San Mateo City Council
February 23, 2026

MEMORANDUM
DATE January 16, 2026
TO City of San Mateo
FROM PlaceWorks
SUBJECT Key Issues White Paper – Building Height
Introduction
Building height limits was a key issue of community interest during the Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040 adoption process. Dating back to 1991, the City’s height limits were set by voter initiative (Measures H, P and Y) and implemented through the General Plan. With the adoption of General Plan 2040 in Ma rch 2024, and the subsequent voter approval of Measure T in November 2024, the City’s height limits were effectively increased with reduced height regulation contained in the General Plan.

As part of General Plan implementation, the Comprehensive Zoning Co de Update (CZCU) project will establish updated height limits within the City’s Zoning Code (Title 27) to align with the story limits contained in the General Plan. Height regulations are most typically contained in a jurisdiction’s zoning code, and this transition is intended to align with that best practice and implement an updated approach for how the City sets and regulates height.

Prior to starting the CZCU project, the City drafted four new high -density districts for residential and mixed-use zones to implement the highest allowed densities referenced in the General Plan (99 units/acre and 130 units/acre). Public hearings to consider adoption of these new high density districts are planned for the first half of 2026. The work to draft these updated standards included assessments of appropriate building height limits for this level of density, and helped to inform the height requirements and regulations discussed in this white paper.

This white paper includes a review of the existing height regulations in the Zoning Code, directions and policies in the General Plan, a recent state bill related to height and proximity to public transportation, best practice options and considerations, a nd questions that will be asked for the public to provide input.

City and Community Goals
The City is seeking to update the Zoning Code’s building height regulations to ensure development feasibility for the identified densities and/or intensities, while providing reasonable and context - sensitive transitions between zoning districts and development projects in San Mateo. The City wants

January 16, 2026 | Page 2
to clarify the height measurement rules for correlating the story limits set by the General Plan to the maximum allowed height in terms of feet. Additionally, the City wants to improve the clarity of the code and make the building height regulations more u ser-friendly and better aligned with current construction practices. For the new high density districts (discussed in detail below), the City asked for building height sections to help visualize the potential height and massing of buildings and illustrate how stories translate to feet for different building types (i.e., residential, mixed-use, commercial, etc.).

Overview of Key Issue Topic
In zoning codes, building height regulations are established to dictate the maximum allowed height in terms of feet and/or the number of stories, define how height is measured, provide parameters for allowed design features, and outline specific height exc eptions. These regulations must balance multiple planning objectives, including meeting residential density requirements from the General Plan, accommodating appropriate building types, complementing the existing neighborhood character, and ensuring economic feasibility for developers.

Properly setting height limits requires analyzing a community's existing regulations and conditions. It also means considering the California Building Code (CBC), which links building height to specific construction materials and methods. Failing to review these conditions can inadvertently make desired development types economically unfeasible, hinder density goals, and/or result in building styles that do not align with the community’s vision.

To create projects that align with community objectives, height regulations often provide limits in both feet and the number of stories. Height is typically measured from the existing grade (i.e., the ground's surface level before construction, or the proposed exterior grade, whichever is lower) to the top of the roof structure.

Adopting effective building height regulations requires them to correlate with density requirements, provide clear and adaptable rules, and allow for flexibility in design.

High Density District Analysis
As part of the process for drafting the four new high density districts, the Project Team analyzed how the General Plan’s new higher density requirements aligned with the existing height standards in the Zoning Code. This process involved developing a methodology to correlate building height, measured in both feet and the number of stories – the latter being specified in the General Plan – with density and other development standards. The Project Team worked together to arrive at assumptions for floor heights for different types of projects to calculate maximum height for each of the new districts based on the maximum number of stories allowed in the corresponding General Plan land use designation.

Based on these height guidelines, the Project Team created illustrations for three types of example projects: (1) an eight -story residential-only project; (2) an eight -story mixed-use project with ground - floor retail, office space on the second, third, and fourth stories, and residential on the fifth through eighth stories; and (3) an eight -story office-only project. The illustration below shows the residential- only project type for an eight-story building, representing the General Plan’s Residential High land use designation. The building height standards in this illustration were designed based on a 13-foot floor-

January 16, 2026 | Page 3
to-floor height standard for the first story , 11 -foot floor-to-floor height standard for all subsequent floors above, and a consistent 14-inch floor thickness throughout the building, which is not marked on the illustration. The first floor is designed with a higher floor-to-floor height to accommodate common area lobby activities and amenities, mechanical and utility spaces, and to provide a more flexible ground-floor presence along the street.

Source: PlaceWorks (2025)
For non-residential-only projects and mixed-use projects that include non-residential uses, the ground- level and typical floor ceiling heights are calculated based on similar assumptions, with higher ceiling heights allowed for ground -level and non-residential floors. After specific heights were calculated for the four project types, the City made the decision to round the building height to the nearest “0” or “5” number in the ones-place to make the Zoning Code more user-friendly. For example, for the proposed Mixed-Use 4 District that would implement the General Plan’s Mixe d-Use High land use designation, the maximum allowed building height for feet was increased from 98 feet to 100 feet to accommodate eight stories for a mixed-use project with residential units. The proposed height limits for the four high density districts are as follows:

January 16, 2026 | Page 4

Proposed
Zoning
District
Name
Residential Height Limit

Mixed-Use with Residential
Height Limit
Non-residential Height
Limit
Measured in
Number of
Stories
Measured in
Feet
Measured in
number of
stories
Measured in
Feet
Measured in
Number of
Stories
Measured in
Feet
R6 6 70’
(11.7’/story)

N/A N/A N/A N/A
R7 8 90’
(11.25’/story)

N/A N/A N/A N/A
Mixed-Use
3 6 70’
(11.7’/story)
6 75’
(12.5’/story)
4 60’
(15’/story)
Mixed-Use
4 8 90’
(11.25’/story)
8 100’
(12.5’/story)
5 75’
(15’/story)
Brief Summary of Current Title 27 (Zoning) Regulations
The current regulations in the Zoning Code that address building height are summarized below:
• The SMMC includes building height regulations throughout Title 27 (Zoning). However, building height regulations for nearly all of the zoning districts refer back to the General Plan 2030 Building Height Plan rather than being included directly in the Zoning Code. • The R1 and R2 Districts are the only districts with specific height regulations provided in the Zoning Code. Section 27.18.050 (Building Height and Daylight Plane) provides the following two required maximum height limits: walls can have a maximum height of 24 feet, and the highest point of the roof can have a maximum height of 32 feet. Both of these limits are measured from the existing grade and apply in the R1 and R2 Districts. Existing homes that exceed the height limit are allowed to construct additions to the existing roof line height. The Section also provides daylight plane
0F1 regulations in the R1 and R2 Districts for both the primary buildings and structures. The daylight plane is intended to prevent buildings from overshadowing their neighbors while allowing for encroachment features (e.g., dormers, architectural elements, antennas), hillside parcels, and other specific conditions.

1 Section 27.04.143 (Daylight Plane) defines “daylight plane” as an “inclined plane, beginning at a stated height above grade and extending into the site at a stated upward angle to the horizontal, which may limit the height or horizontal extent of structures at any specific point on the site where the daylight plane is more restrictive than the height limit or the minimum yard applicable at such point on the site.

January 16, 2026 | Page 5
• Section 27.02.060 (Height Limitations and Exceptions) provides supplemental building height regulations and exceptions to maximum allowed height regulations for accessory features, such as parapet walls, elevator enclosures and mechanical equipment, for individual zoning districts, except for the R1 and R2 Districts. This Section includes exceptions to maximum height and bulk regulations for improvements or additions to existing nonconforming buildings. This Section also gives the Zoning Administrator authority to require applications to go through additional review by the Planning Commission for specific project features. • Chapter 27.40 (Building Height and Bulk) has a chapter title that presumably is applicable for building height regulations citywide. However, the regulations in the chapter only apply to the Downtown Specific Plan area.
• Section 27.04.080 (Building Height) defines the term “building height” in the SMMC as the following: The vertical distance, measured from existing grade at any point along the perimeter of a building, to the highest plateline of the structure directly above that point, regardless of whether that point is on the same plane as the building where it touches the ground. Different setback requirements as a result of different building heights shall be applied to different portions of the building. Setback requirements determined by building height may utilize the height of an intermediate plate height of the building plane that touches the ground where the building above that intermediate plate height is set back a distance equal to 25 percent of the width of the structure at that point from the building plane that meets the ground, as illustrated in the following figure:

January 16, 2026 | Page 6
General Plan’s Direction and Policies
The General Plan introduced four new land use designations (Residential Medium II, Residential High, Mixed-Use Medium II, Mixed-Use High) to allow for higher densities. The General Plan also provides the maximum number of stories, but not the corresponding maximum height measured in feet, that will be allowed for each of these four new land use designations. This was an intentional policy choice that was made in order to move specific height regulations out of the General Plan and into the Zoning Code.

The following lists these four new land use designations and their corresponding allowed density, height limits, and floor area ratio (FAR) regulations, where applicable:
• Residential Medium II: 51 – 99 units/acre | 4 – 6 stories | N/A • Residential High: 100 – 130 units/ acre | 5 – 8 stories | N/A • Mixed-Use Medium II: 51 – 99 units/acre | 4 – 6 stories | 4.0 • Mixed-Use High: 100 – 130 units/acre | 5 – 8 stories | 4.5 These General Plan height limits and densities are in effect, but the City does not have corresponding zoning districts or development standards that align with these higher heights and densities. To address this, the City will present four new high density districts to the Planning Commission and City Council to consider for adoption in the first half of 2026 to provide clarity to the higher densities and corresponding building height limits that are already in effect. These high density districts will be subsequently incorporated into the CZCU.

State Law Compliance
Senate Bill ( SB) 79 will become effective on July 1, 2026. This law requires all jurisdictions in eight counties, including San Mateo County, to approve qualified transit -oriented development (TOD) housing projects near certain major transit stops, effectively increasing allowable density in those areas.

Additionally, SB 79 sets specif ic density and height limits for projects that provide the required percentage of affordable housing units for lower -income households. The height limits range from 55 feet to 95 feet depending on one of two TOD stop types and the project distance from the stop. As part of the CZCU, the City will need to analyze the building height regulations in the Zoning Code to meet the requirements of SB 79. More information about SB 79 and how it applies to sites within the City of San Mateo can be viewed here: https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/4922/State-Legislation-Information- and-Resour.

Best Practice Options and Considerations
This section outlines best practices and key considerations drawn from City staff input, state guidance, and comparable jurisdictions. The Project Team reviewed best practices from comparable jurisdictions to ensure the updated regulations reflect current planning standards successfully applied in comparable

January 16, 2026 | Page 7
communities. These references help identify approaches that are clear, consistent, and adaptable to San Mateo’s goals and current built environment. The comparable jurisdictions referenced in this white paper include the cities of Costa Mesa, Milpitas, Sacramento, and Stockton, and Santa Clara County. • Costa Mesa was chosen because part of the code was recently updated and was seen as a good example by city staff.
• Milpitas was chosen because it was just comprehensively updated in 2025, the city has a similar built environment to San Mateo and is located nearby, and the code includes clear writing and consistent organization.
• Sacramento was chosen because it was seen as a good example by city staff and contains a detailed list of administrative and permit processes and procedures. • Stockton was chosen because it was just comprehensively updated in 2025, includes Clear and concise writing, the use regulations and development standards are clear and well-written, and there are detailed and easy-to-use site development and specific to use regulations. • Santa Clara County was chosen because it is located nearby, it contains clear writing and organization, and is w ell-organized by different residential district types (e.g., Rural, Urban Residential).

The following considerations will help inform how the San Mateo’s building height regulations are updated:
• The definition for “building height” should be clarified. The current definition both defines the term and also provides the rules of measurement for the standard. Other jurisdictions separate the definition of “building height” and then provide the rules of measurement in a different section of the Zoning Code. The definition would also benefit by being simplified to improve clarity for the reader . Specifically, building height is measured from the existing grade rather than from the lower of the existing or proposed grade, which could result in an actual building height that exceeds the height calculated under the code. Furthermore, building height is measured to the top of the roof plate, which might differ from the requirements adopted in many other jurisdictions.
• Most comparable jurisdictions reviewed include building height regulations that are measured in both feet and the number of stories. This practice is currently being utilized for the new high density districts and should continue to be implemented for all zoning districts in the CZCU.
• Building height regulations for nearly all zoning districts (not including the R1 and R2 Districts) reference the General Plan rather than directly including height limits in the Zoning Code.

However, all comparable jurisdictions align with standard zoning code practice by including height requirements directly in the zoning code rather than cross-referencing to the General Plan. This is convenient for users and mirrors other quantitative measurements provided in the City’s Zoning Code. Therefore, height regulations should directly be included in the Zoning Code. As noted above, General Plan 2040 supports this approach by not including any specific height limits, other than story ranges.

January 16, 2026 | Page 8
• As discussed in the “Brief Summary of Current Title 27 (Zoning) Regulations” section above, the maximum height in the R1 and R2 Districts are currently provided and measured by two separate standards: the maximum height of the walls, which is 24 feet, and the highest point of the roof, which is 32 feet. However, all comparable jurisdictions measure maximum height only in terms of the maximum height of the building itself, rather than by separate wall plate and roof heights. Based on this review, in San Mateo’s R1 and R2 Districts, the City may want to adopt an updated limit that is only measured in terms of the maximum height of the building. Additional height measurement regulations and exceptions may be provided within the definition of building height in the new definition chapter of the Zoning Code.

Additionally, further research will be conducted to determine and align the current maximum height of the R1 and R2 Districts with the maximum height provided in General Plan 2040.

