feet from the finished floor when the windows are located within five feet of a lot line with an abutting residential lot;.
(3)(1) When an exterior staircase is proposed, it shall have a setback of at least five feet from the nearest lot line and the size of the second story landing shall be limited to the minimum area required to allow ingress and egress as specified by the California Building Code;.
1050 of 1110
(1) Rooftop decks or terraces above any portion of an ADU are prohibited. (2) When a second-story deck or balcony is proposed within a two-story ADU, the following shall apply:

A) Second story decks or balconies shall not be larger than 50 square feet in size; and
A)B) No portion of a second story deck or balcony shall be located within the setbacks of the underlying zoning, regardless of the ADU setbacks; and
B)C) Decks shall only face the interior of the subject property.

A)
(i) For an ADU that seeks to have a larger second story deck, an application for discretionary review, pursuant to Section 27.19.045, shall be submitted.

C) Be designed to meet the daylight plane requirements of the R-1 zoning district as applied to the nearest adjacent side and rear lot lines.
(l) Development Impact Fees. Development impact fees for ADUs shall be established in an amount set forth by resolution of the City Council.
(m) Utility Service. If an ADU is constructed within existing space, a separate water connection, a sewer service connection, or power connection is not required for an ADU. If an ADU is not constructed within existing space, the City may require new or separate utility connections.
(n) Utility Fees. For an ADU located within an existing structure, payment of a connection fee or capacity charge is not required. For an ADU that is separate from an existing structure, the City will require payment of a connection fee or capacity charge that is proportionate to the ADU's burden.
(o) Address Assignment. An application for a building permit for an ADU must include application for a separate address assignment.
(p) Other Requirements. All other zoning requirements shall be complied with unless an authorized variance is approved.
(q) For ADUs proposed within an existing multi-family structure or on a lot with an existing multi-family dwelling, the provisions of Government Code Section 65852.2(e)(1) apply. 1051 of 1110

27.19.060 Reserved.

Article II Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit

27.19.070 PurposeMultifamily ADU Development Standards. (a) The purpose of this Article is to set forth regulations to permit junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs). Applicability. This section applies to all ADUs located on lots with existing or proposed Multifamily Dwelling Structure(s). (b) Number of Units Allowed.
(1) On a lot with a proposed Multifamily Dwelling Structure, up two new Detached ADUs may be allowed.
(2) On a lot with an existing Multifamily Dwelling Structure, the following ADUs may be permitted in combination:

A) Up to eight New Construction Detached ADUs may be allowed, provided that the number of ADUs shall not exceed the number of existing primary residential dwelling units on the lot.

B) Conversion ADUs created by converting non-living space within an existing Multifamily Dwelling Structure. The number of non-living space Conversion ADUs may be at least one, and not more than 25 percent of the number of existing primary residential dwelling units.

C) Any additional ADUs as allowed pursuant to State Law. (c) Maximum Unit Size.
(1) An ADU shall not have a larger floor living area than the smallest primary residential dwelling unit on a lot. When the smallest primary residential dwelling unit is less than 800 square feet, then a State Exempt ADU of up to 800 square feet is allowed. (2) A Conversion ADU within the existing space of a Multifamily Dwelling Structure is not subject to size requirements.
(3) Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Floor area size maximums for both Attached and Detached ADUs are governed by the floor area maximum established by the underlying zoning district and remaining floor area allowance available on the lot. Up to 800 square feet of ADU Living Area is exempt from total FAR for the lot. The exemption for ADU floor Living Area up to 800 square feet shall be applied individually to each new Detached ADU proposed on a lot with an existing or proposed Multifamily Dwelling Structure.
1052 of 1110
(1) In instances when the existing floor area allowance of a lot has been fully utilized, only New Construction State Exempt ADUs of up to 800 square feet are allowed.
(a) Height - Maximum building height for a new Detached Multifamily ADU is 18 feet to top plateline and 24 feet to roof peak as measured from existing grade. (b) Setbacks.
(1) For new Detached Multifamily ADUs, a minimum setback of four feet from side and rear property lines is required.
(2) A minimum setback from the front lot line, as required in the lot's underlying zone district, shall be required for all new Multifamily ADUs. No front setback is required for a New Construction Detached State Exempt ADU.
(c) Parking. The single-family development parking standards of this Chapter shall apply to Multifamily ADUs.
(d) Architectural standards. The single-family development architectural standards of this Chapter shall apply to Nonexempt ADUs on lots with an existing or proposed Multifamily Dwelling Structure.
(e) Separation between structures. New Detached Multifamily ADUs shall be separated from the primary structure by a minimum of four feet, open to the sky. Where multiple new Detached ADUs are proposed, the ADUs may be attached to each other, but must be detached from the primary structure.

27.19.080 Reserved.

27.19.090 Prohibition on Sale and Limitation on Rental. (a) A JADU shall not be sold separately from the primary residence. (b) If a JADU is rented, the unit shall not be rented for a period of less than 30 consecutive calendar days.

27.19.100 Ministerial Permit Required.

A JADU permit application is required in order to demonstrate that the unit is in compliance with the provisions of this Article. If the JADU is in full compliance with the provisions of this Article, a ministerial, non-discretionary permit shall be issued.

27.19.110080 JADU Development Standards.
(a) Applicability. The development standards in this section shall apply to all JADUs. 1053 of 1110
A "junior accessory dwelling unit," as defined in Section 27.04.165, must comply with the following development standards:
(a) Permitted Zoning Districts. JADUs shall only be constructed on lots zoned to allow single-family residential use, or for which a Ssingle-fFamily residence Dwelling Structure exists or is proposed to be built. The residential lot shall not be part of a condominium, townhouse, or other multi-family developmentMulti-Family Dwelling Structure. (b) Limit to the Number of Junior Accessory Dwelling UnitsJADUs permitted. The number of JADUs is limited to one per residential lot with a Ssingle-Ffamily residenceResidential Dwelling Structure. Lots with mMulti-Ffamily housing Dwelling or more than one detached single-family dwelling are not eligible for JADUs. (c) Setback and Other Zoning Regulations. For purposes of setbacks and other zoning regulations, the JADU shall be considered to be a part of the principal use of subject site and shall be subject to the same requirements of the underlying zoning district. (d) Maximum Unit Size. The floor living area of a JADU shall not exceed 650 500 square feet, including attic and basement areas as defined in Section 27.04.200 for the applicable zoning district.
(e) Construct within Existing Structure. The JADU shall be constructed within the walls of the proposed or legally existing single-family dwelling unit, including an attached garage.

