Special Notice / Hearing: 10-Day Newspaper Notice__
Vote Required: Majority
To: Honorable Board of Supervisors
From: Steve Monowitz, Director of Planning and Building
Subject: Ordinance Adopting New Design Review Standards
RECOMMENDATION:
title
Conduct a public hearing regarding Design Review regulations and Chapter 8.256 of the County Ordinance Code (Zoning Regulations):
A) Open public hearing
B) Close public hearing
C) Adopt an ordinance repealing and replacing Chapter 8.256 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code (Zoning Regulations) regulating Design Review (DR) Districts, and related conforming zoning text amendments, previously introduced to the Planning Commission on January 28, 2026, and waive the reading of the ordinance in its entirety; and
D) Adopt a resolution directing submittal of the new Chapter 8.256 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code (Zoning Regulations) regulating Design Review (DR) Districts, and related conforming zoning text amendments, as amendments to the County’s Local Coastal Program, to the California Coastal Commission for review and certification; and
E) Adopt a resolution amending the Planning and Building Department Planning Service Fee Schedule to add design review fees for ministerial review and exceptions.
body
BACKGROUND:
The overarching goals of the Design Review (DR) Ordinance Update Project (Project) are to:
1. Revise the current DR Zoning District design standards such that they are objective in order to replace subjective standards, which cannot be enforced per State law for State-streamlined housing project types (such as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), and SB 9 and SB 35 projects), to ensure that new projects remain compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods; and
2. Further streamline design review, including, but not limited to establishing a ministerial design review process in areas outside of the Coastal Zone, thereby eliminating the Bayside Design Review Committee (BDRC) and the Emerald Lake Hills Design Review Officer (DRO) hearing and associated DRO requirements for areas outside of the Coastal Zone.
In the Midcoast, the Coastside Design Review Committee (CDRC) would continue its discretionary design review of projects that are not subject to State streamlining. (Note that, to date, qualifying ADUs are the only housing type subject to mandatory ministerial review in the Coastal Zone).
County Design Review Districts
The County’s Design Review zoning districts include the Midcoast in the Coastal Zone, and Emerald Lake Hills/Oak Knoll Manor, Devonshire, and Palomar Park outside of the Coastal Zone; Design Review Committees administer the regulations in these areas. The Design Review zoning districts also include areas where design review is conducted at a staff level, including San Gregorio, Pescadero, and the Rural Midcoast in the Coastal Zone, and Planned Colma outside of the Coastal Zone. Maps showing DR zoning districts are included as Attachment C.
State Laws Limiting Application of Subjective Design Review Standards
In 2016, the State legislature enacted legislation to streamline permitting of ADUs, including limiting application of design review standards to objective standards. In 2019, the legislature declared a State housing shortage crisis and enacted additional legislation limiting application of design review standards to objective standards for other State-streamlined housing types including projects under Senate Bill 35 (which allows by-right production of new housing with at least 10% affordable units in municipalities that have not met their Regional Housing Need Allocation) and SB 9 (which allows multiple units on urban, single-family residential parcels), among others. Both SB 9 and SB 35 are effective in the unincorporated areas of the County that are outside of the Coastal Zone and have very limited applicability in the Coastal Zone.
Adoption of the ordinance will enable the County to apply design review standards to ADUs and other State-streamlined housing types that have been largely approved without design standards since the adoption of State laws described above. Compliance with the updated ordinance will increase compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods while still facilitating streamlined processing and approval. State law generally requires ministerial review of these qualifying housing projects, effectively prohibiting public comment periods, potential hearings, and appeals associated with discretionary review procedures.
Report Prepared By: Camille Leung, Senior Planner
Applicant: San Mateo County Planning and Building Department
Location: Unincorporated County areas
Existing Zoning: The following zoning districts are combined with the Design Review zoning district:
Outside of the Coastal Zone: Residential Hillside (RH); R-1/S-71 (Devonshire); R-1/S-91 (Palomar Park); R-1/S-101 (Palomar Park); R-1/S-102 (Devonshire); and Planned Colma (PC Colma). The project does not include proposed text amendments to these zoning districts.
Inside the Coastal Zone: R-1 (S-10; S-7; S-13; S-17; S-94; S-105), R-3, R-3-A, RM-CZ, W, C-1, CCR, COSC, EG, M-1, MH, P, PAD, and PUD. The project includes proposed text amendments to the S-17, S-94, and S-105 zoning districts.