Since General Plan 2040 provides maximum height in terms of the number of stories only, the maximum allowed height in terms of feet will need to be aligned with the maximum number of stories for the R1 and R2 Districts.
• The list of supplemental building height regulations and exceptions to maximum allowed height regulations for accessory features provided in Section 27.02.060 (Height Limitations and Exceptions) will need to be reviewed. As many other jurisdictions take a more balanced approach or establish explicit height limits for height exemptions, the City should determine if reconsidering the height exemption for mechanical systems is needed or consider setting up limitations on height exemptions for mechanical systems. The review could determine whether there are additional accessory rooftop and roofline features that should be incorporated into these regulations, such as rooftop telecommunication facilities. Additionally, this review will evaluate how height limitations and exceptions can support and facilitate high- quality architectural design. Furthermore, this Section will need to be further reviewed to determine if any specific exceptions should be adopted to allow rooftops to be utilized as common usable open spaces for residents of a development project. • The existing maximum allowed building heights are not high enough to accommodate the higher densities allowed in the current code for the R4, R5, R4-D, R5-D, and R6-D zoning districts. The maximum allowed building heights will need to be updated to align with the story ranges and required densities contained in General Plan 2040. • Additional research is needed to determine how to best address the current daylight plane regulations in the Zoning Code.

Measuring Building Height
As discussed above in the “High Density District Analysis” section, the Project Team drafted the updated regulations by establishing assumptions about building height standards based on a review of the current City’s regulations and industry best practices . The Project Team considered how to correlate building height measured in both feet and the number of stories for multi-family residential, mixed-use, and office project types in relation to the number of required floors for each General Plan land use designation.

January 16, 2026 | Page 9
For determining the height for all other zoning districts during the CZCU process, the Project Team is seeking additional input whether to continue with a similar or alternative approach to either simplify or be more exact when determining building height for a zoning district. Additional regulations the Project Team will add into the Zoning Code include, but are not limited to, flexibility for hillside and sloping sites and accommodations for rooftop features (e.g., mechanical equipment and parapets).

Potential Questions for Public Input
• What are the biggest challenges with the current building height regulations? o Maximum height is too low
o Maximum height is too high
o Inconsistent standards between zoning districts
o Confusion from General Plan references
o No challenges
o Other (please specify):
• Which of the following best reflects your top priority when determining building height limits? o Encouraging more housing options and affordability
o Supporting mixed-use and commercial development
o Preserving neighborhood character and existing scale
o Promoting sustainable, transit-oriented development
o Other (please specify):
• What types of building and property design features make taller buildings more appealing? (Please select all that apply.):
o Step-backs and varied rooflines
o High-quality materials and façades (ornamentation)
o Street trees and wide sidewalks
o Ground-floor commercial uses
o Visual changes between taller building elements
o None, I prefer lower heights regardless of design
• When interpreting a zoning code’s definition and measurement rules for “building height,” are there any particular challenges you frequently come across when submitting an application? If yes, what are those challenges from the definition and measurement rules? • In San Mateo’s current Zoning Code (Title 27 of the San Mateo Municipal Code), to measure a building's height, one must measure the vertical distance from the existing grade at any point

January 16, 2026 | Page 10
on a building's perimeter to the highest plateline1F
2 directly above that point. Which of the
following building height definitions/measurement methods would you recommend adopting in San Mateo’s zoning code update? And, should the measurement be taken from existing grade, finish grade, or whichever point is lower?
o Vertical distance from grade to the highest point on the roof, including roof-top mechanical equipment and screening.
o Vertical distance from grade measured as the average elevation at the front of the building, to the plateline where the roof meets the wall. o Vertical distance from grade to an imaginary plane that is the allowed distance above and parallel to the finished grade, or as provided by the California Building Standards Code.
o Vertical distance from grade to the top of a building or structure. On sloping lots, height is measured from a hypothetical surface representing the average grade. o Vertical distance from grade to the highest point on the roof above. For a sloped, gable, hipped, or gambrel roof, the measurement is taken to the midpoint between the highest point on the ridge and where the eave meets the wall. o Other (Please specify the jurisdiction and/or the definition):
• Are there examples in other cities that provide clear, easy-to-use, and feasible regulations for correlating building height in terms of feet and the number of stories?

2 In SMMC Section 27.04.386 (Plateline), the term “plateline” is defined as “the line established by the horizontal girder which supports the trusses or rafters of a roof.” In other words, a plateline is where a roof meets the exterior wall of a building.

MEMORANDUM
DATE January 9, 2026
TO City of San Mateo
FROM PlaceWorks
SUBJECT Key Issues White Paper – Commercial (C1, C2, C3, and C4) Zoning District Uses Introduction
The San Mateo Municipal Code (SMMC) includes four commercial zoning districts in Title 27 (Zoning) (i.e., the Zoning Code). The current commercial zoning districts incorporate a range of uses that are allowed to develop by right and uses that require a Special Use Permit (SUP), often requiring additional development and/or operating standards to permit a specific use on a parcel. The commercial zoning districts would benefit from a review of what uses are currently allowed in the districts, what specific additional regulations are required, and whether any uses should be added, revised, or removed in these zoning districts.

This white paper includes a review of the use regulations in the commercial zoning districts in the Zoning Code, directions and policies in the General Plan, recent state bills, best practice options and considerations, and questions that will be asked during public input.

City and Community Goals
The City is seeking to update the uses within the C1 District (Neighborhood Commercial), C2 and C3 Districts (Regional/Community Commercial), and C4 District (Service Commercial). 1 This update is intended to align with the current local -serving commercial retail and service uses and General Plan land uses, and address the economic needs and trends in San Mateo. The updated commercial districts will be developed to align with and implement the City’s 2026-2029 Economic Development Work Plan, which strives to build a more welcoming, adaptable, inclusive, and resilient business and visitor community in order to support community vibrancy and long-term fiscal stability. This can be achieved by incorporating appropriate categories and types of uses to allow for future commercial growth and change and incorporate administrative and procedural regulations that help streamline permitting and review processes. The City intends to clarify ambig uities in the existing Zoning Code, particularly the distinction between different terminologies used to refer to the following two general categories for commercial uses: (1) office -/employment-based commercial uses, and (2) retail, restaurant, personal

1 The downtown commercial uses are not being included in this white paper because they are governed by the Downtown Area Plan, which will be subject to a separate update process kicking off in 2026.

(@ PLACEWORKS
PLACEWORKS.COM • Orange County • Sacramento • Bay Area • Central Coast • Los Angeles • Inland Empire

January 9, 2026 | Page 2
services, and entertainment uses. Overlapping definitions and inconsistent terminology in a zoning code often leads to unintended consequences, such as permitting high -traffic retail uses in office corridors or creating parking shortages. Clarifying these distinctions will ensure that development standards are appropriately aligned with the specific scale and function of each use.

The City also wants to modernize the existing uses in these districts, improve the formatting of the Code, and address potentially controversial uses in commercial districts, such as service stations and on -site 24-hour convenience stores, by establishing buffer requirements and performance standards for specific uses to better serve residents and business owners. Issues raised previously by the community regarding these uses include allowing them to operate overnight, an d associated lighting, design aesthetics, and public safety concerns where these uses occur.

Overview of Key Issue Topic
In commercial zoning districts, adopting clearly defined uses is crucial for developing resident - and visitor-friendly areas for building the business and retail community. By designating specific types of commercial uses in a zoning code, such as retail s tores, service uses, restaurants, entertainment facilities, and offices, the City can shape the character of redeveloped and new commercial areas and foster economic development in San Mateo to align with goals and objectives of the Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040. Commercial use regulations should be forward-looking and flexible to accommodate the development of new and emerging uses, including, but not limited to, market halls, fitness activities, cloud kitchens (i.e., a commercial kitchen used only for takeout or delivery, food preparation , and/or cooking facilities), small entertainment venues, and other uses not yet envisioned but compatible with appropriate districts. They should also minimize conflicts between incompatible types of commercial uses (for example, auto service adjacent to pedestrian -oriented reta il) and integrate with the surrounding neighborhoods.

In addition to establishing a zoning district’s character, suitable use regulations can promote economic growth and create an environment that reflects community, business, and economic goals, objectives, and needs. The City can tailor commercial zones to focus specific types of businesses or industries in a defined area and citywide, leading to a diverse local economy. Furthermore, by requiring specific development standards and buffers based on the type of use, the City can design commercial areas to be compatible with both the surrounding environment and the community's vision.

Brief Summary of Current Title 27 (Zoning) Regulations
The current zoning regulations in the Zoning Code that address uses in the C1, C2, C3 and C4 Districts are summarized below:
• Chapter 27.30 (C1 Districts—Neighborhood Commercial):
o The C1 District is intended to maintain and enhance neighborhood shopping areas with standards to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential properties. ~ PLACEWORKS

January 9, 2026 | Page 3
Permitted uses are designed to include retail sales, limited office space, and personal services for the local area.
o The C1 District lists uses that are permitted and those that require a SUP. The permitted uses range from personal services (e.g., barber shops), small offices, retail stores, restaurants, affordable housing (i.e., low -barrier navigation centers) required by state law, and mixed-use developments (i.e., residential units above ground floors).

The uses that require a SUP range from automobile gasoline service stations, fast food establishments without drive-through facilities, parking facilities, community services (i.e., religious institutions), firearms dealers, and a range of residential uses (e.g., community care facilities, nursing homes, boarding houses, etc.). • Chapter 27.32 (C2 Districts – Regional/Community Commercial):
o The C2 District is intended to maintain and enhance major commercial centers accommodating a broad range of office, retail, and personal services of community - wide or regional significance.
o The C2 District lists uses that are permitted and those that require a SUP. The permitted uses include all permitted uses allowed in the C1 District, as well as additional uses such as offices, emergency shelters, hotels and motels, art and media uses (e.g. art galleries, publishing establishments), and retail and commercial services (e.g. automotive accessory stores, laundries, and catering services). The uses that require a SUP include all special uses permitted in the C1 Districts, such as automobile gasoline service stations, as well as additional uses such as clubs, hospitals, public transportation facilities and terminals, recreational vehicle storage, and theaters. • Chapter 27.34 (C3 Districts – Regional/Community Commercial):
o The C3 District is intended to maintain and enhance major commercial centers accommodating a broader range of office, retail, and personal services of community- wide or regional significance compared to the C2 District. o The C3 District lists uses that are permitted and those that require a SUP. The permitted uses include all permitted uses allowed in the C1 and C2 Districts, as well as additional uses such as ambulance service ; automobile, boat, and truck sales and rental; car wash and detailing facilities; and laboratories. The uses that require a SUP include all special uses permitted in the C1 and C2 Districts, such as automobile gasoline service stations, as well as additional uses such as restaurants with drive - through facilities and uses for public events (i.e., auditoriums, stadiums, arenas, armories, and gymnasiums).

~ PLACEWORKS

January 9, 2026 | Page 4
• Chapter 27.36 (C4 – Service Commercial):
o The C4 District is intended to create and maintain a broad range of citywide and regional service uses, including major automobile and truck repair, construction materials yards, and limited processing of materials.
o The C4 lists uses that are permitted and those that require a SUP. The permitted uses include all permitted uses allowed in the C1, C2, and C3 Districts, except for residential uses, including low -barrier navigation centers and emergency shelters. Office u ses located on properties located along Palm Avenue between Twentieth and Twenty-fifth Avenues are prohibited. The uses that require a SUP include all special uses permitted in the C1, C2, and C3 Districts (except residential uses), as well as additional uses such as fuel bulk stations and the storage of impounded motor vehicles on an open lot. • In addition to listing the uses in these four zoning districts, each chapter provides the development standards that projects are required to follow. The development standards provided include building height, floor area ratios, setbacks, buffers, and buil d-to-line requirements.

General Plan’s Direction and Policies
This section provides an overview of the General Plan 2040 goals, policies, and actions (GPAs) that will inform the updated uses that go into the Zoning Code’s commercial districts. The General Plan GPAs will help inform how to allow and develop the range of uses that will go into each of the updated districts. How the commercial districts are delineated will also support the City’s economic development goals.

A Diverse Range of Land Uses
To support San Mateo’s existing and future businesses and to maintain the City as a vibrant place to live, work, visit, and invest, it is essential to plan for a diverse mix of land uses that bolster the City’s commercial businesses and activities. By conc entrating commercial uses near transit and complementary types of land uses, the City’s commercial districts and neighborhoods can facilitate economic development, attractive commercial corridors, and retail areas where businesses can grow.

In addition, re sidents and visitors can conveniently access goods and services and cultural and entertainment activities.

Goal LU-3
Goal LU-3 in the General Plan’s Land Use Element was incorporated as a guiding principle for the City’s future economic activities and growth. Goal LU-3 states that the City will “provide a wide range of land uses, including housing, parks, open space, recreation, retail, commercial services, office, and industrial to adequately meet the full spectrum of needs in the community.” The Comprehensive Zoning Code ~ PLACEWORKS

January 9, 2026 | Page 5
Update (CZCU) is a core tool to implement this Goal by modifying the City’s existing land use regulations and determining how to regulate existing and new uses.

To implement Goal LU-3, the General Plan includes several policies to allow for a diverse range of land uses in San Mateo. Policies LU 3.3 through LU 3.8 collectively advance the General Plan’s goal of maintaining a diverse mix of land uses that strengthen San Mateo’s commercial districts and support vibrant, connected neighborhoods. Policies LU 3.3 (Neighborhood Commercial and Service Uses) and LU 3.4 (Neighborhood Commercial Preservation) focus on preserving and enhancing neighborhood - serving commercial areas by retaining local retail and service uses, particularly on the ground floor of new development, to ensure residents can conveniently access goods and services directly in their neighborhoods. Policy LU 3.5 (Support Service Uses) expands this vision by encouraging a broad range of service-oriented businesses, prioritizing their location in areas where they best support residential and commercial uses, including equity priority communities.