Detached accessory structures, including detached garages or carports, are not permitted to be converted into JADUs.
(f) Unit Access. A JADU must include:
(1) A separate exterior entry from the main entrance to the single-family dwelling, which shall be provided to serve the JADU only; and
(2) When a JADU shares sanitation facilities or utility controls (such as a thermostat for heating and cooling), Aan interior entry access between the JADU and the Ssingle-fFamily dwellingDwelling Structure is required. This interior entry access may be a door equipped with a double lock. A permitted JADU may include a second interior door for sound attenuation. For a JADU with its own sanitation facilities and utility controls, interior access is not required, but may be provided voluntarily. (g) Efficiency Food Preparation Area. A JADU shall include an efficiency kitchen that includes the following components:
(1) Cooking facility with appliances; and
(2) Food preparation counter and storage with cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the JADU.
1054 of 1110
(h)(a) Sanitation Facilities. A JADU may include its own separate sanitation facilities or may share sanitation facilities with the primary dwelling unit. (i)(b) Building and Fire Requirements.
(1) No fire wall separation or noise attenuation measures are required between the main dwelling and the JADU. No fire sprinklers are required for the JADU, unless the associated improvements meet the threshold for a "substantial remodel" as defined by Chapter 23, Building and Construction, of the San Mateo Municipal Code. The JADU shall have an adjoining door connected to the main living area for fire separation. A smoke alarm shall be required in the JADU and shall be connected to the smoke alarm in the main residence.
(2) The JADU shall be equipped with a carbon monoxide detector. (j)(c) Utility Service. A sSeparate water connection, a separate sewer service connection, and power connection as water, sewer, and power service is are not required for a JADU.
(k)(d) Parking. No additional off-street parking is required for a JADU. (a) Address Assignment. An application for a building permit for a JADU must include application for a separate address assignment.
(l)(e) Owner Occupancy. If the junior accessory dwelling unit has shared sanitation facilities with the existing structure, owner-occupancy shall be required. The owner may reside in either the remaining portion of the structure or the newly created JADU. Owner-occupancy shall not be required if the JADU has its own sanitation facilities, or if the owner is another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.

27.19.120090 Recordation ofJADU Deed Restriction.
(a) Prior to building permit issuance for a JADU, aA deed restriction shall be recorded to run with the land and submitted to the City prior to building permit issuance whichto indicates the following:
(1) The property owner must occupy either the single-family residence or the JADU.
(2) If the JADU is rented, the unit shall not be rented for a period of less than 30 consecutive calendar days.
(3)(1) Sale of the JADU separately from the single-family residence is prohibited. (4)(2) The approved size and attributes of the JADU.
(b) A copy of this deed restriction must be given to each prospective occupant. 1055 of 1110
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
October 18, 2024
Zachary Dahl, Director of Community Development
Department of Community Development
City of San Mateo
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
Dear Zachary Dahl:

RE: Review of San Mateo’s Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance under State ADU Law (Gov. Code, §§ 66310 - 66342)
Please Note: As of March 25, 2024, with the Chaptering of Senate Bill (SB) 477 (Chapter 7, Statutes of 2024), the sections of Government Code relevant to State ADU and junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) Law have been re-numbered (Enclosure 1).

Thank you for submitting the City of San Mateo (City) accessory dwelling unit (ADU) Ordinance No. 2022-02 (Ordinance), adopted March 21, 2022, to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). HCD has reviewed the Ordinance and submits these written findings pursuant to Government Code section 66326, subdivision (a). HCD finds that the Ordinance does not comply with State ADU and junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) Laws in the manner noted below. Pursuant to Government Code section 66326, subdivision (b)(1), the City has up to 30 days to respond to these findings. Accordingly, the City must provide a written response to these findings no later than November 17, 2024.

The Ordinance addresses many statutory requirements; however, HCD finds that the Ordinance does not comply with State ADU Law in the following respects:

1. Statutory Numbering - The Ordinance contains several references to code sections that were deleted by SB 477, effective March 25, 2024. These include Government Code sections 65852.2, 65852.22 and 65852.26. The contents of these sections were relocated to Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 13 (sections 66310-66342, see Enclosure). The City must amend the Ordinance to refer to the correct code sections.

Page 2 ends

permit at least an 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks…”1 An ADU of 800 square feet with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks cannot be precluded from development for being proposed within the primary residence’s front setback. Therefore, the City must amend its Ordinance to remove these design restrictions.

3. Section 27.04.165 (a) – ADU Definition – The Ordinance defines “Accessory dwelling unit” as: “an attached or detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, is accessory to the primary single-family residential dwelling unit, and includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking facilities and sanitation on the same parcel as the primary residential dwelling unit.” However, California Government Code defines an ADU as: “An attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated.” ADUs may exist on lots with both single- and multi-family dwellings.2 Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance to define “ADU” to allow for such developments on lots with multi-family dwellings.

4. Section 27.04.165 (d) – Multi-family Dwellings – The Ordinance defines “multiple family dwelling” as: “A building or portion thereof, designed or altered for occupancy by three or more families living independently of each other.” Additionally, the Ordinance defines “two-family dwelling” as: “A building(s) designed or altered to provide attached (duplex) or detached dwelling units for occupancy by two families living independently of each other. However, for the purposes of State ADU Law, developments need only contain two attached dwelling units on the same lot to qualify as “multi-family dwellings.” Therefore, the City must amend its definition of “multiple family dwelling” to align with that of HCD.

5. Section 27.19.030 (a) – Separate Conveyance – The Ordinance states that, “An ADU shall not be sold separately from the primary residence.” However, Government Code section 66341 creates a narrow exception to allow separate conveyance of an ADU to a qualified buyer if the property was built or developed by a qualified nonprofit corporation, among other things. Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance to note these exceptions.

6. Section 27.19.050 (c) – ADUs Except from Standards – The Ordinance states, “An attached or detached ADU of at least 800 square-feet in size and of at least 16 feet in building height with four-foot side and rear setbacks may be constructed on a lot regardless of any size limitation based on the size of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, lot coverage, floor area ratio, daylight plane, open space, or minimum lot size that would otherwise preclude or limit its construction. However, 1 Gov. Code, § 66321, subd. (b)(3). 2 Gov. Code, § 66313, subd. (a). 1057 of 1110
Zachary Dahl, Interim Director of Community Development

Page 3 ends

only ADUs built pursuant to Government Code section 66323, subdivision (a)(2), are subject to a size maximum of 800 square feet. Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance to clarify these requirements for by-right ADUs.

In instances when the existing floor area allowance of a lot has been fully utilized, only the state exempted “by-right” ADU of up to 800 square feet is permitted.” While the City is within its rights to dictate ADU size based on available floor area allowance based on underlying zoning districts, the City must also allow, at minimum, a maximum size of 850 square feet for ADUs with one bedroom or fewer, and 1,000 square feet for ADUs with two or more bedrooms. Further, a square footage maximum of 800 square feet may only apply to ADUs built pursuant to Government Code section 66323, subdivision (a)(2). Therefore, the City should amend the Ordinance to clarify correct maximum unit sizes for ADUs per State ADU Law.