Chronology:
Date Action
Summer 2025 - County’s release of draft design standards for review by Bayside Design Review Committee (BDRC) and Coastside Design Review Committee (CDRC). The BDRC reviewed the standards at their September and October 2025 public meetings. The CDRC reviewed the standards at their August, September, and October 2025 public meetings.
October 22, 2025 - Staff presented to the Midcoast Community Council (MCC), with discussion focused on standards regulating exterior lighting.
January 28, 2026 - Planning Commission recommends adoption of the Draft Ordinance, directing staff to address public comments regarding bird strike-proofing windows and color rating limits for exterior lighting.
February 11, 2026 - Staff presented to the MCC, with further discussion of design standards with focus on standards regulating exterior lighting.
April 7, 2026 - Board of Supervisors public hearing.
DISCUSSION:
A. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its January 28, 2026 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed and received public comments regarding the project. Lennie Roberts of Green Foothills recommended the addition of bird-strike proofing measures for windows and four other members of the public spoke regarding the color rating limits for exterior lighting.
Based on public feedback and direction from the Planning Commission, staff has incorporated additional exterior lighting design standards to minimize dark sky impacts from ambient lighting. Dark Sky lighting standards focus on responsible illumination by using fully shielded, downward-directed fixtures, warm-colored lights (3,000 kelvin (k) or lower), and controls (timers/sensors) to minimize glare, light trespass, and skyglow, ensuring light serves a clear purpose, is used only when needed, and is no brighter than necessary, protecting human health and wildlife.
Regarding lighting, coastside members of the public advocated for limiting the color rating of exterior lighting to both 3,000k and 2,200k (language of original ordinance presented to Planning Commission) color rating limits. Both color rating levels are within the range of yellow (prohibiting higher color ratings that appear white and blue) and would comply with “dark sky” light standards.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the Project for adoption by Board of Supervisors, also directing staff to address bird-strike proofing measures for windows (staff has added a draft design standard addressing this) and to prepare pros-and-cons analysis for the Board of Supervisors of 2,200k, 2,700k, and 3,000k color rating limit options, which is presented in the table below.
|
Potential Color Rating Limit Options |
Pros |
Cons |
|
2,200k maximum limit Level provides a very warm, amber-toned light |
Warmest tone of yellow of the three options, with lowest level of dark sky impacts, but still compliant with dark sky standards |
Adoption of this option would set the lowest level, potentially causing a significant number of properties with non-compliant lighting to be in violation |
|
2,700k maximum limit Level provides warm, soft, and inviting light with golden undertones |
Cooler tone of yellow of the options with somewhat higher level of dark sky impacts, but still compliant with dark sky standards |
Adoption of this option would set a somewhat higher limit, potentially causing a lesser number of properties with non-compliant lighting to be in violation |
|
3,000k maximum limit Level often called "warm white" |
Coolest tone of yellow of the options with higher level of dark sky impacts, but still compliant with dark sky standards |
Adoption of this option would set the highest kelvin limit, potentially causing the fewest properties with non-compliant lighting to be in violation |
Based on the comparison above, staff recommends that the Ordinance establish a threshold of 2,200k for new and existing commercial, institutional, and multi-family residential projects, and a 3,000k limit for single-family residential projects (as reflected in the current draft of the ordinance).
B. COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
1. The General Plan encourages the establishment and maintenance of design review districts within Coastal and non-Coastal areas of the unincorporated County:
2. Policy 4.33 (Rural Design Review District): Regulate the site planning of all development in rural areas by using a consolidated set of design standards.
3. Policy 4.38 (Urban Design Review District): Develop design review regulations which incorporate guidelines on managing design problems found in predominantly urban areas.
C. COMPLIANCE WITH THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP)
Through various policies, as listed below followed by a discussion of the Project’s compliance, the LCP encourages the establishment and maintenance of design review districts within Coastal areas of the unincorporated County. Full discussion included in Attachment B.
1. LCP Policy 8.13 (Special Design Guidelines for Coastal Communities)
a. Montara-Moss Beach-El Granada-Miramar
(1) Design structures that fit the topography of the site and do not require extensive cutting, grading, or filling for construction. The Project includes objective standards to minimize alteration of natural topography and grading (see Section 8.256.180.H in Section 2 the Ordinance).