Policy LU 3.6 (Service Commercial/Light Industrial) reinforces the importance of service commercial and light industrial uses by preserving these areas for businesses that meet local needs and discouraging incompatible uses. Policies LU 3.7 (Hotels) and LU 3.8 (Visitor Economy) further diversify the commercial landscape by encouraging hotel development in commercial areas and allowing small hotels in mixed- use districts when they are consistent with the density of adjacent uses, and strengthening the visito r economy by encouraging and incentivizing a mix of entertainment, cultural, and retail activities that draw both residents and visitors.

Action LU 3.18 (Permitted Uses) provides a key implementation framework for these policies by directing the City to update and modernize the list of permitted uses and uses that require a special use permit in all commercial districts. Through the CZCU, this Action and the Policies above ensures that the City’s land use regulations remain aligned with evolving economic conditions and modern types of commercial uses.

A Sustainable Economy
San Mateo’s long-term fiscal health and overall livability depend on sustaining a diverse and resilient commercial economy supported by a strong tax base and reliable commercial retail and service uses.

As regional industries continue to attract jobs to the Peninsula, housing demand has outpaced supply, leading to increased costs and financial constraints that affect both residents and the local workforce that serves the City’s commercial industry.

Goal LU-11
Goal LU-11 was incorporated in General Plan 2040 as a guiding principle to create a more sustainable, resilient local economy in San Mateo. Goal LU-11 states that the City will “cultivate a diverse, thriving, inclusive, and green economy.”
The CZCU aims to strengthen and modernize uses in the City’s Commercial Districts to leverage the regional job market to create quality jobs, support the growth of local businesses, and ensure that workers at all income levels can live closer to employment centers. The CZCU plays a key role in creating ~ PLACEWORKS

January 9, 2026 | Page 6
a thriving, adaptable commercial environment that supports businesses, increases access to goods and services, and contributes to the City’s economic future.

The CZCU will advance Goal LU -11 by aligning the City’s commercial district regulations with policies that strengthen, diversify, and stabilize San Mateo’s economic base. By modernizing permitted uses, clarifying development standards, and supporting the r etention and growth of local businesses, the CZCU will help address Policies LU 11.1 (Economic Development) and LU 11.4 (Diverse Economic Base) by creating an environment where a broad mix of commercial, service, and employment -generating uses can be located. These changes will also promote a better jobs -to-housing relationship consistent with Policy LU 11.5 (Jobs to Housing Balance) by allowing a wider range of commercial activities in locations accessible to residential neighborhoods, reducing commuting distances, and supporting local employment opportunities.

Action LU 11.10 (Small Business Support) calls for reducing regulatory barriers, updating outdated use definitions, and improving the clarity and usability of the Zoning Code, which in effect can help small businesses better navigate requirements, avoid displacement, and expand operations. Additionally, streamlined permitting and clearer regulations will support implementation of Action LU 11.11 (Commercial Displacement) by helping allow businesses to continue operating during redevelopment and by encouraging the return of displaced businesses to new or renovated commercial spaces.

Together, these policies and actions reinforce the General Plan’s commitment to a resilient lo cal economy.

The CZCU will also implement Policy LU 12.1 (Revenue Generators) by supporting land uses that diversify tax revenue sources and by aligning commercial regulations with the City’s broader efforts to sustain essential public services. Through the CZCU, San Mateo can better retain a strong mix of local- serving and regionally oriented businesses, respond to economic trends, and develop diverse types of commercial uses that advances the City’s economic development and sustainability goals.

Shopping Areas in Transition and Environmental Justice
As San Mateo’s commercial areas continue to adapt to changing market conditions, community needs, and long -term land use goals, the CZCU provides an opportunity to implement regulations that strengthen neighborhood -serving uses, promote equitable access to services, and guide the redevelopment of key shopping areas.

GOAL LU-7 establishes the City’s commitment to supporting the transition of existing shopping areas into vibrant, mixed -use districts that provide a range of housing, shopping, services, jobs, and community amenities. Consistent with Policy LU 7.1 (Shopping Areas in Transition), the CZCU will help guide the redevelopment of older commercial centers and corridors by allowing higher-density, mixed- use redevelopment that integrates restaurants, services, diverse commercial uses, housing, and open space while continuing to preserve essential neighborhood-serving uses.

GOAL LU-8 emphasizes promoting equitable health opportunities across all San Mateo neighborhoods, especially in equity priority communities. In line with Policy LU 8.14 (Retail Food Sources), the CZCU will ~ PLACEWORKS

January 9, 2026 | Page 7
support efforts to retain and expand access to affordable, healthy food options, including grocery stores, specialty food markets, farmers markets, community gardens, and convenience stores offering fresh food to areas with the most need. By updating the existing use definitions, broadening permitted food-related uses, and reducing regulatory barriers in commercial districts, the CZCU will support attracting a diverse range of food options in San Mateo.

State Law Compliance
There are no recent state laws related to uses regulated in commercial zoning districts that need to be addressed in the CZCU.

Best Practice Options and Considerations
This section outlines best practices and key considerations drawn from City staff input, state guidance, and comparable jurisdictions. The Project Team reviewed best practices from comparable jurisdictions to ensure the updated regulations reflect current planning standards successfully applied in comparable communities. These references help identify approaches that are clear, consistent, and adaptab le to San Mateo’s goals and current built environment. The comparable jurisdictions referenced in the white paper include the cities of Milpitas and Stockton. The following considerations will help inform updates to the C1, C2, C3, and C4 Districts use regulations:
• The list of permitted uses and uses that required a SUP in the C1, C2, C3, and C4 Districts would benefit from being modernized. For example, these four Districts include a use called “printing, lithographing, or publishing establishments for newspaper and business cards,” which is an overly specific use name. Instead, this use can be consolidated within a broader category with similar uses and impacts. Per Policy LU 3.3, Neighborhood Commercial and Service Uses, Action LU 3.18, Permitted Uses, and Policy LU 11.1, Economic Development, the City will evaluate all permitted uses and uses that require a SUP in these Districts while also retaining and modernizing local-serving retail and service use types. • The lists of permitted and special uses would benefit from being consolidated and reorganized into a comprehensive, user -friendly use table organized with broader use categories (e.g., Residential, Commercial, Vehicle-Related, Industrial, etc.). Many existing uses are outdated and difficult to navigate in these four Districts (as well as the rest of the SMMC) because they are presented as individual sections rather than grouped in a table. Additionally, several uses include supplemental regulations that wou ld be more effectively presented as either (1) reference notes within a use table , or (2) moved and organized as their own section of the Zoning Code in a “Specific to Use” chapter, instead of being listed as text in separate subsections.
• The current organization of uses in the commercial district chapters follows a cumulative structure, where each successive district includes all uses permitted in the previous one (i.e., ~ PLACEWORKS

January 9, 2026 | Page 8
the C2 District includes all C1 uses, the C3 District includes all C1 and C2 uses, and the C4 District includes all C1, C2, and C3 uses). Replacing this structure with a modern, comprehensive use table would align the SMMC with best practices, improve clarity, and reduce confusion. A new approach would also better distinguish the permitted uses and development standards unique to each district and could, through more intentional selection of uses, better achieve the intent of each of the General Plan’s distinctive use classifications. This update is especially important given the City’s current challenges interpreting parking regulations in the C3 District, which is intended for larger-scale, auto-oriented commercial uses but also allows neighborhood-serving uses typical of the C1 District.
• The CZCU will adopt provisions to regulate potentially controversial or impactful uses, such as service stations, 24 -hour convenience stores, fast -food restaurants, and drive -through establishments. For example, the CZCU will distinguish when these uses are permitted by right versus when they require a conditional use permit (the anticipated new term for SUPs), which will vary where and how the use is allowed based on the purpose of the specific zoning district.

The CZCU will also include a chapter dedicate d to providing development and operational requirements specific to uses deemed potentially controversial or impactful. Specific regulations for these potentially controversial or impactful uses will include, but not be limited to, distance requirements to other uses, hours of operation requirements, and site maintenance regulations. These changes support maintaining vibrant and compatible commercial areas consistent with Policy LU 3.4, Neighborhood Commercial Preservation, Policy LU 3.6, Service Commercial/Light Industrial, and Policy LU 12.1, Revenue Generators. • As discussed in the previous note, the CZCU will include development and operational requirements for uses that may be deemed potentially controversial or impactful, such as service stations. Given the shift away from fossil fuels and toward electric vehicles, the Project Team will research comparable jurisdictions and best practices for allowing and regulating service stations for non -gas-fueled vehicles. The Project Team will review different types of service stations to allow, such as those for electric vehicles, and consider allowing revenue - generating ancillary uses on the same sites, such as convenience markets and vehicle washing.

The Project Team will also assess how to shift away from ancillary uses at service stations that may be more similar to industrial uses, such as vehicle repair. Additionally, the Project Team will assess development and operational requirements for drive-through establishments given the changing landscape of how these facilities function with online ordering and mobile pick - up options (e.g., Uber Eats and DoorDash). This assessment will consider factors such as site circulation and queuing, pedestrian safety, impacts to adjacent uses, and noise levels. The Project Team will also review comparable jurisdictions and emerging best practices for regulating drive -through operations to ensure that standards align with evolving business models, new technologies, and community goals.
• As part of the CZCU, the City is aiming to support and incentivize grocery stores and other key neighborhood-serving commercial uses. To address this goal of supporting and incentivizing ~ PLACEWORKS

January 9, 2026 | Page 9
other key neighborhood-serving commercial uses, the City will consider adopting the following provisions in the CZCU:
o Modernize the purpose statement sections of the commercial districts, except for Service Commercial, to address the City’s stated goals; o Allow uses by right in appropriate commercial zoning districts to reduce barriers to receiving entitlements;
o Modify development standards (e.g., setbacks and height limits) and design standards (e.g., landscaping and shading) to increase the feasibility of project development; o Allow for ministerial or expedited review processes for qualifying grocery stores and small markets;
o Update use definitions to be flexible and incorporate a wide range of modern types of grocery stores (e.g., small markets and food cooperatives); and/or o Provide incentives to encourage grocery stores in large mixed-use developments. The Project Team will research what types of incentives may be offered to developers to increase the number of food store options in San Mateo. • As part of the CZCU, the City is aiming to support and incentivize the development of hotel and lodging uses, which are critical to the City’s regional and visitor economy and an important revenue source. To address this goal, the City will consider adopting the following provisions in the CZCU, which advances Policy LU 3.7, Hotel , and Policy LU 3.8, Visitor Economy , by facilitating new hotel development and reinforcing the visitor economy:
o Modernize the purpose statement for applicable commercial districts to reflect the City’s economic development and tourism objectives;
o Consider a lodging/hospitality overlay that allows hotel and lodging uses by right in appropriate commercial zoning districts and/or areas of the City to reduce barriers to receiving entitlements;
o Modify development standards (e.g., setbacks and height limits) to increase the feasibility of new hotel development and reinvestment in existing lodging options; o Establish ministerial or expedited review processes for qualifying hotel projects to shorten approval timelines;
o Update use definitions to be flexible and incorporate a broad range of modern lodging uses (e.g., boutique hotels and extended-stay accommodations); and/or o Provide incentives within large mixed -use developments or opportunity areas to encourage the inclusion of hotels and a range of lodging options in project developments.
~ PLACEWORKS

January 9, 2026 | Page 10
• While the new commercial zoning districts will allow a range of modern, frequently utilized, and revenue-generating uses, the allowed uses will be compared for consistency with the goals of the Economic Development Work Plan, such as expanding and diversif ying the City’s tax revenue sources, enhancing entertainment and cultural opportunities, and supporting and increasing employment training opportunities, which are efforts aligned with Policy LU 3.5, Support Service Uses, and Policy LU 3.8, Visitor Economy. • As part of the CZCU, the City will research the distinctions between office - and employment- based uses, and retail, restaurant, personal services, and entertainment uses in the existing Code, and review how comparable jurisdictions address this distinction in their use definitions and development and operational standards. The CZCU will ensure that regulations are clear and applied consistently to the appropriate allowed uses across commercial districts, and that development standards are appropriately aligned with the specific scale and function of each use.

Potential Questions for Public Input
• For uses such as fast-food restaurants, drive-through establishments, service stations, and convenience stores, how should the City approach where these uses are allowed? (Select all that apply.):
o Allow them in all of the commercial districts
o Allow them only in regional commercial areas
o Require a conditional use permit
o Require a revokable administrative permit with performance standards o Prohibit them entirely
o Other (Please specify.):
• What types of commercial retail and service uses should be prioritized to be preserved to better serve San Mateo’s neighborhoods?
• What types of commercial uses should be allowed in San Mateo that might help the City’s local economy?
• What are the biggest challenges you experience when using San Mateo’s Zoning Code for commercial development projects?
• How could the City improve the permitting process for new or innovative commercial projects that meet established City objectives?
• What type of incentives should the City offer to encourage desired uses like grocery stores and hotels?
~ PLACEWORKS

MEMORANDUM
DATE January 22, 2026
TO City of San Mateo
FROM PlaceWorks
SUBJECT Key Issues White Paper – Single-Family Residential Regulations Introduction
Single-family, low-density residential districts are evolving to meet the changing needs of Bay Area households. Today, more residents are working from home, families experiencing housing affordability constraints are more likely to include multiple generations living under one roof, and more older adults are choosing to age in place. To address these changes, California has introduced an increasing number of new housing legislation that aims to support the evolving needs of residents and address statewide housing shortages. Some of these laws aim to increase housing opportunities in single-family residential districts, including measures like Senate Bill (SB) 9, SB 1123, and more flexible accessory dwelling units (ADUs) regulation.