8. Section 27.19.050 (e)(1); (e)(2) - Maximum ADU Height – The Ordinance allows maximum heights of 24 and 16 feet to the top plateline and 32 and 24 feet to roof peak as measured from existing grade for attached and detached ADUs, respectively. However, building height, as defined in Section 202 of the California Building Code, must be measured as the vertical distance from grade plane to the average height of the highest roof surface. Additionally, ADUs converted from accessory structures may not be subject to height requirements. 3 Therefore, the
City must amend its definition of “building height” to align with that of the CBC.

9. Section 27.19.050 (f)(1); (f)(3)- Setbacks and Unpermitted Structures – The Ordinance states, “No setback shall be required for an existing legally permitted garage or accessory structure that is converted to an ADU which is constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as the existing structure.” However, jurisdictions shall also not require setbacks for accessory structures that are converted to a portion of an existing ADU.
4 Additionally, the permit status of an
existing structure may not be a reason to preclude the development of an ADU unless the unpermitted structure presents a threat to public health and safety or is affected by the construction of the ADU.
5 Finally, ADUs of less than 800 square
feet in size may not be subject to any front setback requirements if no other lot location can accommodate the ADU.6 Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance to reflect these conditions of State ADU Law. 3 Gov. Code, § 66313, subd. (a)(1)(A). 4 Gov. Code, § 66313, subd. (d)(7). 5 Gov. Code, § 66313, subd. (b). 6 Gov. Code, § 66313, subd. (b)(3). 1058 of 1110
Zachary Dahl, Interim Director of Community Development

Page 4 ends

10.Section 27.19.050 (i) - Parking Exemptions – The Ordinance enumerates five conditions where no additional off-street parking shall be required for an ADU.

However, jurisdictions must also waive all parking standards, not just additional offstreet parking standards, in these instances. Additionally, jurisdictions shall not impose parking standards when a permit application for an accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling or a new multifamily dwelling on the same lot.
7 Therefore, the City must amend the
Ordinance to include the sixth parking exemption.

11.Section 27.19.050 (j) - Architectural Standards – The Ordinance enumerates several architectural and design standards for ADUs. However, these standards may not preclude the development of ADUs pursuant to Government Code section 66323, subdivision (a). Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance to note these conditions.

12.Section 27.19.050 (j)(1)(A); (j)(1)(B); (j)(1)(C); (j)(2)(A); (j)(2)(B) – Design Standards - The Ordinance enumerates several architectural and design standards for ADUs. However, all standards on accessory dwelling units must be objective standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal.
8 Standards such as requiring “similar
exterior materials” and windows that “maximize privacy” are subjective. Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance to only include objective standards for ADU design.

13.Section 27.19.050 (k) – Development Impact Fees - The Ordinance states, “Development impact fees for ADUs shall be established in an amount set forth by resolution of the City Council.” Regardless of local decisions on fee amounts, local agencies, special districts, or water corporations shall not impose any impact fee upon the development of ADUs 750 square feet in size or less submittal. 9 Any
impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.10 Additionally, ADUs shall not be considered by a local agency, special district, or water corporation to be a new residential use for purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and sewer service, unless the accessory dwelling unit was constructed with a new single-family dwelling.11 Therefore, the City must update the Ordinance to provide greater clarity regarding impact fee application for ADUs. 7 Gov. Code, § 66313, subd. (a)(6). 8 Gov. Code, §§ 66313, subd. (b); 66313 (h). 9 Gov. Code, § 66313, subd. (c). 10 Ibid. 11 Gov. Code, § 66324, subdivision (b). 1059 of 1110
Zachary Dahl, Interim Director of Community Development

Page 5 ends

14.Section 27.19.050 (k) – Development Impact Fees - The Ordinance states that, “All other zoning requirements shall be complied with unless an authorized variance is approved.” Despite the jurisdiction’s ability to impose standards on ADUs through underlying zoning districts, it should be noted that all approvals for zoning requirements for ADUs must be ministerial in nature.
12 Therefore, the City should
amend the Ordinance to bolster clarity regarding the ADU approval process.

15.Section 27.19.110 (d) – JADU Size – The Ordinance states that, “The floor area of a JADU shall not exceed 650 square feet. However, by definition, JADUs may not exceed 500 square feet in size.13 Therefore, the City must amend its ordinance to allow a maximum size of 500 sq feet for JADUs.

16.Section 27.19.110 (f)(2) – Unit Access – The Ordinance requires an interior entry access between a JADU and the single-family dwelling. While this is permissible in some situations, jurisdictions can only require interior entry access between a JADU and corresponding single-family dwelling when said JADU does not include a separate bathroom.
14 Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance to note these conditions.

17.Section 27.19.120 (a)(1) – JADU Owner Occupancy – The Ordinance requires recordation of a deed restriction states, “The property owner must occupy either the single-family residence or the JADU.” However, JADU owner-occupancy shall not be required if the owner is another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.15 Therefore, the City must amend its Ordinance to note this owneroccupancy exception.

Please note that the City has two options in response to this letter.16 The City can either amend the Ordinance to comply with State ADU Law17 or adopt the Ordinance without changes and include findings in its resolution adopting the Ordinance that explain the reasons the City believes that the Ordinance complies with State ADU Law despite HCD’s findings.18 If the City fails to take either course of action and bring the Ordinance into compliance with State ADU Law, HCD must notify the City and may notify the California Office of the Attorney General that the City is in violation of State ADU Law.19 12 Gov. Code, § 66317, subdivision (a). 13 Gov. Code, § 66313, subdivision (d). 14 Gov. Code, § 66333, subdivision (e)(2). 15 Gov. Code, § 66333, subdivision (b). 16 Gov. Code, § 66326, subd. (c)(1). 17 Gov. Code, § 66326, subd. (b)(2)(A).
18 Gov. Code, § 66326, subd. (b)(2)(B).
19 Gov. Code, § 66326, subd. (c)(1).
1060 of 1110
Zachary Dahl, Interim Director of Community Development

Page 6 ends

HCD appreciates the City’s efforts in the preparation and adoption of the Ordinance and welcomes the opportunity to assist the City in fully complying with State ADU Law.

Please feel free to contact Rep Name at [email protected] if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Jamie Candelaria
Senior Housing Accountability Manager
Housing Policy Development Division
Enclosure
1061 of 1110
State ADU/JADU Law Statutory Conversion Table
New Government Code Sections Previous Government Code Sections Article 1. General Provisions
66310 65852.150 (a)
66311 65852.150 (b)
66312 65852.150 (c)
66313 General Definition Section
65852.2 (j)
65852.22 (j)
Article 2. Accessory Dwelling Unit Approvals
66314 65852.2(a)(1)(A), (D)(i)-(xii), (a)(4)-(5)
66315 65852.2 (a)(8)
66316 65852.2 (a)(6)
66317 65852.2 (a)(3), (a)(7)
66318 65852.2 (a)(9), 65852.2 (a)(2)
66319 65852.2 (a)(10)
66320 65852.2 (b)
66321 65852.2 (c)
66322 65852.2 (d)
66323 65852.2 (e)
66324 65852.2 (f)
66325 65852.2 (g)
66326 65852.2 (h)
66327 65852.2 (i)
66328 65852.2 (k)
66329 65852.2 (l)
66330 65852.2 (m)
66331 65852.2 (n)
66332 65852.23.