(2) Employ the use of natural materials and colors that blend with the vegetative cover of the site. The Project includes objective standards to require the use of materials that are compatible with the surrounding natural and built environment (see Section 8.256.180.K in Section 2 the Ordinance).
(3) Use pitched roofs that are surfaced with non-reflective materials except for the employment of solar energy devices. The limited use of flat roofs may be allowed if necessary to reduce view impacts or to accommodate varying architectural styles that are compatible with the character of the surrounding area. The Project includes objective standards to prohibit the use of reflective finishes for roofing and further allows for flat roofs in the Midcoast to accommodate contemporary architectural styles (see Section 8.256.180.F in Section 2 the Ordinance).
(4) Design structures that are in scale with the character of their setting and blend rather than dominate or distract from the overall view of the urbanscape. The Project includes objective standards to regulate the scale of development such that it is compatible with surrounding development (see Sections 8.256.180.B and C in Section 2 the Ordinance).
(5) To the extent feasible, design development to minimize the blocking of views to or along the ocean shoreline from Highway 1 and other public viewpoints between Highway 1 and the sea. Public viewpoints include coastal roads, roadside rests and vista points, recreation areas, trails, coastal accessways, and beaches. This provision shall not apply in areas west of Denniston Creek zoned either Coastside Commercial Recreation or Waterfront. The Project includes standards for protecting ocean views from public viewing points, specifically Section 8.256.180.A.3 in Section 2 the Ordinance.
D. SUMMARY OF DESIGN REVIEW ORDINANCE UPDATES
1. The Project proposes revisions to create a ministerial design review process outside of the Coastal Zone, establish an exception process, and establish fees for these processes.
Currently, in Design Review districts outside of the Coastal Zone, a discretionary Design Review permit is required for new houses, additions over 500 sq. ft., and major design changes to existing homes. Obtaining a Design Review permit for such projects requires public notice to property owners within 300 feet of a project site, a public hearing, an appeal process, and adds substantial cost (approximately $5,200-$7,700) and time (approximately four to eight months) to the permitting process.
In these areas, the ordinance would streamline design review permits by establishing a ministerial staff-level design review process, thereby eliminating the Bayside Design Review Committee and the Emerald Lake Hills Design Review Officer (DRO) hearing and associated DRO role for these non-coastal areas. The proposed ministerial design review process would not require public notice and would not be appealable. Review for compliance would be completed by staff, using a checklist, either before or during the building permit process for projects.
|
Table 1: Review Process by Project Type in Non-Coastal Zone |
|
|
Current Ordinance |
Updated Ordinance |
|
State-streamlined housing (e.g., SB 9, SB 35, ADUs) |
Ministerial review with application of limited existing objective standards for SB 9 projects; no objective standards for other housing types |
Ministerial review with objective standards |
|
Non-State-streamlined housing (SFDs, Additions) |
Discretionary review with objective and subjective standards |
Ministerial review with objective standards |
|
Table 2: Review Process by Project Type in Coastal Zone |
|
|
Current Ordinance |
Updated Ordinance |
|
State-streamlined housing (e.g., ADUs) |
Ministerial review with no objective standards applied |
Ministerial review with objective standards |
|
Non-State-streamlined housing (SFDs, Additions) |
Discretionary review with objective and subjective standards |
Discretionary review with objective standards |
The Project also proposes new processes to allow for minor exceptions (subject to approval by the Director, when a project is in substantial conformance with the design review standards) and major exceptions to the standards through a use permit process.
New fees to account for the new processes created by the ordinance (ministerial review and exception processes) are proposed for adoption by Board resolution. These fees are compatible with existing permit fees with similar processes and work products (See Attachment F for the Fee Study).
2. The Project proposes revisions to Design Review Standards to clarify and make standards objective, consolidate related standards from other regulations, and delete unnecessary or duplicative requirements.
State law defines objective standards as those that “involve no personal or subjective judgement by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant and public official prior to submittal” (Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(5)). Design standards are “objective” if they are measurable, verifiable, and knowable to all parties prior to project submittal. To this end, the Project proposes to replace subjective language with objective criteria, with examples as described in Attachment D.
Existing standards that could not be made objective would be deleted or kept as recommendations. For example, standards pertaining to blocking views from private properties and maintaining privacy of private properties used a standard that allowed a “reasonable amount” of impact, which is not possible to quantify or apply objectively. A standard that would prohibit blocking any private views or infringing on any privacy would be objective, but would, in many instances, likely prevent property owners from developing their property in a manner protected by the constitution.