The regulations for the Single -Family Residential (R1) District are found in Chapter 27.18 in the City’s Zoning Code in Title 27 of the San Mateo Municipal Code (SMMC). This chapter, which has not been comprehensively updated since 1992, aims to create, pr eserve, and enhance single-family areas with larger yard areas. To comply with state law (SB 9), the City adopted Chapter 27.21 in 2022, creating a Two-Unit Development Residential Overlay District for R1 zones. This overlay provides specific regulations for two-unit developments and urban lot splits. The upcoming Comprehensive Zoning Code Update (CZCU) will update the R1 District (Chapter 27.18) to reflect recent best practices and state law, while retaining the existing SB 9 overlay district, which is currently consistent with State law.

This white paper includes a review of the existing single-family residential (SFR) regulations in the Zoning Code, directions and policies in the General Plan, recent state bills, best practice options and considerations, and questions to help facilitate public input on this topic.

City and Community Goals
The City has several goals for updating the current SFR regulations, including complying with recent state housing laws, converting subjective design guidelines into transparent and objective standards in the code and accompanying Objective Design Standard s, simplifying development standards, and streamlining the approval process. Building a single -family home should be a clear and relatively easy

January 22, 2026 | Page 2
process for someone unfamiliar with development who may only ever build or remodel a home once in their life. The City is seeking feedback on ways to simplify this process for property owners and provide flexibility to meet the needs of the City’s diverse housing types and households, while ensuring new homes fit in with their neighbors. As part of this effort, the City is assessing parking regulations to determine the right requirements for single-family properties, studying similar cities to understand how they have made it easier to build and adapt homes, and learning from the public about what they want when it comes to site design, public noticing, special cases and exceptions, and how to treat special uses and neighborhood-serving commercial uses.

Overview of Key Issue Topic
As a result of recent state laws and regulations, jurisdictions must comply with statewide housing legislation which focuses on reducing constraints for housing development across different zoning districts and streamlining review of housing. Jurisdictions are required to comply with state housing law, which is implemented through local Zoning Codes. Single-family residential (SFR) regulations that are clear and well- designed are important for building context -sensitive neighborhoods and providing diverse housing types.

Adopting Zoning Code regulations based on the current environment and future community goals can lead to the development of new housing opportunities while being designed to blend in with the visual and social fabric of existing neighborhoods. Incorporatin g development standards, such as building height, setbacks, and lot sizes, that are sensitive to the existing community can help ensure new housing is compatible with the surrounding environment. At the same time, adopting development standards that reflect recent state laws provides property owners opportunities to develop a greater variety of housing types on their own lots to increase the housing supply for family, caregivers, and individuals seeking rental opportunities.

In addition to the development standards in SFR neighborhoods, adopting clear and appropriate administration and procedural requirements for the Planning Application review process helps streamline the approval process for owners seeking additions, remodels and/or new construction.

When the process for developing single -family homes is clear and easy -to-use, the cost of projects typically decreases and projects are approved faster, benefiting the property owners, residents, and the City alike as this can support increased homeowner investment in their neighborhoods. Well- written SFR regulations ensure compliance with state law requirements, promote community growth, and help provide a framework to streamline development while aligning with neighborhood priorities.

Brief Summary of Current Title 27 (Zoning) Regulations
In the current Zoning Code, Chapter 27.18 (R1 Districts – One Family Dwellings) establishes regulations for SFR development within the R1 District. Chapter 27.18 outlines the purpose of this District, permitted and special uses, and development standard regulations. The Chapter provides standards for

January 22, 2026 | Page 3
SFR development including, but not limited to, building height and daylight plane, parcel size standards, floor area ratio, and setbacks and exceptions to setbacks (i.e., encroachments).

This Chapter also contains the following development regulations unique to the City’s Zoning Code for SFR projects, organized under the following sections:
• Section 27.18.035 (Substantial Removal of Existing Residence): This Section states that a Special Use Permit is required for the substantial removal of an existing residence without a change in use. This Section also outlines related requirements and exemptions. • Section 27.18.115 (San Mateo Park Planning Area): This Section provides setback regulations for the San Mateo Park Planning Area, which requires new residential products to be built at a deeper setback than allowed in other areas of San Mateo.

The City also adopted the “Single-Family Dwelling Design Guidelines” in 2001, which were most recently revised in 2006. While these guidelines are required to apply to SFR projects through the Single-Family Dwelling Design Review (SFDDR) process per Sectio n 27.08.032(b)(1), they exist as a standalone document that has not been codified in the SMMC. Because the guidelines are not written as objective design standards, often as considerations or suggestions rather than firm requirements, they can be difficult to interpret and enforce objectively, which may lead to inconsistencies in how requirements are applied to different projects.

General Plan’s Direction and Policies
This section provides the General Plan 2040 policies and action that will be considered and taken into account when drafting the updated SFR regulations in the SMMC.

Policy LU 3.1 - Housing Diversity
Policy LU 3.1, Housing Diversity, directs the City to “promote safe, attractive, and walkable residential neighborhoods with diverse types and sizes of homes for individuals, families, and households of all income levels.”
To address this policy, the CZCU will establish clear and objective development and design standards for housing projects for a variety of types and sizes, to meet the needs of households of all income levels in San Mateo. Additionally, the City will review and revise the permitted housing types to encourage innovative and flexible housing opportunities.

Policy CD 7.1 - Low-Density Residential Development
Policy CD 7.1, Low Density Residential Development, directs the City to require new homes in the Low- and Very Low -Density residential zoning district (i.e., single -family dwellings, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and ADUs) to be consistent with the obje ctive design standards outlined in the City’s Residential Design Standards.

January 22, 2026 | Page 4
To address this policy, since these design guidelines are overall subjective in nature, the City will need to adopt new objective design standards for single- family development in San Mateo. However, the adoption of these new standards will occur after the completion of the CZCU. Until the new regulations are adopted, the City will maintain the current practice of referencing and applying the existing design guidelines document.

Policy CD 7.2 - Single-Family Design
Policy CD 7.2, Single Family Design, directs the City to “encourage single -family additions and new dwellings that address the preservation and enhancement of neighborhood visual and architectural character through context -sensitive building scale, materials, architectural style and details, and privacy.”
To address this policy, the CZCU will include clear and balanced development and design standards for SFR projects that consider the various neighborhood contexts of San Mateo. While these standards will consider the City’s existing architectural design, they will also recognize that high-quality, context - sensitive design does not always equate to maintaining the existing architectural style of a neighborhood. In some San Mateo neighborhoods, such as those with primarily post-war ranch homes, a variety of architectural styles may resu lt in a better neighborhood design. In others, deviation from more traditional architectural styles could be accomplished by using modern materials and incorporating similar proportions and roof forms. Together, the CZCU will support both cohesive and diverse architectural design styles to ensure flexibility for innovative design styles when determining the development and design regulations for SFR districts. As discussed above in Policy CD 7.1, while there will be some design standards in the Zoning Code, single-family design will primarily be addressed through the development of objective design standards, which is planned to happen after the adoption of the CZCU.

State Law Compliance
SB 9 (Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021) requires jurisdictions to ministerially approve either up to two primary dwelling units on a parcel in a single -family zone (i.e., two -unit housing developments), the subdivision of a single parcel into two parcels (i.e., urban lot splits), or both. In 2022, the City adopted a new Two-Unit Development Residential Overlay District (Chapter 27.21). Since this Chapter has been recently updated, the CZCU process will not be updating the City’s SB 9 regulations.

SB 1123 (Chapter 294, Statutes of 2024) expands upon SB 684 (2023) to further streamline the development of small-scale infill housing projects in SFR zones. SB 684 streamlined approvals for infill developments of up to 10 homes on vacant lots in multi-family residential districts. SB 1123 extends the provisions of SB 684 to allow construction of up to 10 homes on qualifying single -family parcels near commercial zones, schools, transit, and other amenities. The CZCU will assess how other jurisdictions have incorporated regulations to address SB 1123 and determine how to best apply these new regulations in the CZCU.

January 22, 2026 | Page 5
Additionally, the City’s current parking requirements for SFR uses need to be further reviewed and updated in accordance with recent state legislation. This includes Assembly Bill (AB) 2097 (2022), which generally restricts jurisdictions from imposing minimum parking requirements for residential, commercial, and certain other development types within one-half mile of a major transit stop.

Best Practice Options and Considerations
This section outlines best practices and key considerations drawn from City staff input, state guidance, and comparable jurisdictions. The Project Team reviewed best practices from comparable jurisdictions to ensure the updated regulations reflect current planning standards successfully applied in comparable communities. These references help identify approaches that are clear, consiste nt, and adaptable to San Mateo’s goals and current built environment. The comparable jurisdictions referenced in this white paper include the cities of Milpitas, Sacramento, and Stockton. • Milpitas was chosen because it was just comprehensively updated in 2025, the city has a similar built environment to San Mateo and is located nearby, and the code includes clear writing and consistent organization.
• Sacramento was chosen because it was seen as a good example by city staff and contains a detailed list of administrative and permit processes and procedures. • Stockton was chosen because it was just comprehensively updated in 2025, the use regulations and development standards are clear and well-written, and there are detailed and easy-to-use site development and specific to use regulations.

The following considerations will help inform how to update the City’s SFR regulations:
• As discussed in the “Brief Summary of Current Title 27 (Zoning) Regulations” above, Section

27.18.035 (Substantial Removal of Existing Residence) states that a Special Use Permit is required for the substantial removal of a residence that does not change the use of the structure. However, if the City decides to retain the Single Family Dwelling Design Review (SFDDR) process, substantial removals and remodel should be identified as a rebuild or a new single-family residence to establish a clear expectation for which project is subject to the process. The CZCU will also evaluate whether to remove planning application level review for substantial removal of walls or roofs if no second-story addition is proposed because single- story detached residences on stand-alone lots typically generate little, if any, controversy, particularly when designed in compliance with the current design guidelines and forthcoming objective design standards. Additionally, if an existing residence does not currently comply with all development standards, the CZCU process will clarify if substantial removal of a residence requires the proposed building to fully conform to all current development standards (i.e., if the existing building is non-conforming to any development standards) or if a substantial removal shall require an applicant to rebuild the subject development. • The current Zoning Code outlines identical requirements of limits on front paving setback areas in Sections 27.18.070(d) (Front Yard) and 27.18.080(b)(4) (Side Yards). The CZCU process will determine how to combine these regulations under one section to be written more

January 22, 2026 | Page 6
clearly and reflect how comparable jurisdictions organize similar regulations. Additionally, these sections do not provide specific landscaping and vegetation requirements within heavily paved areas. The CZCU will establish requirements that set a maximum amount of impervious surface allowed in front yards that applies equally to walkways and driveways. It will also consider setting a minimum amount of impervious surface needed to access garages and building entrances, particularly on narrow lots where access is challenging. This approach would give residents flexibility in how they allocate their allowed impervious surface allotment. Furthermore, it would specifically support senior residents by providing additional paved area to address walking and accessibility concerns, such as connecting ramps into existing homes. In addition, the CZCU will evaluate options for accommodating additional off- street parking on paved areas in situations where AB 2097 limits parking requirements and when garages are converted to ADUs or JADUs.
• Section 27.18.080 (Side Yards) and Section 27.18.070(b) (Garage Setback) require a minimum of a 20-foot setback for garages on street side yards and front yards. The CZCU process will evaluate if this requirement should be retained. Some other jurisdictions, such as the City of Milpitas and the City of Sacramento, do not provide additional requirements for setbacks or garages on street side yards and front yards, while the City of Stockton does also require a minimum of 20-foot setback.
• The City will consider if projects proposing extensions of walls within nonconforming side yards should still follow the Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR) process as required in Section 27.18.080(c)(4). Although comparable jurisdictions also require a site plan and architectural review process for the extensions or expansions of nonconforming features in SFR zoning districts, the SMMC also includes the SFDDR process. The SFDDR should be evaluated to determine if this process is a better option for SFR projects with proposed extensions of nonconforming walls within side yards.
• The CZCU will determine how to update the parking requirements in Section 27.18.110 (Off- Street Parking) related to single-family development. For example, allowing tandem parking for SFR developments, making covered parking requirements more flexible, assessing the number of parking stalls required for larger homes, and looking at ways to incentivize off- street parking in areas where parking requirements cannot be enforced. • The CZCU will review all single-family setback requirements (front, side and rear) to assess how San Mateo’s requirements compare with other similar jurisdictions and if any changes or updates are warranted.
• To support General Plan Policy CD 7.2, Single-Family Design, the City will be looking at a future effort to convert the single-family design guidelines into objective design standards (ODS). For the most part, the Zoning Code will not include architectural design standards; however, the Code does have the ability to support design objectives, and to that extent, the CZCU will be assessing opportunities for appropriate inclusion of requirements to support single-family design goals.
• The SMMC does not currently have provisions that address requirements for double frontage or through lots. Comparable jurisdictions such as the City of Milpitas and the City of Stockton

January 22, 2026 | Page 7
include a description of front lot lines for through lots in the definitions section. The CZCU will adopt a similar approach to incorporate the definition for double frontage or through lots. • The SMMC currently provides very limited regulations that address irregularly shaped lots.