Article 3. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
66333 65852.22 (a)
66334 65852.22 (b)
66335 65852.22 (c)
66336 65852.22 (d)
66337 65852.22 (e)
66338 65852.22 (f)-(g)
66339 65852.22 (h)
Article 4. Accessory Dwelling Unit Sales
66340 65852.26 (b)
66341 65852.26 (a)
66342 65852.2 (a)(10)
1062 of 1110

November 15, 2024
Jamie Candelaria, Senior Housing Accountability Manager Department of Housing and Community Development
Division of Housing Policy Development
651 Bannon St, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
RE: Response to HCD Review of San Mateo’s Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance Dear Jamie Candelaria,
The City has received and reviewed HCD’s comments and findings in its October 18, 2024 letter on the City of San Mateo’s ADU Ordinance (San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 27.19) (ADU Ordinance), and a response to each finding is provided below. The City is committed to full compliance with State ADU laws and establishing local regulations and processes that support and encourage ADU production. On November 7, 2024, City staff met with HCD staff to review the letter and received clarification on several of the comments. The responses below have incorporated those clarifications.

Response: The City acknowledges this finding and will update the ADU Ordinance accordingly.

2. Section 1(c) – Front Setbacks – The Ordinance states, “In order to allow vehicles exiting lots to see passing pedestrians and vehicles, ADUs are not permitted within a required front yard setback.” However, local agencies may not impose: “Any requirement for a zoning clearance… based upon …front setbacks …that does not permit at least an 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks…” An ADU of 800 square feet with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks cannot be precluded from development for being proposed within the primary residence’s front setback. Therefore, the City must amend its Ordinance to remove these design restrictions.

Response: The City acknowledges this finding and will update the ADU Ordinance accordingly, while also maintaining visibility triangles. Due to potential health and safety issues that could arise where driveways in front yards intersect with sidewalks and when a corner lot is adjacent to a street

CITY OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7000
1063 of 1110
San Mateo ADU Ordinance Findings Response Letter

Page 2 ends

Building Division (650) 522-7172 · Code Enforcement Division (650) 522-7150 Housing Division (650) 522-7220 · Planning Division (650) 522-7212 · General (650) 522-7200 intersection, the City is interested in establishing reasonable visibility triangles in front yard spaces adjacent to driveways and street intersections to maintain appropriate visibility between vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. Requirements for visibility triangles would be objective standards, and the City will share the proposed amendment language with HCD prior to scheduling public hearings for adoption.

Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance to define “ADU” to allow for such developments on lots with multi-family dwellings.

Response: The City acknowledges this finding and will update the ADU Ordinance accordingly.

4. Section 27.04.165 (d) – Multi-family Dwellings – The Ordinance defines “multiple family dwelling” as: “A building or portion thereof, designed or altered for occupancy by three or more families living independently of each other.” Additionally, the Ordinance defines “two-family dwelling” as:
“A building(s) designed or altered to provide attached (duplex) or detached dwelling units for occupancy by two families living independently of each other. However, for the purposes of State ADU Law, developments need only contain two attached dwelling units on the same lot to qualify as “multi-family dwellings.” Therefore, the City must amend its definition of “multiple family dwelling” to align with that of HCD.

Response: The City acknowledges this finding and will update the ADU Ordinance accordingly.

6. Section 27.19.050 (c) – ADUs Except from Standards – The Ordinance states, “An attached or detached ADU of at least 800 square-feet in size and of at least 16 feet in building height with fourfoot side and rear setbacks may be constructed on a lot regardless of any size limitation based on the size of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, lot coverage, floor area ratio, daylight plane, 1064 of 1110
San Mateo ADU Ordinance Findings Response Letter

Page 3 ends

Building Division (650) 522-7172 · Code Enforcement Division (650) 522-7150 Housing Division (650) 522-7220 · Planning Division (650) 522-7212 · General (650) 522-7200 open space, or minimum lot size that would otherwise preclude or limit its construction. However, only ADUs built pursuant to Government Code section 66323, subdivision (a)(2), are subject to a size maximum of 800 square feet. Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance to clarify these requirements for by-right ADUs.

Response: The City acknowledges this finding and will update the ADU Ordinance accordingly.

7. Section 27.19.050 (d); (d)(2) - Maximum Unit Size – The Ordinance states, “Floor area size maximums for both attached and detached ADU development in excess of 800 square feet are governed by the floor area maximum established by the underlying zoning district and remaining floor area allowance available on the lot. In instances when the existing floor area allowance of a lot has been fully utilized, only the state exempted “by-right” ADU of up to 800 square feet is permitted.” While the City is within its rights to dictate ADU size based on available floor area allowance based on underlying zoning districts, the City must also allow, at minimum, a maximum size of 850 square feet for ADUs with one bedroom or fewer, and 1,000 square feet for ADUs with two or more bedrooms. Further, a square footage maximum of 800 square feet may only apply to ADUs built pursuant to Government Code section 66323, subdivision (a)(2). Therefore, the City should amend the Ordinance to clarify correct maximum unit sizes for ADUs per State ADU Law.

Response: The City’s ADU Ordinance does not set a maximum size limit for ADUs, so ADUs of at least 850 sq ft or 1,000 sq ft, depending on number of bedrooms, are allowed. State exempted ADUs (including conversions of existing structures, or a new construction ADU of up to 800 sq.ft. built pursuant to Gov. Code 66323, subdivision (a)(2)) are always allowed. For ADUs over 800 sq ft, their maximum size is determined based on the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of a site’s underlying zoning, with the first 800 sq ft of ADU floor area exempt from FAR calculations. However, the City does acknowledge this request to clarify and will update the ADU Ordinance to ensure that these maximum unit sizes are clearly communicated.

8. Section 27.19.050 (e)(1); (e)(2) - Maximum ADU Height – The Ordinance allows maximum heights of 24 and 16 feet to the top plateline and 32 and 24 feet to roof peak as measured from existing grade for attached and detached ADUs, respectively. However, building height, as defined in Section 202 of the California Building Code, must be measured as the vertical distance from grade plane to the average height of the highest roof surface. Additionally, ADUs converted from accessory structures may not be subject to height requirements. Therefore, the City must amend its definition of “building height” to align with that of the CBC.

Response: The height limits contained in the City’s ADU Ordinance allow for a maximum height of 24 feet for detached ADUs and 32 feet for attached ADUs, which are more permissive than the minimum height limits required per State Law. The associated plate height limits of 16 feet and 24 feet, respectively, were previously reviewed with HCD staff and determined to not conflict with State Law since the overall height limits were significantly more permissive than what State Law required. Staff has also conferred with the City’s Building Official to confirm that these limits would not conflict with the CBC height definition. Overall, the City’s strong preference is to continue to utilize the definition of height as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance, rather than the CBC definition of height. The City 1065 of 1110
San Mateo ADU Ordinance Findings Response Letter

Page 4 ends

Building Division (650) 522-7172 · Code Enforcement Division (650) 522-7150 Housing Division (650) 522-7220 · Planning Division (650) 522-7212 · General (650) 522-7200 acknowledges that existing structures converted to ADUs within an existing building envelope are not subject to height restrictions and will update the ordinance accordingly to clarify this point.