The Project also consolidates design standards from the Community Design Manual with the standards of the ordinance and deletes existing design standards that are now addressed by other regulations. The ordinance also makes changes that reflect staff experience; some standards have not been consistently enforced or have been largely ignored, due to community and staff priorities. In the Midcoast, this includes standards such as those limiting flat roofs and location of high activity areas next to neighboring low activity areas, among others.
3. The Project makes other updates to address CDRC feedback and public concerns.
a. Require story poles for larger projects while simultaneously increasing the size threshold for projects exempt from CDRC review from 150 sq. ft. to 500 sq. ft.
The Project incorporates existing County story pole policy into the ordinance, making the policy enforceable rather than advisory. For smaller projects (e.g., residences and additions smaller than 800 sq. ft.) the ordinance would require projects to demonstrate scale through digital renderings and require story poles for larger projects. As the story pole requirement would add process and costs for projects, the CDRC suggested a simultaneous increase of the size threshold for projects exempt from CDRC review from 150 sq. ft. to 500 square feet. This would allow smaller projects (e.g., additions, garages) which under current regulations would be reviewed by the CDRC, to go through a staff-level ministerial formal exemption.
b. Strengthen exterior lighting standards.
In response to public comments collected over time and at the Midcoast Community Council on October 22, 2025, the Project also adds to current exterior light standards including requiring all exterior lighting to use warm, yellow light tones with a color rating range of 2200 Kelvin (k) to 3000k or lower depending on use. A member of the public suggested a new lighting ordinance, such as the City of Brisbane’s light ordinance. Staff responded that the concerns could be addressed more readily by strengthening current lighting standards of the DR regulations.
c. Imposes design review standards on small projects that do not require other County permits (e.g., exterior painting, lighting).
Currently, Section 8.256.030 applies design review requirements “to all new exterior construction which requires a building permit, grading or land clearing that requires a grading permit, or tree cutting that requires a tree cutting permit, unless the activity is determined to be exempt in accordance with Section 8.256.040.” In order to apply the standards to smaller projects, such as paint color and exterior lighting changes, where no other County permit is required but which are of concern to the community, the revised ordinance applies design review to all exterior alterations, regardless of whether a County permit is required. This change gives the County legal authority to enforce DR standards for such alterations made to a property which do not comply. Such enforcement actions would not begin until one year after the adoption of the Ordinance to allow existing development to comply, be at the County’s discretion, and based on the level and priority of the violation.
d. Establish consistent height measurement standards.
The Project also proposes to establish a consistent height measurement method for residential and commercial projects in the Midcoast, which currently varies and allows for more height in commercial districts due to an average grade-to-average roofline measurement method. This change is proposed in response to comments from the public and MCC.
E. RELATED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS
In addition to replacing the Design Review chapter of the Zoning Regulations, the Project includes text amendments to the Zoning Regulations, specifically language in the S-17, S-94, and S-105 zoning districts allowing for compliance with daylight plane or façade articulation. All proposed changes to the County Zoning Regulations are described in Section 3 the Ordinance.
F. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), adoption of the ordinance is covered by the “common sense exemption” in that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. Here, it can be seen with certainty that adoption of an ordinance providing objective design standards would not cause a physical change in the environment and therefore would not have a significant effect on the environment. State law mandates ministerial review for certain project types, and this ordinance would improve the County’s ability to address design considerations as part of that ministerial process. Discretionary projects would continue to be subject to CEQA review at the time of proposal. Objective design standards do not change allowable uses or permitted residential densities.
G. AGENCIES CONSULTED
Coastside Design Review Committee
Bayside Design Review Committee
Midcoast Community Council
County Attorney’s Office
COMMUNITY IMPACT:
The project would further streamline the County’s design review process and allow for the application of standards to State-streamlined housing project types (such as ADUs, and SB 9 and SB 35 projects) and projects that do not require a County permit (e.g., painting, exterior lighting), to ensure that new projects remain compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The enforcement of design review standards on new projects will have a negligible fiscal impact on the County as the project includes new fees for new staff-level processes. However, the enforcement of design review standards on non-conforming properties may result in a marginal fiscal impact to the County, as it may result in additional code complaints and investigation. Such enforcement actions would be at the County’s discretion and based on the level and priority of the violation and staffing levels. The Department’s Code Compliance section will continue to be primarily funded by the County General Fund.