Chapter 27.21 (Two-Unit Development Residential Overlay District – R1 Districts), which provides the City’s regulations to comply with SB 9 requiring jurisdictions to allow two-unit developments and urban lot splits in low-density residential districts, includes a definition for flag or panhandle lots (Section 27.21.020(f)) and incorporates minimum width requirements for access strips or easements for flag lots and landlocked parcels created through urban lot splits. Except for these regulations, the SMMC does not include standards that address irregularly shaped lots for the purposes of ensuring consistent and compatible development patterns, preserving the existing building configurations, and avoiding access issues as a result of atypical lot shapes. Comparable jurisdictions such as the City of Milpitas and the City of Stockton allow the Director to determine lot depth, width, and setbacks for irregularly shaped lots in the definitions or Rules of Measurement sections. The CZCU will take a similar approach to incorporate regulations for irregularly shaped lots. • Small lots that do not meet current minimum lot requirements in the SMMC can pose challenges for development potential, nonconforming status, and consistency with existing neighborhood context. To address this issue, the CZCU will further research pathways to accommodate those parcels.
• The permitted and special uses in the R1 District contain outdated use names (e.g., sanitariums) and regulations that apply to specific types of uses, such as the regulations for cemeteries, mausoleums, and columbaria (Section 27.18.120). The CZCU will add categories of uses (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial) to organize permitted and special uses to be easier to apply, reflect current practices, comply with state law, and provide regulations for specific uses allowed in that may benefit from additional development and operational standards.
• The City has extensive noticing requirements which exceed state requirements and those of other comparable jurisdictions around the Bay Area. Redwood City follows state requirements (see the “State Law Compliance” section of the Public Noticing white paper for details on recent legislative changes) with the exception of additional requirements for the Downtown Specific Plan. Sunnyvale sends out notices to property owners with 300 feet. By comparison the City of San Mateo requires notice to property owners and tenants within a radius of up to 500 feet from the project site. There is a significant cost to the distribution of these notices, which limits residents’ ability to invest in their homes and neighborhoods. The CZCU will assess and recommend updates to the City’s notification requirements, in particular for single-family projects, to reduce cost burdens and better align with best practices while being mindful of community outreach expectations.

January 22, 2026 | Page 8
Potential Questions for Public Input
• How should the City manage garage setbacks (the required distance between a garage and the property line) for front and exterior side yards in single-family residential areas? (Select all that apply.):
o Maintain the current setback requirements
o Decrease the required setbacks for garages
o Allow reductions for specific cases (e.g., narrow lots, alley access, design compatibility)
o Not sure/ No opinion
o Other (Please specify.):
• How should the fence height requirements for single-family properties be updated? (Select all that apply.)
o Maintain existing fence height limits
o Allow taller fences in side or rear yards
o Allow greater fence height along street frontages with design standards o Require setbacks or landscaping for taller fences
o Allow reductions for specific cases (e.g., narrow lots, alley access, design compatibility)
o Other (Please specify.):
• What types of single-family projects should the City continue to require public noticing for? (Select all that apply.):
o New one-story single-family residence
o Existing residence alteration with a Special Use Permit o Second story addition of 200 square feet floor area or greater to a single-family residence, if it is not a substantial removal of existing residence o New two-story single-family residence or existing residence alteration with a Special Use Permit
o Alteration, addition, or demolition of a single-family residence designated as historic resource, eligible for historic designation, or located in historic districts o All of the above
o None of the above
• When a single-family home project requires a public notice, how far from the property line should the City and applicants be required to notify neighbors?:
o Adjacent properties only

January 22, 2026 | Page 9
o Properties within 100 feet
o Properties within 200 feet
o Properties within 300 feet
o Not sure/ No opinion
o Other (Please specify.):
• Which of the following design features or architectural elements best reflect the character of San Mateo’s single-family neighborhoods?:
o Varied rooflines and building heights
o Front porches or covered entryways
o Use of natural materials (e.g., wood, stone, stucco)
o Well-landscaped front yards
o Detached garages or driveways with landscaped setbacks o Large front or bay windows
o Other (Please specify.)
• Which of the following design standards should the City adopt, if any, to regulate the visibility of garage doors along the street frontage? (Select all that apply.):
o Require the garage door to be setback a minimum distance from the front of the house
o Limit the percent of the front facade that a garage door can occupy o Limit the width and height of the garage door
o Require the use of similar materials and architectural detail of the primary dwelling o Require the garage to be accessed from a side street or alley when possible o Other (Please specify.):
• Would you like to see neighborhood-oriented, small-scale commercial uses (such as cafés or small markets) allowed in single-family residential areas? o Yes, they would make neighborhoods more walkable and convenient o Maybe, but it depends on the type of commercial use and/or only if carefully designed and limited in size and hours
o No, single-family areas should remain strictly residential o Not sure / No opinion
• Should tandem parking (where one car parks directly behind another in a driveway or garage) be allowed in single-family residential developments?
o Yes, tandem parking provides flexibility and helps reduce driveway widths o Maybe, but only for certain lot sizes or situations

January 22, 2026 | Page 10
o No, it’s inconvenient and can block access for residents of the property o Not sure / No opinion
• What types of exceptions to the required setbacks are acceptable? For instance, do you think a neighbor should be allowed to build a deck, balcony, trellis/arbor, or outdoor kitchen in a required side yard? Should a neighbor be able to install a greenhouse window or bay window projecting into the yard and by how much?
• What SFR requirements do you think are most important to maintain? Are there any requirements that you think should be changed or removed?

MEMORANDUM
DATE January 22, 2026
TO City of San Mateo
FROM PlaceWorks
SUBJECT Key Issues White Paper – Public Noticing
Introduction
Following adoption of Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040, the City of San Mateo started the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update (CZCU) project to implement and achieve consistency with the General Plan. As part of the CZCU, the administrative and procedural r equirements of the San Mateo Municipal Code (SMMC) will be updated to comply with recent state laws and best practices for facilitating equitable community engagement, which is a General Plan priority. Appropriate public noticing periods are vital for the administration and procedural regulations in zoning codes. It is also vital that community members understand the ways in which they may be able to participate in the development review process and provide input on a proposal before it is approved, as well as what understand the authority the City has to approve, deny, or regulate a project. The CZCU offers an opportunity to update the City’s public noticing requirements to clarify and right -size community engagement and public input from residents and stakeholders so expectations surrounding this part of the application process are clear from the earliest stages of project initiation. It will also include application process requirements that can assist applicants in streamlining the application process and increase their ability to receive project approval in a timely manner.

This white paper includes a review of the existing public noticing requirements in the zoning code, directions and policies in the General Plan, the current related zoning code provisions, two recent state bills related to public noticing requirements, bes t practice options and considerations, and questions that will be asked for the public to provide input.

City and Community Goals
The City’s current public noticing requirements for projects are more extensive than many nearby comparable jurisdictions, especially when it comes to single -family projects. The CZCU provides an opportunity to assess how best to provide the community with opportunities for public input and feedback in advance of new development and major policy decisions while managing expectations about how that input can be used to shape outcomes. Another objective is to find an appropriate balance that keeps residents well-informed about proposed development projects in compliance with

January 22, 2026 | Page 2
state law and consistent with the General Plan while also not adding excessive time delays and costs to projects. With evolving and changing forms of communication, the City is also seeking to update the methods used to provide effective public notification and community engagement.

Overview of Key Issue Topic
In zoning codes, public noticing requirements ensure that residents are able to learn about and provide input on new projects and policies, make the community aware of public meetings and hearings, and ensure that the City meets legal requirements under st ate law. Properly notifying the public of upcoming public meetings and involving all relevant stakeholders early in the application review process keeps the public informed on changes happening in the community, provides applicants the opportunity to explain their proposed projects to residents and stakeholders, and allows residents and stakeholders to share feedback with applicants and decisionmakers. California law also includes several requirements that jurisdictions and property owners must adhere to fo r public noticing procedures, such as project timelines, distribution methods, and specific content required to be included in public notices.

Local agencies have the option to exceed minimum legal public noticing requirements in an effort to broaden and deepen community engagement. However, in some cases, particularly regarding applications for housing developments, state law limits local agencies in what community engagement they can require of an applicant, as well as in what discretion the local agency has to regulate a project.

In practice, the additional local efforts beyond the minimum legal requirements often are implemented by using multiple methods for outreach, hosting public workshops and study sessions, and distributing informational materials to residents and stakeholders. By understanding the preferred options for how residents and stakeholders receive notices of what type of events and occurrences happening in San Mateo, the zoning code can be tailored to adopt public noticing requirements and procedures that inform residents and stakeholders about the development projects happening citywide.

Brief Summary of Current Title 27 (Zoning) Regulations
The City follows specific procedures to notify residents about proposed projects. These procedures are outlined in Section 27.08.050 (Notice of Application) and other sections in the SMMC. Section 27.08.050 (Notice of Application) includes the required methods for distributing public notices, radius for distribution, content required for inclusion in the notice, notice period requirements, and other public notice requirements. Additionally, this Section provides brief guidelines on what happens if the City fails to give notice in accordance with this Section and if public notice is not received by someone within the proposed project distribution radius.

While the Section provides several public notice requirements for public hearings, the Zoning Code lacks specific guidelines for public meetings (e.g., Neighborhood Meetings). Furthermore, the Section does not define noticing radii for different types of applications or provide other regulations that would be beneficial to support applicants and the community. These requirements have been adopted by the

January 22, 2026 | Page 3
City Council through resolutions with the most recent update in July 2024 (Resolution No. 65 (2024) - Early Community Engagement Process).

Planning Application Guide
To implement the Early Community Engagement Process adopted by the City Council, the City published the Planning Application Guide (PAG) in March 2025, which explains the planning application process and provides an overview of the public noticing requirements in the zoning code and resolution. The current process requires applicants to provide mailed notices to property owners and tenants either adjacent to the proposed project or within radii of 500 feet or 1,000 feet, depending on project type, and email notices to the City’s maintained interested parties list. Based on the project type, applicants may also be required to hold a neighborhood meeting prior to submitting the application. Projects of a certain size are also offered the opportunity to attend an optional Planning Commission study session.

The PAG organizes projects by four -tier levels that are based on the notice radius required and the corresponding approval body (Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission or City Council) for the project types listed. The PAG also provides direction on the review procedures, neighborhood notification and meeting process, materials for public study sessions, sample meeting notices, and additional resources for applicants.

Currently, according to the PAG, an applicant might be required to go through at least two, and up to three or four, rounds of public noticing procedures, not including CEQA requirements or an appeals process. The Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, and City Council each have the power to make the final decision on different application types.

General Plan Direction and Policies
The General Plan update process included the development of “10 Big Ideas” to highlight the guiding principles for the City over the next 20 years, blending goals and ideas from the past general plan with new concepts to address current challenges. One of these Big Ideas, "Strengthen Community Outreach," is a central principle for both the General Plan and the upcoming CZCU. This commitment requires prioritizing extensive community engagement through culturally sensitive methods to encourage early communication and broad representation. To achieve this in the CZCU process, the City will offer information in the predominant community languages, schedule meetings at convenient times and locations for community members and utilize multiple methods and mediums t o support public awareness and participation.

The following General Plan 2040 goals, policies, and actions on community engagement will inform the updated public noticing procedures that go into the zoning code.

Goal LU-9
Goal LU-9 was incorporated in General Plan 2040 to guide the City’s approach to inclusive community outreach and resident participation in planning decisions. Goal LU -9 states that the City will “include

January 22, 2026 | Page 4
everyone in community development decisions for a shared, sustainable future.” The CZCU will implement this goal by clarifying the community engagement process of public noticing requirements and streamlining the application process for project approval.

Implementing Policies and Actions
To implement Goal LU-9, the General Plan includes several policies to facilitate equitable and inclusive processes for public input during the project approval process. Policy LU 9.1 (Inclusive Outreach) and Policy LU 9.2 (Equitable Engagement) address the General Plan’s principle to prioritize community engagement through culturally sensitive methods and equitable approach to engaging with low-income and historically underrepresented communities. Policy LU 9.3 (Development Projects) and Policy LU 9.4 (Applicant Communications) ensures that the public input process during project review is clearly communicated with community members and stakeholders. Related to these efforts, Policy LU 13.2 (Public Education), which falls under Goal LU-13 in the General Plan, requires the City to promote public awareness of the development review and permitting process.

Actions under Goal LU -9 address the implementation of inclusive and equitable community engagement and public input processes. Action LU 9.5 (Community Partners) ensures that the City works with community partners to engage with equity priority communities in planning and policy decisions. Action LU 9.6 (Community Surveys) directs the City to periodically conduct community surveys representative of the City’s demographics to gauge service needs, policy preferences, and effective communication methods.

Action LU 9.7 (Communications Strategy) directs the City to “develop a communications strategy that outlines goals and tactics to engage a broad cross-section of the community.” The Action includes a list of specific actions the City commits to undertaking in order to implement the communications strategy.

Specifically, the Action commits the City to the following:
• Prepare public notices and other materials in the predominant language(s) spoken in the community and provide interpretation services at meetings as needed; and • Make public notices and other important documents available in print at local libraries, community centers, or other gathering places.

While implementation of these policies and actions go beyond the CZCU, including preparation of a communications strategy and conducting community surveys, they do serve to inform and guide the updated notification requirements in the zoning code. This includes assessment of requirements for preparing public notices in the determined predominant languages spoken in San Mateo and distribution methods that can be most effective in reaching targeted residents and stakeholders.