Also, since the Citywide practice for setting height limits includes both plate height limits and maximum height limits, the City is interested in maintaining these two height limits for ADUs for consistency and public awareness, but with limits that are more permissive than State Law. And, as part of the City’s ADU Ordinance update, staff will be evaluating an increased maximum plate height limit for detached ADUs to support the ability to construct a second story ADU over a garage.

9. Section 27.19.050 (f)(1); (f)(3)- Setbacks and Unpermitted Structures – The Ordinance states, “No setback shall be required for an existing legally permitted garage or accessory structure that is converted to an ADU which is constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as the existing structure.” However, jurisdictions shall also not require setbacks for accessory structures that are converted to a portion of an existing ADU. Additionally, the permit status of an existing structure may not be a reason to preclude the development of an ADU unless the unpermitted structure presents a threat to public health and safety or is affected by the construction of the ADU. Finally, ADUs of less than 800 square feet in size may not be subject to any front setback requirements if no other lot location can accommodate the ADU. Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance to reflect these conditions of State ADU Law.

Response: The City acknowledges this finding and will update the ADU Ordinance accordingly.

10. Section 27.19.050 (i) - Parking Exemptions – The Ordinance enumerates five conditions where no additional off-street parking shall be required for an ADU. However, jurisdictions must also waive all parking standards, not just additional off- street parking standards, in these instances.

Additionally, jurisdictions shall not impose parking standards when a permit application for an accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling or a new multifamily dwelling on the same lot. Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance to include the sixth parking exemption.

Response: The City acknowledges this finding and will update the ADU Ordinance accordingly to add the parking exemption added under Gov Code Section 66323(a)(6).

11. Section 27.19.050 (j) - Architectural Standards – The Ordinance enumerates several architectural and design standards for ADUs. However, these standards may not preclude the development of ADUs pursuant to Government Code section 66323, subdivision (a). Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance to note these conditions.

Response: The City acknowledges this finding and will update the ADU Ordinance accordingly.

Page 5 ends

Building Division (650) 522-7172 · Code Enforcement Division (650) 522-7150 Housing Division (650) 522-7220 · Planning Division (650) 522-7212 · General (650) 522-7200 benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal. Standards such as requiring “similar exterior materials” and windows that “maximize privacy” are subjective. Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance to only include objective standards for ADU design.

Response: The City acknowledges this finding and will update the ADU Ordinance accordingly.

Additionally, ADUs shall not be considered by a local agency, special district, or water corporation to be a new residential use for purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and sewer service, unless the accessory dwelling unit was constructed with a new single-family dwelling. Therefore, the City must update the Ordinance to provide greater clarity regarding impact fee application for ADUs.

Response: The City acknowledges this finding and will update the ADU Ordinance accordingly.

14. Section 27.19.050 (k) – Development Impact Fees - The Ordinance states that, “All other zoning requirements shall be complied with unless an authorized variance is approved.” Despite the jurisdiction’s ability to impose standards on ADUs through underlying zoning districts, it should be noted that all approvals for zoning requirements for ADUs must be ministerial in nature.

Therefore, the City should amend the Ordinance to bolster clarity regarding the ADU approval process.

Response: The City acknowledges this finding and will update the ADU Ordinance accordingly.

Therefore, the City must amend its ordinance to allow a maximum size of 500 sq feet for JADUs.

Response: City staff consulted with HCD in 2021/2022 to seek guidance on the JADU size limit and received direction that a local jurisdiction could set a more permissive maximum size provided that it was aligned with the overall function and use intended for JADUs. Based on this guidance, the City established a maximum size for JADUs of 650 sq ft with the intention of encouraging more JADU construction and allowing for higher quality units within existing single-family dwellings. Since the ADU Ordinance was adopted in 2022, the City has issued permits for 36 JADUs, including six (6) that are larger than 500 sq ft. Because the City has permitted JADUs that exceed 500 sq ft in size and because there is local support for maintaining the current size limit, the City would like to preserve the JADU size limit of up to 650 sq ft in the ADU Ordinance. 1067 of 1110
San Mateo ADU Ordinance Findings Response Letter

Page 6 ends

Building Division (650) 522-7172 · Code Enforcement Division (650) 522-7150 Housing Division (650) 522-7220 · Planning Division (650) 522-7212 · General (650) 522-7200

16. Section 27.19.110 (f)(2) – Unit Access – The Ordinance requires an interior entry access between a JADU and the single-family dwelling. While this is permissible in some situations, jurisdictions can only require interior entry access between a JADU and corresponding single-family dwelling when said JADU does not include a separate bathroom. Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance to note these conditions.

Response: The City acknowledges this finding, but has identified several circumstances beyond just a shared bathroom where an interior access between the JADU and main dwelling is necessary to ensure that substandard living conditions in a JADU are not created. Based on CBC requirements, a JADU is allowed to share HVAC and other utilities with the main dwelling. Thus, an interior entry is important to allow for a JADU tenant to access HVAC/thermostat controls, the electrical subpanel in the event that a breaker is blown, and/or other shared utilities if they are located in the single-family dwelling.

Thus, the City is interested in continuing to require an interior entry access for JADUs when such access is needed. The City will update the ADU Ordinance to not require an interior entry when these circumstances are not present. Also, since JADU construction does not trigger fire-rated separation requirements for interior access doors, including an interior entry does not result in a significant added cost in the same way that an interior entry for an attached ADU does.

17. Section 27.19.120 (a)(1) – JADU Owner Occupancy – The Ordinance requires recordation of a deed restriction and states, “The property owner must occupy either the single-family residence or the JADU.” However, JADU owner-occupancy shall not be required if the owner is another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization. Therefore, the City must amend its Ordinance to note this owner- occupancy exception.

Response: The City acknowledges this finding and will update the ADU Ordinance accordingly.

We are happy to further discuss any of our responses to ensure mutual understanding about State Law requirements for the City’s ADU Ordinance, if necessary. The City plans to complete these ADU Ordinance amendments, along with other Housing Element Code amendments, in 2025. As part of the update process, we will share the draft ADU Ordinance amendments with HCD prior to scheduling public hearings.

Please contact me at (650) 522-7207 or [email protected] if you have any questions or would like to further discuss.

Sincerely,
Zachary Dahl, AICP
Community Development Director
1068 of 1110
1069 of 1110
1070 of 1110
The height limit recommendation in the staff report aligns with what the planning commission recommended three years ago. What should now be addressed is that in certain areas of the city first floor heights are raised above existing grade by three feet to alleviate sea level rise and high ground water incursion. This increased ground floor height needs to be adjusted to the allowable heights of ADU's in the parts of the city afflicted by these hazards.

