Council approves rezoning for 900 Calhoun Street over neighborhood objections

The Hayward City Council on Oct. 21 approved a zoning map amendment for 900 Calhoun Street, formally rezoning the 0.94-acre site from Agriculture (A) to Low Density Residential, RLB-10. The action implements the Hayward 2040 general plan land use designation and was approved after public hearing and staff recommendation.

City planning staff told the council the property has been assigned a low-density residential general plan designation since the Mission Garen neighborhood plan was adopted in 1987 but the zoning remained A (agricultural). Associate Planner Taylor Richard said state law now requires charter cities to keep zoning consistent with adopted general plans, and that the rezoning would allow the city to apply objective development standards in any future review of the site.

More than a dozen nearby residents spoke in public comment opposing the rezoning. Speakers — including Marcela James, Hema Venustra and several members of the Buenrostro and Figueroa families — said the block retains an agricultural, equestrian character with animals, orchards and multi‑generational households and asked the council to preserve that character. Concerns raised at the hearing included steep slopes, emergency vehicle access, noise from a nearby outdoor shooting range, and the effect of additional development on traffic and neighborhood culture.

Staff and technical responders addressed several community concerns. Director of Development Services Sarah Bowser and planning staff noted that no new construction is currently proposed and that any future development would require separate city review. Planning staff said the site's allowable density is prescribed by the general plan: the parcel’s capacity is eight dwelling units. Staff clarified that rezoning does not itself authorize new construction; subsequent site-specific applications would be required and routed to relevant departments for life-and-safety, seismic, and landslide analysis. Planning staff also said the property’s accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is under construction and was reviewed by building and fire staff, which determined it met applicable standards.

Chief of Police (name not specified in the record) noted the city and other agencies use a private outdoor range in the vicinity for training and said training is scheduled during daytime hours and generally ends by 10 p.m.; he encouraged residents and the range operator to work together on noise expectations. Planning staff and the city attorney also told council that if the council denied the rezoning, the city could face legal obligations under state law because the zoning currently contradicts the adopted general plan.

Council discussion repeatedly returned to two points: (1) the rezoning aligns zoning with a long-standing general plan designation adopted after a neighborhood task force process in the 1980s, and (2) rezoning does not relieve the city of responsibility to apply objective development and safety standards to any future project. Several council members expressed sympathy for neighbors but concluded the city must correct the inconsistency between zoning and the general plan. Mayor Salinas moved to approve the rezoning; the motion was seconded by Council Member Goldstein.

The council approved the rezoning by voice vote; the clerk announced the motion passed with six yes votes, zero no votes and one absent. Council Member Bonilla had recused himself earlier in the hearing because he lives within 500 feet of the site.

The rezoning does not approve any specific subdivision or building permit. Any future application for subdivision or new construction would require separate planning, environmental and building reviews, and must meet the city's objective standards, life-and-safety requirements and any applicable California environmental rules.

Residents who opposed the rezoning urged the city to consider a broader review of the neighborhood's plan or to amend the general plan to protect the area's agricultural character, but staff and council noted that a change of that kind would require a separate, city‑initiated planning process, CEQA review and likely identification of replacement capacity elsewhere to avoid “no‑net‑loss” issues under state housing law.

The council’s action resolves the immediate inconsistency between the zoning ordinance and the general plan for 900 Calhoun Street but leaves open future debates about the neighborhood’s character and any subsequent development proposals.