State Law Compliance
Recent changes in state housing legislation and Brown Act updates may affect local planning and zoning processes. The following briefly summarizes key updates from recent bills:

January 22, 2026 | Page 5
• AB 2904 (2024) updates public noticing requirements, extending the review period for public hearings from 10 days to 20 days when considering changes to allowed land uses or development standards (zoning code amendments).
• AB 1007 (2025) shortens the timeline for a responsible agency to act on qualifying residential and mixed-use project applications under the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA). (A responsible agency is any public agency, other than the lead agency, that holds discretionary approval authority over all or any part of a project.) The bill reduces the deadline to approve or deny a project from 90 days to 45 days, triggered by whichever of the following occurs last: (1) the lead agency’s approval of the project, or (2 ) the responsible agency’s determination that the application is complete. Certain state agencies (e.g., such as the California Coastal Commission and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission) remain subject to the original 90-day timeline. Ultimately, AB 1007 expedites the approval process for these projects, cutting the previous PSA requirement in half.
• SB 158 (2025) builds on the PSA by clarifying which housing projects qualify for streamlined approval under state law and shortens the approval timeline for certain projects that are exempt from environmental review. The PSA requires local jurisdictions to expedite the approval process for development projects by establishing time limits to approve or deny permit applications. In part, SB 158 clarified the definition of a "housing development project" to identify which projects qualify for the expedited app roval timeline under the PSA. These housing projects include infill development, affordable housing when providing a certain percentage of units to lower-income households, and mixed-use projects that provide a certain percentage of total square footage for residential units.

Best Practice Options and Considerations
This section outlines best practice options and key considerations drawn from City staff input, state guidance, and comparable jurisdictions. T he Project Team reviewed best practices from comparable jurisdictions to ensure the updated regulations reflect current planning standards successfully applied in comparable communities. These references help identify approaches that are clear, consistent, and adaptable to San Mateo’s goals and current built environment. The comparable jurisdictions referenced in this white paper include the cities of Costa Mesa, Milpitas, Sacramento, Stockton, and Santa Clara County.
• Costa Mesa was chosen because part of the code was recently updated and was seen as a good example by City staff.
• Milpitas was chosen because it was just comprehensively updated in 2025, the City has a similar built environment to San Mateo and is located nearby, and the code includes clear writing and consistent organization.

January 22, 2026 | Page 6
• Sacramento was chosen because it was seen as a good example by C ity staff and contains a detailed list of administrative and permit processes and procedures. • Stockton was chosen because it was just comprehensively updated in 2025, the use regulations and development standards are clear and well-written, and there are detailed and easy-to-use site development and specific to use regulations.
• Santa Clara County was chosen because it is located nearby, it contains clear writing and organization, and is well- organized by different residential district types (e.g., Rural, Urban Residential).

The following considerations will help inform updates to the City’s public noticing requirements:
• AB 2904 and SB 158 were updated recently and the City’s public noticing requirements do not fully comply with these state bills. While none of the comparable jurisdictions were found to have incorporated the latest housing laws yet either, the City should update the public noticing requirements to be in compliance with these two bills. Effectively, this will require a change from at least 10 days to 20 days of public notice before a hearing for projects that include a land use change or code amendment.
• Comparable jurisdictions use various methods for public notices. Methods include emails and newsletters, website postings, social media posts, mailers, newspapers, and other online and printed materials. Comparable jurisdictions also distinguish public not ices by type, such as mailed notices, published notices, posted notices, and additional notice types. Since the zoning code currently only includes mail and e -mail as the two public noticing methods, the code should be updated to expand the public noticing method options. • Per General Plan Action LU 9.7 (Communications Strategy) public notices and related materials should be translated to the predominant language(s) spoken citywide. To address this Action, the City is developing a Language Access Plan that will be starting in January 2026. The goal of the Language Access Plan is to ensure that the City provides meaningful access to information, programs, benefits, and services to people with limited English proficiency and ensure that language is not a barrier to accessing vital city services. • As discussed above, the current zoning code does not specify the radius requirements for different permit types. Instead, the City published guidelines for public noticing requirements by project type as the PAG. While the PAG does provide the specific rad ius requirements, the zoning code does not include most of the regulations written in the PAG. The Project Team will seek City Council direction to determine what radius requirements to codify. • Based on current requirements, an applicant might be required to take part in the following public notice periods:
o Notice for a pre-application neighborhood meeting (mailed);

January 22, 2026 | Page 7
o Notice of a public hearing notice for Planning Commission and City Council, if required, (mailed and property posting);
o Notice of pending decision (mailed) and notice of decision (emailed); and o Notice of an appeal hearing (if filed) (mailed and property posting).

While this number of noticing periods is generally consistent with comparable jurisdictions, it should still be assessed for consistency with General Plan goals and policies, effectiveness, and cost/time burden in relation to the value of communication efforts.

Potential Questions for Public Input
• Which of the following public notice method(s) do you prefer to receive information about projects? (Select all that apply.):
o Mailer
o City’s website
o Newspaper notice
o Email or digital newsletter
o On-site signage or posted notice
o Social media post
o Other (please specify):
• How would you rate the clarity of current public notices?:
o Very clear
o Somewhat clear
o Somewhat unclear
o Very unclear
o Not sure/no opinion
• Based on your experience, which of the following best describes the current number of public noticing periods you have been made aware of in San Mateo:
o I haven’t received any public notices
o Too few
o About right
o Too many

January 22, 2026 | Page 8
• Who should receive public notices to stay informed about development projects? (Select all that apply.):
o Only the property owner whose land is being developed o All those who own property within a certain radius
o All those who live or own a business within a certain radius o Other (Please specify.):
• When a multifamily project requires a public notice, how far from the property line should the City and applicants be required to notify neighbors?
o No notices should be required
o Adjacent properties only
o Properties within 100 feet
o Properties within 250 feet
o Properties within 500 feet
o Properties within 1,000 feet
o Not sure/ No opinion
o Other (Please specify.):
• When a site alternation project (e.g., fences or swimming pools) requires a public notice, how far from the property line should the City and applicants be required to notify neighbors? o No notices should be required
o Adjacent properties only
o Properties within 100 feet
o Properties within 250 feet
o Properties within 500 feet
o Properties within 1,000 feet
o Not sure/ No opinion
o Other (Please specify.):
• Besides English and Spanish, what language(s) do you think public noticing materials should be translated to in San Mateo?
• How can the City make it easier for you to stay informed and receive information about public noticing periods?

MEMORANDUM
DATE January 22, 2026
TO City of San Mateo
FROM PlaceWorks
SUBJECT Key Issues White Paper – Open Space
Introduction
Open space is a defining element of the City of San Mateo’s identity, shaping the character of its neighborhoods, supporting environmental health and enhancing the overall quality of life for residents, workers and visitors. San Mateo’s open spaces provide essential places for recreation and community connection, directly supporting the Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040 goal to enhance San Mateo’s neighborhood fabric and quality of life. As the city continues to evolve, preserving and thoughtfully integrating open space into new development will be critical to preserve nature as the foundation of the city – another goal of the General Plan. Understanding the community’s core goals and values as related to open space will be vital to ensuring that future gro wth strengthens both livability and the city’s natural environment.

Prior to starting the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update (CZCU) project, the City drafted four new high density districts for residential and mixed -use zones to implement the highest allowed densities referenced in the General Plan (99 units/acre and 130 units/acre). Public hearings to consider adoption of these new high density districts are planned for the first half of 2026 to provide clarity to the General Plan story limits that are already in effect. The work helped inform the private open space requirements and regulations discussed in this white paper. In addition, this white paper presents options for how open space, both private and publicly accessible, can be incorporated into new development.

This white paper includes a review of the existing open space regulations in the zoning code, goals and policies in the General Plan, recent state bills, best practice options and considerations, and questions that will be asked for the public to provide input.

City and Community Goals
The City is following the General Plan’s direction to expand public access to open spaces and to incentivize a variety of open space types, including privately -owned public open space, community gardens, multifamily open space, and public facilities such as parks and recreation centers. Guided by this framework, the City is seeking to have a public discussion on open space requirements in the Zoning

January 22, 2026 | Page 2
Code to address regulations that include, but are not limited to, public versus private open space requirements and providing open space on rooftops. The City has raised a question about whether some of the current SMMC open space regulations (e.g., ground -level housing units having doors opening directly to open space areas) are a constraint for infill development projects. The City is also interested in researching methods to achieve additional open space areas in more urbanized, built -out environments, and the subsequent regulations to support this goal. Throughout this process, the City is aiming to provide both passive and active types of open space regulations in the zoning code.

Overview of Key Issue Topic
Open space regulations in zoning codes must balance multiple interconnected planning objectives.

These include being calibrated to accommodate residential density requirements from the General Plan, supporting the development of appropriate building types, providing amenities and benefits for residents of specific projects as well as the entire city, and ensuring economic feasibility for developers.

Effective regulations also rely on a clear understanding of a community’s existing conditions and address key development considerations such as access to light, ventilation, fire safety, and privacy.

Public and private open space regulations vary based on location, building type, and development intensity. Private open space may be required for individual residential units, such as balconies, patios, and yards, in order to provide residents with their own private usable outdoor areas. Private open space may also be allowed in different forms in the indoor and outdoor common areas of buildings, such as community gardens and rooftops, community lounges and rooms, and fitness centers. Effective private open space regulations correlate with density requirements, provide clear and adaptable rules, and allow for flexibility in design.

Publicly accessible open spaces, including those provided on private property, play a crucial role in enhancing connectivity and recreational opportunities. These open spaces commonly include courtyards and plazas, paseos, gardens, atriums, widened sidewalks, and rooftop areas. These open spaces are invaluable public assets that serve as a shared resource for both residents and visitors. They support ground-floor commercial vibrancy and offer outdoor areas for residents to gather, work, and relax.

Brief Summary of Current Title 27 (Zoning) Regulations
As Part of a Development Project
The current SMMC includes private open space requirements for higher density residential development projects, but this is not applicable to all projects as these requirements only apply to a few zoning districts. The R3 District (Multiple Family Dwellings - Medium Density) provides private minimum open space requirements for multifamily developments. Section 27.22.100 (Open Space Requirements) requires that a minimum of 200 square feet of “open parcel area” is pro vided for the first bedroom in each dwelling unit, plus a minimum of 100 square feet is provided for each additional

January 22, 2026 | Page 3
bedroom. These calculations do not include required off-street parking areas or driveways. The Section also provides the following guidelines that distinguish how ground-level units and upper-floor units each can meet the open space requirements:
• Open space for ground-level units:
o Must be contiguous to the unit;
o Must have a minimum dimension of 10 feet in any direction; and o May include setback areas.
• Open space for upper-floor units:
o May be met by open roof decks, balconies, lanais, or other open areas if the area provides a minimum usable area of 100 square feet and is not less than six feet in any direction;
o Allowed to be combined for several units as common usable open space; and o May be located entirely or partially on the ground level, if there is a minimum dimension of 10 feet in any direction, and does not need to be contiguous to the building.

For residential high -rise buildings in the R5 District (Section 27.26.080 (Development Bonuses for Residential High-rise Buildings)), providing certain indoor and outdoor private recreational open space areas are an option for developers to be granted bonu ses for additional floor area. Additionally, the Downtown Residential Districts (Chapter 27.28 (Downtown Residential Districts)) provide open space requirements for private and common usable open space areas. For the three Downtown Residential Districts (i.e., R -4D, R-5D, and R -6D), open space can be provided as either private or common open space. Private open space requirements range from a minimum of 80 to 100 square feet per dwelling unit and must comply with minimum dimensional requirements. Common ope n space requirements can be provided instead of private open space requirements by providing 150 percent of the private open space requirement as shared common open space. For example, when the private open space requirement is a minimum of 100 square feet, a project can instead provide 150 square feet of shared common space open space.

Open Space Standards Analysis and Formula in the Proposed High Density Residential Zone Chapters
As discussed in the “Overview” section above, four new HDRZ Districts (two residential- only districts and two mixed-use districts) have been drafted in order to comply with the density requirements for the four new land use designations that came into effe ct through the adoption of Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040. As part of these new districts, new development standards were developed using the City’s existing open space regulations in the R3 and R5 Districts and best practices from comparable jurisdictions as reference examples; however, it should be noted that the resulting open space requirements are distinct and specifically calibrated for the four new draft HDRZ chapters.

January 22, 2026 | Page 4
Based on this work, the open space requirements in these districts include the same formula for all four HDRZ districts, which offers flexibility for developers to provide private usable or common usable open space or a combination of both open space types based on the number of housing units in a development project. Applicants may meet the open space requirements by providing either or a combination of the following:
• Private open space only: A minimum of 50 square feet of private usable open space per unit; or
• Common open space only: A minimum of 75 square feet of common usable open space per unit; or
• Combination of private and common open space:
o At least 30 square feet of private usable open space per unit; and o An amount of common usable open space equal to 150% of the shortfall between the 50-square-foot private open space requirement and the amount of private open space actually provided.
• Example:
o If a development provides 30 square feet of private usable open space per unit, the remaining shortfall is 20 square feet (50 − 30).
o The required common usable open space would therefore be 30 square feet per unit (20 × 150%).

The SMMC does not include specific regulations for POPOS in Title 27 (Zoning) or anywhere else in the Municipal Code. However, Section 27.04.350 (Open Space) includes the following definition for the term “Commercial/executive common usable open space:” “open space in the form of a plaza, square, court, or other urban space which is at least 75% open to the sky, free from automotive traffic, and accessible to the public at large.” While this term is included as a definition, it is not mentioned nor are there any relevant regulations elsewhere in the SMMC.

General Plan’s Direction and Policies
Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040 includes several policies that direct the City on how to incorporate and address public and private open space areas. The five policies discussed in this section provide guidance on how to incorporate public and private open space regulations during the CZCU process.