The proposed maximum size of 1,200 square feet for an ADU conflicts with guidance by planning commission and council during the last ordinance update which set the size limitations by the Floor Area Ratio, FAR. The staff report alludes to a city guideline that an ADU cannot be larger than the primary residence, that is totally contrary to prior staff directions. The size of an ADU should be predicated by FAR and not an arbitrary preference of neighborhood balance and any existing codes should be abandoned.

The staff report states that over the last three years an average of 77 ADU’s have been built yet per the city’s Annual Progress Reports for those years a total of 181 ADU’s have been completed, which is an average of 60 per year. The cities RHNA cycle 6 has a goal of building 7,015 housing units between 2023 – 2031. Unfortunately, only 291 units have been built and of those 44% are ADU’s.

Another issue of note is per state law ADU permits need to be approved in two months. In San Mateo County ten of the cities average between 0 and 2 months to issue permits. The city of San Mateo averages between four and eight months to issue a permit. This is two to four times the state mandated timeline to just get a permit and by far the worst performing city in the county on this critical aspect.

The percentage of new housing built in California represented by ADU’s is 22%, yet in San Mateo that percentage is 44%. With our ongoing struggles to build housing it has become more important to make the process of building ADU’s as streamlined and efficient as possible. You as a commission can implement guidelines that will help the public in its desires to build housing in their own backyards that are used for a wide variety of housing needs.

Thank you
John Ebneter
Ref: PC meeting on 8/26/24
City of San Mateo Planning Commission 8/26/25
Item number two
1071 of 1110
1072 of 1110
regulate them by FAR. In practice, this has blocked projects that Council intended to support. For example, a North Central proposed duplex ADU project was denied because staff required the ADU to be smaller than the smaller of the two duplex units, even though the duplex was a similar size as the ADU. This is particularly inequitable in older neighborhoods where many homes are under 1,200 sq. ft.

Residents in Baywood or San Mateo Park with 3,000+ sq. ft. homes can easily build large ADUs, while families in North Central and Central are effectively capped at much smaller sizes. This undermines Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Law by blocking working families from opportunities to create family-sized ADUs.

These fixes will rectify the policy to align implementation with the Council’s original vision, allowing homeowners to reinvest in their properties without unnecessary expense or delay and create space for more affordable and “missing middle” homes, while advancing San Mateo’s climate resilience and equity goals.

As you deliberate on the ADU Ordinance Updates, the inclusion reforms that reduce bureaucracy, save money for homeowners, preserve neighborhood livability, and align City policy with State law and the Council’s original intent should be a top priority.

Amourence Lee
Former Mayor
City of San Mateo
Definition of “Primary Residential Dwelling Unit”: The municipal code defines a “primary residential dwelling unit” as the largest dwelling on a lot, which effectively requires that all ADUs be smaller than the existing home. This conflicts with the Council’s prior decision to remove size caps on ADUs and instead set of zoning rules. This can make it nearly impossible to design functional ADUs above garages and directly contradicts Council’s intent.
1073 of 1110
Dec 9, 2025
City of San Mateo
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
By Email: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Re: Proposed Amendments to the City’s ADU Regulations
Dear San Mateo Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter as a public comment concerning Item 2 on the agenda for the December 9, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, a study session for an update to the City’s regulations for the development of accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) and junior accessory dwelling units (“JADUs”).

CalHDF applauds the City for updating its ADU regulations to keep pace with changes in state law. CalHDF writes to flag specific legal issues with the ordinance, which the City should address before passing the ordinance.

Background
The law gives local governments authority to enact zoning ordinances that implement a variety of development standards on ADUs. (Gov. Code, § 66314.) The standards in these local ordinances are limited by state law so as not to overly restrict ADU development. (See id.) Separately from local ADU ordinances, Government Code section 66323 establishes a narrower set of ADU types that local governments have a ministerial duty to approve. “Notwithstanding Sections 66314 to 66322 ... a local agency shall ministerially approve” these types of ADUs. (Id. at subd. (a).) This means that ADUs that satisfy the minimal requirements of section 66323 must be approved regardless of any contrary provisions of the local ADU ordinance. (Ibid.) Local governments may not impose their own standards on such ADUs. (Gov. Code, § 66323, subd. (b) [“A local agency shall not impose any objective development or design standard that is not authorized by this section upon any accessory dwelling unit that meets the requirements of any of paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (a).”].) 2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
[email protected]
1074 of 1110
In addition, ADUs that qualify for the protections of Government Code section 66323, like other ADUs, must be processed by local governments within 60 days of a complete permit application submittal. (Gov. Code, § 66317, subd. (a).) State law also prohibits creating regulations on ADU development not explicitly allowed by state law. Government Code Section 66315 states, “No additional standards, other than those provided in Section 66314, shall be used or imposed, including an owner-occupant requirement, except that a local agency may require that the property may be used for rentals of terms 30 days or longer.”
Impermissible Size Limits on Exemption ADUs on Multifamily Parcels Code section 27.19.070(c) generally restricts detached ADUs on multifamily parcels to 800 square feet in size. The code does this by only allowing floor area ratio waivers for ADUs up to 800 square feet in size and also only allowing ADUs to be as large as the smallest existing unit on the property, unless the smallest unit is less than 800 square feet, in which case the ADU may be 800 square feet in size.

However, the City should be aware that such size restrictions are not permitted for new construction, detached ADUs on multifamily parcels. Government Code section 66323 subdivision (a)(4) allows up to eight detached ADUs on multifamily parcels without size restrictions. Size restrictions are plainly forbidden by Government Code, section 66323, subdivision (b), which explicitly exempts statewide exemption ADUs from all local standards:
“(b) A local agency shall not impose any objective development or design standard that is not authorized by this section upon any accessory dwelling unit that meets the requirements of any of paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (a).” Because Government Code section 66323 subdivision (a)(4) does not contain a size limit for new construction, detached ADUs on multifamily parcels, the City may not unilaterally impose one.

HCD reaffirms this requirement of state law on page 20 of the January 2025 HCD ADU Handbook (emphasis added):

A local agency may not impose development or design standards, including both local standards and standards found in State ADU Law, on 66323 Units that are not specifically listed in Government Code section 66323. (Gov. Code, § 66323, subds. (a), (b).) This includes, but is not limited to, parking, height, setbacks, or other zoning provisions (e.g., lot size, open space, floor area ratio, etc.).

The City must exempt ADUs developed pursuant to Government Code section 66323, subdivision (a)(4) from all size restrictions.
2 of 4
1075 of 1110
Parking
Staff is recommending exempting all ADUs from offstreet parking requirements citywide.

CalHDF strongly supports this recommendation. This will encourage ADU development and will help the City meet its RHNA targets.

However, regardless of what the City decides to do in terms of parking requirements, the City should be aware that it cannot require parking for ADUs that conform to the requirements of Government Code section 66323, subdivision (a), as section 66323, subdivision (b) specifically exempts such ADUs from all local requirements.

From page 20 of the January 2025 HCD ADU Handbook (emphasis added):

In its update to its ADU regulations, the City must exempt section 66323 ADUs from all parking requirements, as is required by state law.

Impermissible Discretionary Process
City Code section 27.19.045 contains a discretionary approval process for ADUs that do not meet code requirements. Such a process is forbidden by state law.

Additionally, the findings contained in City Code section 27.19.045 include non-objective findings:
(2) The proposed ADU would not result in a negative impact to public health, safety, or welfare.
(3) If the proposed ADU does not comply with height, setback, or daylight plane standards, there are exceptional circumstances applicable to the property that would 3 of 4
1076 of 1110
1077 of 1110
From: James Lloyd
To: City Council (San Mateo); Adam Loraine; Nicole Fernandez; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Lisa Diaz Nash; Rob Newsom
Cc: City Attorney"s Office; Clerk; City Mgr; Community Development Distribution Subject: public comment re item 17 for tonight"s Council meeting Date: Monday, January 26, 2026 2:08:59 PM
Attachments: San Mateo - ADU Ordinance - 26 Jan 2026 - CC.pdf Dear San Mateo City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits the attached public comment concerning Item 17 on the agenda for the January 26, 2026 Council meeting, an update to the City’s regulations for the development of accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) and junior accessory dwelling units (“JADUs”).

James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
CalHDF is grant & donation funded
Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/
1078 of 1110
Jan 26, 2026
City of San Mateo
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
By Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Re: Proposed Amendments to the City’s ADU Regulations
Dear San Mateo City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter as a public comment concerning Item 17 on the agenda for the January 26, 2026 Council meeting, an update to the City’s regulations for the development of accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) and junior accessory dwelling units (“JADUs”).

Of note, the staff report indicates that our comments have been disregarded merely because HCD did not highlight these issues in their review of the ordinance. HCD reviewers are human, and they do not always catch every issue. CalHDF is currently litigating against multiple cities that have noncompliant ADU ordinances, and HCD has not always caught the areas of noncompliance in their reviews of those cities’ ADU ordinances. The City should independently evaluate our comments based on their content and state ADU law.

Background
The law gives local governments authority to enact zoning ordinances that implement a variety of development standards on ADUs. (Gov. Code, § 66314.) The standards in these local ordinances are limited by state law so as not to overly restrict ADU development. (See id.) Separately from local ADU ordinances, Government Code section 66323 establishes a 2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
[email protected]
1079 of 1110
narrower set of ADU types that local governments have a ministerial duty to approve. “Notwithstanding Sections 66314 to 66322 ... a local agency shall ministerially approve” these types of ADUs. (Id. at subd. (a).) This means that ADUs that satisfy the minimal requirements of section 66323 must be approved regardless of any contrary provisions of the local ADU ordinance. (Ibid.) Local governments may not impose their own standards on such ADUs. (Gov. Code, § 66323, subd. (b) [“A local agency shall not impose any objective development or design standard that is not authorized by this section upon any accessory dwelling unit that meets the requirements of any of paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (a).”].) In addition, ADUs that qualify for the protections of Government Code section 66323, like other ADUs, must be processed by local governments within 60 days of a complete permit application submittal. (Gov. Code, § 66317, subd. (a).) State law also prohibits creating regulations on ADU development not explicitly allowed by state law. Government Code Section 66315 states, “No additional standards, other than those provided in Section 66314, shall be used or imposed, including an owner-occupant requirement, except that a local agency may require that the property may be used for rentals of terms 30 days or longer.”
Impermissible Size Limits on Exemption ADUs on Multifamily Parcels Code section 27.19.070(c) generally restricts detached ADUs on multifamily parcels to 800 square feet in size. The code does this by only allowing floor area ratio waivers for ADUs up to 800 square feet in size and also only allowing ADUs to be as large as the smallest existing unit on the property, unless the smallest unit is less than 800 square feet, in which case the ADU may be 800 square feet in size.

HCD reaffirms this requirement of state law on page 20 of the January 2025 HCD ADU Handbook (emphasis added):

A local agency may not impose development or design standards, including both local standards and standards found in State ADU Law, on 66323 Units that are not specifically listed in Government Code section 66323. (Gov. Code, § 66323, subds. (a), 2 of 5
1080 of 1110
(b).) This includes, but is not limited to, parking, height, setbacks, or other zoning provisions (e.g., lot size, open space, floor area ratio, etc.).

The City must exempt ADUs developed pursuant to Government Code section 66323, subdivision (a)(4) from all size restrictions.

Parking
Staff is recommending exempting all ADUs from offstreet parking requirements citywide.

CalHDF strongly supports this recommendation. This will encourage ADU development and will help the City meet its RHNA targets.

From page 20 of the January 2025 HCD ADU Handbook (emphasis added):

In its update to its ADU regulations, the City must exempt section 66323 ADUs from all parking requirements, as is required by state law.

Impermissible Discretionary Process
City Code section 27.19.045 contains a discretionary approval process for ADUs that do not meet code requirements. Such a process is forbidden by state law.

Government Code section 66317, subdivision (a) forbids all discretionary review for ADU approvals: “A permit application for an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit shall be considered and approved ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing, notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906 or any local ordinance regulating the issuance of variances or special use permits.”
The City must therefore eliminate any discretionary review of ADUs. 3 of 5
1081 of 1110
1082 of 1110
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
5 of 5
1083 of 1110
ADU Ordinance
Updates
January 26, 2026
Liz Gagliardi, Associate Planner
Community Development Department
City of San Mateo – City Council
1084 of 1110
Presentation Overview
• Background
• ADU Ordinance Updates
• Changes to Address HCD Comments for State Law Compliance • Additional Local Changes to Address Community Needs & Ordinance Functionality
• Recommendations for Adoption
1085 of 1110
Background
• 2016/2019 – California legislature passed initial state-wide ADU laws to streamline and promote ADU development
• March 2022 – City of San Mateo adopted an updated local ADU Ordinance (SMMC Ch. 27.19)
• October 2024 – HCD provided formal review of the City’s ADU Ordinance • January 2025 – HCD published updated ADU Handbook
• August 2025 – Planning Commission Study Session on Ordinance Updates • September 2025 – Virtual Community Webinar on ADU Ordinance Updates • December 2025 – Planning Commission Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council to adopt ADU Ordinance Updates 1086 of 1110
Year Total Permits Issued Permits Finaled
2022* 61 57
2023 89 72
2024 66 33
2025* 85 2
TOTAL 301 164
*Data from March 21, 2022 – December 3, 2025
Background – ADU Permitting Data
1087 of 1110
Housing Element Policy H1.4
Support Increased ADU Development.