Privately-Owned Public Open Space (POPOS)
Taken together, Policy LU 3.12, Publicly Accessible Spaces; Policy COS 6.3, Privately Owned Public Spaces; and Policy CD 6.7, Public Open Space Design direct the City to expand public access to open spaces by integrating both publicly and privately owned and maintained spaces into new developments and public buildings. Furthermore, Policy COS 5.10, Community Gardens , directs the City to support community gardens on sites with quasi-public uses and on public land, such as City parks or facilities, or

January 22, 2026 | Page 5
as part of new private development, provided it is feasible and appropriate. To ensure these areas are functional, welcoming, and accessible to everyone, all policies require clear signage indicating public access, creative and innovative design, and the r emoval of physical or visual barriers. The combined purpose of these policies is to create a vibrant, interconnected network of public and private open spaces that improves the character and quality of San Mateo for all residents.

The CZCU will introduce new open space regulations that apply to both private developments and new public buildings. The policies will require these developments to include publicly accessible unique, and functional open space areas, such as community gardens. To incentivize compliance, it will be determined whether to incorporate into the CZCU the option for developers to receive special incentives for including a specified amount of open space. The design requireme nts for these spaces would include clear signage, enhanced user amenities, easy access, and features that promote a safe, welcoming, and functional environment that are open for public use. Furthermore, it will be considered whether it will be required for the open space areas to incorporate specific types of design elements, such as landscaping, sunlight access, seating, and user safety and security measures.

Policy CD 7.5 – Multifamily Open Space
Policy CD 7.5, Multifamily Open Space, directs the City to “require that a portion of required open space for new multifamily projects be useable for passive or active recreation.” To address this policy, the CZCU’s new open space requirements for multifamily residential projects will require a certain percentage of private common open space to be passive and/or active recreational areas.

Policy PSF 5.7 – Incentives for Public Facilities
Policy PSF 5.7, Incentives for Public Facilities, directs the City to “provide incentives to developers for projects that include needed space for public facilities in new development.” To address this policy, the CZCU’s new open space requirements will provide a list of incentives to encourage developers to provide dedicated space regulated by the percentage of the lot area reserved for public facilities in new development. The CZCU will also include a list of options of the public facilities, such as parks and community and recreation centers, that will qualify for the incentives.

State Law Compliance
There are no recent state laws related to open space requirements that need to be addressed in the CZCU.

January 22, 2026 | Page 6
Best Practice Options and Considerations
This section outlines best practice options and key considerations drawn from City staff input, state guidance, and comparable jurisdictions. T he Project Team reviewed best practices from comparable jurisdictions to ensure the updated regulations reflect current planning standards successfully applied in comparable communities. These references help identify approaches that are clear, consistent, and adaptable to San Mateo’s goals and current built environment. The comparable jurisdictions referenced in this white paper include the cities of Milpitas, Oakland, and San Francisco. The following considerations will help inform updates to the City’s open space regulations:
• As discussed in the “Open Space Standards Analysis and Formula in the Proposed High Density Residential Zone Chapters” section above, the four draft HDRZ districts include requirements for private and common open space in new developments. The proposed ope n space requirements were guided by the General Plan and considered input from the development community in San Mateo. The proposed open space standards for the HDRZ chapters will be considered when determining the open space requirements for the other zon ing district chapters.
• As discussed in the “Privately Owned Public Open Space (POPOS)” subsection above, the term “commercial/executive common usable open space,” which might benefit from being clarified, allows POPOS to occur in the form of plazas, squares, courts, or other urb an open spaces in some areas of the city. Renaming and shortening this term would improve the ease of use of the standards and clarify what types of POPOS fall under this term in the SMMC. There are also several other types of POPOS that the SMMC does not refer to and that are allowed in comparable jurisdictions, such as playgrounds, parks, urban gardens, view terraces, greenhouses, atriums, indoor parks, and pedestrian walkways. The CZCU will consider allowing these types of POPOS in the municipal code, as well as renaming the term. • General Plan Policy LU 3.12, Publicly Accessible Spaces, directs the City to incorporate privately owned and maintained publicly accessible spaces into new development projects. While the SMMC identifies private and common usable open space categories, the Zoning Code does not include any POPOS regulations for development projects. To incentivize privately owned and maintained publicly accessible open spaces, the CZCU may consider incorporating said regulations for new developments similar to those provisio ns included in the City of San Francisco (see Section 138 (Privately-Owned Public Open Space (POPOS) Requirements)). • General Plan Policy CD 6.7, Public Open Space Design, directs the City to promote innovative and creative designs to create functional spaces in new developments and public buildings.

These regulations are currently not provided in the SMMC. The CZCU proce ss will include reviewing the design requirements for public open spaces adopted in zoning codes of comparable jurisdictions.
• General Plan Policy COS 6.3, Privately Owned Public Spaces, directs the City to enhance the accessibility, usability, and overall quality of privately owned public spaces. These regulations

January 22, 2026 | Page 7
are currently not provided in the SMMC. The CZCU should include regulations to ensure that privately owned public spaces are accessible and safe for public use. Specific guidelines in the CZCU may refer to the City of San Francisco’s regulations in Section 138, which require adequate ingress and egress access, well- designed landscapes, lighting, and clear signage indicating public access. In mixed-use districts, additional standards may address public access hours and amenities such as waste collection and publicly accessible potable water sources. • General Plan Policy CD 7.5, Multifamily Open Space, directs the City to require multifamily projects include a portion of the open space area be useable for passive or active recreation.

The CZCU process will include reviewing comparable jurisdictions to d etermine (1) what percentage of the required area will be dedicated for usable passive and/or active recreation, and (2) what types of passive and active recreation will be allowed in these areas. • General Plan Policy PSF 5.7, Incentives for Public Facilities, directs the City to provide incentives to developers that dedicate space in new developments for public spaces. The CZCU process will include reviewing comparable jurisdictions to determine the percentages of the lot area that must be allowed for public facility areas, as well as a list of options of the public facilities that will qualify for the incentives.
• Most comparable jurisdictions include rooftops as a form of private open space and provide regulations to guide their development. Jurisdictions like the City of Milpitas provide specific standards for rooftop open spaces, such as required landscaping and accessibility to rooftop amenities. The CZCU process will consider reviewing the City of Milpitas and other comparable jurisdictions to determine the rooftop open space regulations that may be adopted in San Mateo.
• In high -density residential districts, open space can be provided with higher intensities of development by using flexible, alternative types of open or recreational space that support both active and passive recreation. These spaces may accommodate passiv e uses such as landscaping, seating areas, and small gathering areas, as well as active uses, such as playgrounds, community rooms, or fitness areas. For example, the City of San Francisco and the City of Milpitas establish usable open space requirements per dwelling unit to encourage open spaces in multifamily developments. The CZCU process will consider incorporating passive and active types of open space areas in higher-density districts. • For projects that propose new residential units that are not single-family dwellings or ADUs, a separate section of the Municipal Code (Chapter 26.64 and Section 13.05.070) requires payment of an in -lieu/impact fee (identical formula) for City park and recreation facilities.

However, private park and recreation facilities provided as part of a project can be used as partial credit against the in -lieu/impact fee. Section 26.64.030(b) describes the types of park and recreational facilities that are eligible for credit. The CZCU will consider how to best align the open space requirements in the Zoning Code with these other code sections to ensure that the facilities eligible for credit are clear, compatible with development and easy to understand.

January 22, 2026 | Page 8
Potential Questions for Public Input
• Which of the following types of private usable open space should be provided for residential and mixed-use development projects? (Select all that apply.):
o Ground-level patios or garden areas
o Balconies, decks, or terraces
o Rooftop decks or patios
o Interior courtyards
o Designated community garden plots
o Any combination of the above choices
• Which of the following types of common usable open space should be provided for residential and mixed-use development projects? (Select all that apply.):
o On-property park and landscaped areas with seating
o Rooftop promenades, terraces, or viewing decks
o Plazas and courtyards that are also accessible to the public o Balconies, decks, or terraces
o Pedestrian pathways and paseos throughout the property and connectivity to public sidewalks and streets
o Any combination of the above choices
• What amenities are most important for privately owned publicly accessible open spaces (POPOS) to include? (Select all that apply.):
o Seating and shaded areas
o Landscaping and trees
o Public art
o Water features (e.g., fountains)
o Waste and recycling bins
o Lighting
o Restrooms
o Other (Please specify.):
• Which of the following design features would make you feel most comfortable using a privately owned publicly accessible space? (Select all that apply.):
o Clear public signage
o Visibility from the street
o Accessible entrances and pathways

January 22, 2026 | Page 9
o Lighting and security measures
o Other (Please specify.):
• The Project Team determined a formula for calculating private usable and common usable open space requirements for projects with residential units for high density residential and mixed-use districts. The proposed regulations require projects to include at least 50 square feet of private usable open space per unit, at least 75 square feet of common usable open space per unit; or a combination of private usable and common open space. Should there be a consistent formula for determining open space across all zoning districts, or should there be a specific requirement or formula depending on the density allowed in each zoning district? • What incentives would be beneficial to encourage the inclusion of publicly accessible spaces in private development projects?

MEMORANDUM
DATE January 22, 2026
TO City of San Mateo
FROM PlaceWorks
SUBJECT Key Issues White Paper – Setbacks and Buffers
Introduction
Building setbacks establish the required distance between structures and property lines, streets, or other site features, and are a fundamental tool for regulating the scale, placement, and massing of development. Building setbacks play a critical role in shaping the physical form of San Mateo’s neighborhoods, influencing streetscape character, access to light and air, and privacy. When thoughtfully designed, setback standards help create safe, comfortable, and visually cohesive neighborhoods, directly supporting the Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040 goal to enhance San Mateo’s Neighborhood Fabric and Quality of Life. As the city continues to evolve under the guidance of the General Plan, understanding how setback requirements function across different contexts will be vital to ensuring that standards for future development are compatible with existing neighborhoods and contribute to high-quality design.

Prior to starting the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update (CZCU) project, the City drafted four new high-density districts for residential and mixed-use zones to implement the highest allowed densities referenced in the General Plan (99 units/acre and 130 units/acre). Public hearings to consider adoption of these new high density districts are planned for the first half of 2026 to provide clarity to the General Plan story limits that are already in effect. The work helped inform the setback and buffer requirements and regulations for the City’s higher density zoning districts and uses discussed in this white paper.

This white paper also addresses the setback and buffer regulations for the lower-density residential districts and all commercial, office, and manufacturing districts. The lower-density residential zoning districts (i.e., R1 and R2) provide setback regulations (referred to as “yards”) for front, side, and rear areas. This white paper includes a review of the existing setback and buffer regulations in the Zoning Code, directions and policies in the General Plan, recent state bills, best practice options and considerations, and questions that will be asked for the public to provide input.

January 22, 2026 | Page 2
City and Community Goals
The City wants to ensure the setback, buffer, and build-to-line requirements in the SMMC meet their desired objectives while also allowing for flexibility to support a range of project types. The City’s current setback and build-to-line standards are very prescriptive with a variety of requirements based on location and adjacent zoning districts. In addition, the setback standards need to be calibrated to ensure that they support the new density regulations in General Plan 2040. The buffer standards should balance encouraging development with maintaining appropriate buffer distances between less compatible uses. Additionally, the City wants to ensure that setback standards for smaller parcels do not make the parcels undevelopable.

Overview of Key Issue Topic
In zoning codes, setback, buffer, and build-to-line regulations must each balance multiple planning objectives. These include being calibrated to accommodate residential density requirements from the General Plan, supporting the development of appropriate building types, complementing the existing neighborhood character, ensuring adequate light, ventilation, fire safety, and privacy provisions are provided for residents, and ensuring economic feasibility for developers. In addition, these standards must be calibrated differently for lower-density residential project types, such as those in R1 and R2 Districts, versus medium- and higher-density residential districts to ensure that each district can feasibly achieve its intended density and design. Properly establishing setbacks, buffers, and build-to- line standards based on the intended purpose and density of a zoning district requires analyzing the City’s existing regulations and conditions.

To create projects that align with community objectives, setback and buffer regulations often vary depending on the location and building type. Setbacks are often regulated in the front, interior side, street/corner side, and rear areas for a parcel and are typically measured as the minimum distance from a property line, street, or other boundary that a structure must be located. Buffers, often landscaped areas, are designed to separate and mitigate incompatible land uses, such as residential uses from industrial uses. Build-to-line standards can be viewed as being the opposite of setback standards. Where setbacks measure the minimum distance from a boundary, build-to-line standards measure the minimum distance from a street where a building’s façade or architectural feature is required to be built in order to encourage a walkable, active, and safe street area. For higher-density residential and non-residential zoning districts, build-to-line standards and reduced setbacks often support transit-oriented and walkable urban development, while lower-density districts typically rely more on traditional setbacks and landscaped buffers to maintain a less urban single-family residential neighborhood character.

Brief Summary of Current Title 27 (Zoning) Regulations
The following list provides the sections in the SMMC that address setbacks, buffers, and build-to-line standards:

January 22, 2026 | Page 3
• The lower-density residential zoning districts (i.e., R1 and R2) provide setback regulations for front, side, and rear areas. In the R1 District, these regulations vary by subdistrict, with different standards applied in the R1-A District compared to the R1-B and R1-C Districts. The R2 District applies the same setback regulations as the R1 -B and R1-C Districts. Setback and buffe r regulations for the R1 and R2 Districts also include provisions for garage front setbacks, landscaping requirements, and limits on the maximum area allowed for paving.
• Additionally, the R1 and R2 Districts both contain specific standards governing exceptions to the setback requirements regarding how certain elements, such as awnings, patios, decks, bay windows, flagpoles, and chimneys, may project into or encroach on required setback areas.