Implementation Action H1.4 (a)
Amend the City’s ADU Ordinance to align with current State law and to resolve any inconsistencies identified by HCD Housing Element Context
1088 of 1110
ADU Ordinance Updates
Changes to Address HCD Comments for State Law Compliance Additional Local Changes to Address Community Needs &
Ordinance Functionality
1089 of 1110
ADU Ordinance Updates
Changes to Address HCD Comments for State Law Compliance Additional Local Changes to Address Community Needs &
Ordinance Functionality
1090 of 1110
ADU Ordinance
Updates
• Updates to Definitions
• Clarification for ADU Separate Sale
• Fee Clarification
• Removal of Variance Process
• Number of ADUs permitted with Single-Family
• Front Setback Clarification
• Clarification of Architectural Standards &
Removal of Subjective Standards
• JADU Updates
• Multifamily ADU Updates
HCD Review & State Law Compliance
1091 of 1110
ADU Ordinance Updates
Changes to Address HCD Comments for State Law Compliance Additional Local Changes to Address Community Needs &
Ordinance Functionality
1092 of 1110
Additional Local
Standards
Setback Exemption
Maximum ADU Size
Height Limit for Detached ADUs
Parking Exemption for ADUs & Voluntary Parking Standards Second Story Decks & Balconies
Updates to ADU Discretionary Review (ADUDR)
1093 of 1110
ADU Discretionary Review
State Law Context
Ministerial approval is required when an ADU meets State law requirements A local agency may apply objective standards on ADUs
Local Context - Two paths for ADU review:
1) Ministerial Review – for ADUs that meet development
standards of the Ordinance
2) Accessory Dwelling Unit Discretionary Review (ADUDR) – alternative option for any ADU that does not meet the
development standards of the ADU Ordinance
1094 of 1110
ADUDR Updates
Clarification on ADUDR Applicability
• Exceptions to ADU setbacks, height, or daylight
plane. No exceptions to increase FAR
Updated ADUDR Findings
Updated ADUDR Appeal Process
• May be appealed to City Manager or designee
(could be a hearing officer)
1095 of 1110
Maximum ADU Size
State Law Context
ADUs of at least 800 square feet with 4-foot setbacks are allowed by-right Must allow ADUs of at least:
• 850 square feet for studio and one-bedroom ADUs
• 1,000 square feet for ADU with more than one bedroom
Local Context – No specific maximum size.
• ADU size is regulated by Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Up to 800 square feet of ADU area is exempt from total FAR
• ADU cannot be larger than primary unit
1096 of 1110
Height Limit for Detached ADUs
State Law Context
• Must allow detached ADUs up to 16 feet, or up to 18 feet (plus two feet to allow for matching roof pitch to existing dwelling) for detached ADUs near transit or on multistory multifamily lots • Must allow two-story detached ADUs
• State law only regulates total height (not plate vs. roof peak) 1097 of 1110
Local Context
Current Standard – 16 feet to top
wall plate and 24 feet to roof peak
Updated Standard – 18 feet to top
wall plate and 24 feet to roof peak
All measured from existing grade
Height Limit for Detached ADUs
1098 of 1110
Setback Exemption
Current Standard
4-foot side and rear setbacks required for all ADUs.

Allows for conversion of existing structures within
setbacks.

Updated Standard
Allow ADUs in the rear one-third of a parcel to be built within side and rear setbacks if they meet existing
requirements for Accessory Structures in the rear onethird of a parcel 1099 of 1110
State Law Context
• When parking is required for an ADU, may not exceed one space per unit or per bedroom, whichever is less.
• No parking required when parking is demolished or converted to an ADU • No parking required for ADUs:
• Within 1/2 mile walking distance of public transit
• Within an architecturally and historically significant historic district • That are part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory structure • When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the ADU • When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the ADU • When a permit application for an ADU is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling or a new multifamily dwelling on the same lot, provided that the ADU or the parcel satisfies any other criteria listed above.

Parking Exemptions for ADUs
1100 of 1110
Parking Exemptions for ADUs
• Vast majority of residential
properties in San Mateo
exempt from ADU parking
requirements.
• Red circles show properties
that are more than a ½ mile
from a transit stop.
1101 of 1110
Parking Exemptions for ADUs
Current Standard
Minimum of one standard-sized off-street parking space for each ADU is required.
• ADU parking can be covered or uncovered, may be in tandem configuration.
• Exemptions to providing off-street parking are also provided pursuant to State law
Updated Standard
Eliminate all required off-street parking for ADUs citywide. 1102 of 1110
Voluntary Parking for ADUs
Updated Standards:
• Up to two voluntary parking spaces may be
provided for an ADU
• Tandem orientations allowed for ADU parking
• Existing driveway/curb cut may remain when
garage is demo’d or converted to an ADU
• Driveways can be expanded to up to 20-ft
width for extra parking area
• Setback exemptions for covered parking
within the footprint of a two-story ADU
1103 of 1110
Second Story Decks and Balconies
Current Standard
All second-story decks & balconies
require ADUDR.
1104 of 1110
Second Story Decks and Balconies
Updated Standard
Second-story decks & balconies considered ministerially when:
• No portion of the deck or balcony is within side/rear setback of the underlying zoning district.
• Deck or balcony does not exceed 50 square feet
• Deck is interior-facing
ADUDR process remains available for decks/balconies that do not meet above standards*
*Roof decks are prohibited
1105 of 1110
Summary of December 9, 2025 Planning
Commission Public Hearing
• One written comment was submitted, no public speakers provided verbal comment at the meeting
• Planning Commission asked some clarifying questions to staff and discussed the updates, identifying three additional changes that the Commission voted to include in the recommendation to City Council. • The motion to recommend approval with the three additional changes was carried, with 4 commissioners voting in favor, none opposed, and one commissioner absent.
1106 of 1110
Summary of Planning Commission Recommendations
1) Add language to Section 27.19.045 to clarify that the ADUDR process may be used to review an ADU proposal that is not compliant with any objective standard in the ADU Ordinance, with the exception of FAR maximums. 2) Keep existing appeals process in Section 27.19.045 for ADUDR applications to be appealed to Planning Commission, and if appealed again to City Council. 3) Change the standard for location of second story decks or balconies proposed with an ADU in Section 27.19.060(h)(5) to state that the balcony “shall not face adjacent residential properties”.
1107 of 1110
Next Steps
Staff will partner with the ADU Resource Center of San
Mateo County on continued public outreach and
information sessions to support local ADU production
Ordinance will become effective 30 days after adoption
Staff will update ADU Webpage, Handouts & Supplemental
Materials
Ordinance will be brought back to Council for a second
reading and adoption.
1108 of 1110
Introduce an Ordinance to amend San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 27.19, "Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units – Residential Zones" to address comments from the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) to align with current state law, and to address Housing Element programs, and find it exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 27080.17 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15282(h) of the CEQA Guidelines.

Recommendation
1109 of 1110
Thank You
Liz Gagliardi
Associate Planner, Community Development
[email protected]
1110 of 1110

San Mateo City CouncilJanuary 26, 2026

San Mateo City Council
January 26, 2026