Section 27.18.100 (Structures and Building Projections in Required Yards) in the SMMC outlines the respective standards for various types of building projections and features permitted in all yards and specific standards for the projections permitted in front yards. • The medium- to higher-density residential zoning districts (i.e., R3, R4, R5, R4-D, R5-D, and R6- D) also provide setback regulations for front, side, and rear areas. The setback standards provided for the R3 District are also applicable to the R4 and R5 Districts. The R3, R4, R5, R4- D, and R5-D districts also provide build-to-line regulations for properties within the Gateway area as defined in the Downtown Specific Plan.
• The commercial zoning districts (i.e., C1, C2, C3, and C4) provide requirements for building buffers. The C1 District also provides setback regulations for parcels fronting on El Camino Real from 9th Avenue to Belmont and build-to-lines for parcels fronting on El Camino Real from State Route 92 (SR 2) to Belmont and the Central Business District, respectively. • The office zoning districts (i.e., E1 and E2) provide setback regulations along street frontages.

The office zoning district regulations also require landscape buffers when parcels with office uses are contiguous to residential districts.
• The manufacturing district (i.e., M1) provides front and side setback regulations. The manufacturing district regulations also require buffers for manufacturing use parcels contiguous to residential and open space districts. Additionally, the manufacturing district provides buffer regulations for fast-food establishments from residential districts, as well as buffers from other fast-food establishments except when they are located in shopping centers.

General Plan’s Direction and Policies
This section provides the General Plan 2040 policies and actions that will be considered and taken into account when drafting the new setback and buffer development standards in the SMMC.

Commercial Development
Policy LU 3.2, Commercial Development, and Policy CD 8.3, Respect Existing Scale and Rhythm, address the incorporation of context-sensitive design and appropriate transition for new mixed-use and commercial developments. Policy LU 3.2 provides types of transition that include intensity of use, height, bulk, and design. Policy CD 8.3 also provides examples of context-sensitive design that include

January 22, 2026 | Page 4
providing breaks in the building face at spacings common to buildings in the area and stepping back upper floors.

To address these policies, the City will review Zoning Code changes for the current buffer requirements for the commercial, executive park, and manufacturing zoning districts in order to include new, clearer, and more comprehensive buffer requirements for new development next to residential areas. The CZCU will ensure that updates to standards are guided by context-sensitive design to facilitate appropriate transition from residential to commercial developments.

In addition, Policy LU 3.2 directs the City to ensure that “commercial development adjacent to residential areas appropriately address circulation, traffic, truck loading, trash/recycling, noise, visual impacts, public safety, hazardous materials storage, fire safety, air pollutant emissions, and odors in a way that minimizes impacts on neighboring uses.” To address this, the CZCU will update standards to better address these topics in order to minimize impacts of commercial uses on neighboring uses. It will also be determined whether these additional buffer regulations will be incorporated within each district’s regulations or be placed in a separate section that includes a list of performance standards that will apply to all zoning districts.

Action CD 8.7, Commercial Development Adjacent to Residential, directs the City to “Develop and adopt objective design standards that define and require appropriate design transitions from commercial to residential zones.” The CZCU will develop objective design standards that include buffer regulations to ensure appropriate transition from commercial to residential zones.

Single-Family Design
Policy CD 7.2, Single-Family Design, directs the City to “encourage single-family additions and new dwellings that address the preservation and enhancement of neighborhood visual and architectural character through context-sensitive building scale, materials, architectural style and details, and privacy.”
To address this policy, the CZCU will review Zoning Code changes for the current buffer and setback requirements for the single-family residential districts to ensure that single-family neighborhood visual character and privacy are preserved and enhanced.

State Law Compliance
There are currently no relevant state laws that address requirements for setbacks and buffers.

January 22, 2026 | Page 5
Best Practice Options and Considerations
This section outlines best practice options and key considerations drawn from City staff input, state guidance, and comparable jurisdictions. The Project Team reviewed best practices from comparable jurisdictions to ensure the updated regulations reflect current planning standards successfully applied in comparable communities. These references help identify approaches that are clear, consistent, and adaptable to San Mateo’s goals and current built environment. The comparable jurisdictions referenced in this white paper include Santa Clara County, City of Milpitas, and City of Stockton. The following considerations will help inform updates to the City’s setback, buffer, and build-to-line regulations:
• For projects in the R1 and R2 Districts, Section 27.18.100 (Structures and Building Projections in Required Yards) provides the standards for permitted projections and encroachments into required setbacks. Relative to comparable jurisdictions (i.e., City of Stockton, City of Milpitas, and Santa Clara County), the City’s existing projection regulations are a combination of being overly specific for the list of encroachments included and also broad for how they are regulated. For example, while garden ornaments and play equipment are explicitly permitted, the Section does not specify how far they may encroach into a setback. In contrast, comparable jurisdictions utilize broader categories of projection types while maintaining clear, specific distance limits for various setback types. For example, the City of Stockton includes “architectural features” as one broad category that covers balconies, chimneys, and window types. The City of Stockton and City of Milpitas use “ramps and similar structures that provide access for persons with disabilities,” which could replace the City’s existing encroachment type of “steps which are necessary to provide access to the first floor of a permitted building, or to a parcel from a street or alley” (Section 27.18.100(a)(8)). The CZCU will consider consolidating and modernizing the existing list of allowed encroachments by grouping similar types into broader categories and adding or removing types based on this review. • As discussed above in the “City and Community’s Goals” section, the current setback requirements in the SMMC might be overly restrictive. There are also some specific setback, buffer, and build-to-line provisions that are unique to the SMMC compared to zoning codes of comparable jurisdictions and would benefit from being standardized for ease of use and clarity. These regulations, such as determining interior side and street side (corner lot) setbacks according to project type (e.g., one-family detached dwellings) in the R3, R4, and R5 Districts and measuring setbacks based on measures such as half of the building or the size of the lot are not utilized as a measurement method in comparable jurisdictions and could pose challenges to development feasibility. The CZCU will consider updating the current setback regulations to increase development feasibility and improve the clarity of the regulations. • The current setback, buffer, and build-to-line standards for all zoning districts are included in the Zoning Code as individual subsections and are written as short sentences or longer paragraphs. Including the standards in this manner increases the difficulty for readers of the Zoning Code. Instead, setback requirements will be included directly in tables for each zoning district to be more user-friendly.

January 22, 2026 | Page 6
• The current build-to-line regulations are currently specified only in the C1 District and are cross-referenced to apply across the C2, C3, and C4 Districts.0F0F 1 The current build-to-line
regulations only apply to properties with frontage on El Camino Real from State Route 92 to the Belmont city limit and the Q5 (Qualified Overlay District 5) District, at the Hillsdale Shopping Center . Although most comparable jurisdictions do not include build-to-line regulations, the City of Sacramento includes build-to-line regulations that apply to their highest density residential, central business district, and hospital zones. The CZCU will consider reviewing the build-to-line to determine if the regulations will continue to apply to all commercial districts. The CZCU will also determine if build-to-line regulations will apply to the highest density residential zones.
• General Plan Policy LU 3.2, Commercial Development, will be referenced when updating buffer requirements for the commercial, executive park, and manufacturing zoning districts.

The City will amend the current buffer requirements for new development next to residential areas to be clearer and more comprehensive. Additionally, based on this Policy, the CZCU will include updating existing and incorporating additional buffer regulations, including traffic, trash/recycling, and noise requirements, in order to minimize the impacts of commercial uses on neighboring uses. For these regulations, the CZCU will either incorporate these regulations within each district regulation or be placed in its own section with a list of performance standards applicable to all zoning districts. Based on a review of comparable jurisdictions, it is suggested to include these buffer regulations in one section. For example, the City of Stockton consolidates buffer requirements in one section in the Zoning Code, providing a clear, user- friendly format.

Potential Questions for Public Input
Questions that apply to all zoning districts:
• Question: Which of the following setback and/or standards most affect project feasibility in San Mateo? (Select all that apply.):
o Front setbacks
o Side or corner setbacks
o Rear yard setbacks
o Landscape buffer requirements
o Not sure/no opinion

1 The SMMC only refers to “build-to-lines" in the sections that address commercial zoning districts. In the Downtown Specific Plan area, functional build-to-lines are established for residential uses in the Gateway area with minimum and maximum setback distances defined. However, updates to the Downtown Specific Plan will not be a part of the CZCU.

January 22, 2026 | Page 7
• Question: The San Mateo Zoning Code includes setback requirements that may be too restrictive for certain project types. Which of the following alternative methods should be considered to provide greater flexibility for setbacks on a property?? (Select all that apply.):
o Allow different setbacks based on lot size or shape
o Allow small setback reductions (i.e., deviations) through an administrative review process
o Allow certain building features, such as porches, to extend into setbacks o Replace minimum setbacks with an allowed build-to-line range for the front property setback
o Other (Please specify.):

Low Density Residential Districts (R1 and R2)
Setback standards in low density residential districts help shape neighborhood character, provide privacy between homes, encourage landscaping and greenery, and manage transition between private and public spaces. The following questions inquire about existing standards and their applicability in the R1 and R2 Districts.
• Question: How effective do you think the current setback requirements are in supporting new development projects in low-density residential districts?:
o Very effective, they provide clear guidance and allow flexibility for well-designed projects
o Mostly effective, they work in most cases, but can be clarified or simplified o Somewhat effective, they are sometimes constraining but are developable o Not effective, they constrain the ability to develop
o Not sure, I’m not familiar enough with the current regulations • Question: Which of the following challenges do the current setback standards create in low- density residential districts? (Select all that apply.):
o Inconsistent requirements across residential districts o Outdated or unclear calculation methods
o Reduce maximum buildable area
o No significant challenges come to mind
o Not sure/no opinion
Medium- and High-Density Residential Districts (R3, R4, and R5) In medium- and high-density residential districts, setback standards accommodate multi-family housing and manage building scale, lighting, and privacy. The following questions inquire about existing standards and their applicability in R3, R4, and R5 Districts.

January 22, 2026 | Page 8
• Question: How effective do you think the current setback requirements are in supporting new multifamily development projects in medium- and high-density residential districts?:
o Very effective, they provide clear guidance and allow flexibility for well-designed projects
o Mostly effective, they work in most cases, but can be clarified or simplified o Somewhat effective, they are sometimes constraining but are developable o Not effective, they constrain the ability to develop
o Not sure, I’m not familiar enough with the current regulations • Question: Which of the following challenges do the current setback standards create in medium- and high-density residential districts? (Select all that apply.):
o Inconsistent requirements across residential districts o Outdated or unclear calculation methods
o Reduce maximum buildable area
o No significant challenges come to mind
o Not sure/no opinion
• Question: The San Mateo Zoning Code uses an atypical method for determining interior side and street-side setbacks in the R3, R4, and R5 Districts, defining them by project type (e.g., one-family detached dwellings) instead of by property lines. If the City continues using a project-based approach to setback measurements, which development standards or methods should determine setback requirements? (Select all that apply.):
o Building height measured in feet
o Building height measured in the number of stories
o Floor area ratio (FAR)
o Lot coverage
o Continue using project type
o None of the above
o Other (Please specify.):

Non-Residential Districts
Setback and buffer standards in non-residential districts help manage building placement, circulation, and transitions to nearby uses, including residential areas. The following questions inquire about current setback and buffer regulations for non-residential districts, including commercial and manufacturing districts.
• Question: How effective do you think the current setback requirements are in supporting functional and well-designed developments in non-residential districts?:

January 22, 2026 | Page 9
o Very effective, they provide clear guidance and allow flexibility for well-designed projects
o Mostly effective, they work in most cases, but can be clarified or simplified o Somewhat effective, they are sometimes constraining but are developable o Not effective, they constrain the ability to develop
o Not sure, I’m not familiar enough with the current regulations • Question: Which of the following challenges do the current setback standards create in non- residential districts? (Select all that apply.):
o Inconsistent requirements across zoning districts
o Outdated or unclear calculation methods
o Reduce maximum buildable area
o No significant challenges come to mind
o Not sure/no opinion
• Question: How effective do you think the current buffer requirements are for supporting new development projects in non-residential districts?:
o Very effective, they provide clear guidance and allow flexibility for well-designed projects
o Mostly effective, they work in most cases, but can be clarified or simplified o Somewhat effective, they are sometimes constraining but are developable o Not effective, they constrain the ability to develop
o Not sure, I’m not familiar enough with the current regulations • Question: Which of the following challenges do the current buffer standards create? (Select all that apply.):
o Inconsistent requirements between zoning districts
o Outdated or unclear calculation methods
o Reduce maximum buildable area
o No significant challenges come to mind
o Not sure/no opinion
• Question: Build-to-line standards (i.e., requiring buildings to be located close to the sidewalk) are uncommon in the comparable jurisdictions that were reviewed. How should San Mateo approach this type of standard?:
o Keep or expand standards to encourage pedestrian-oriented development o Limit standards to certain commercial or mixed-use areas o Remove them to allow for more flexibility

January 22, 2026 | Page 10
o Not sure/no opinion
• Question: The San Mateo Zoning Code currently includes specific setback and build-to-line standards that pertain to El Camino Real. Based on your experience, please select the following options that describes these current regulations:
o Very effective, they provide clear guidance and allow flexibility for well-designed projects
o Mostly effective, they work in most cases, but can be clarified or simplified o Somewhat effective, they are sometimes constraining but are developable o Not effective, they constrain the ability to develop
o Not sure, I’m not familiar enough with the current regulations o Other (Please specify.):