Planning Commission recommends denial of rezoning at 900 Calhoun Street after neighbors cite agricultural character

The Hayward Planning Commission voted on Sept. 25 to recommend that the City Council deny a proposed zoning map amendment that would reclassify a 0.94‑acre property at 900 Calhoun Street from Agriculture (A) to Low Density Residential — minimum lot size 10,000 square feet (RLB‑10).

Associate Planner Taylor Richard told the commission the site already contains a two‑story detached residence built in 2013 and an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) permitted in 2021; the applicant, property owner Amand Poyer, requested the rezoning to make the parcel consistent with the city’s Low Density Residential general plan designation and, staff said, to enable a future subdivision that is not possible under the existing Agricultural zoning.

Richard said the site is constrained by topography and geologic hazards: the northeastern corner lies within a seismic landslide zone and an Alquist‑Priolo fault zone bisects part of the parcel. Staff concluded the proposed rezoning is consistent with the city’s General Plan land‑use designation and therefore did not require additional environmental review beyond the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Neighbors and community members, many of them long‑time Calhoun residents, opposed the rezoning during the public comment period. Speakers said the area’s agricultural uses, including horses, goats, chickens and youth 4‑H activities, are long‑standing features of neighborhood life and provide educational and cultural value to multiple generations. Several residents said they had not received formal notice of the application in advance and asked the commission to preserve the parcel’s agricultural character.

Commissioners asked staff and the property owner questions about the intended future use. The owner told the commission he did not intend to build large‑scale housing immediately and that his personal plans were modest; he described the ADU as an existing secondary unit and said he was not proposing an immediate development plan. Commissioners pressed on emergency access, the potential need for fire turnaround and road access for fire apparatus, and the degree to which seismic and slope constraints would permit future lots to be developed.

The Planning Commission debated two central issues: (1) whether rezoning one parcel to conform to the General Plan would reasonably allow subdivision and additional dwelling units given geological constraints; and (2) whether the commission should postpone or deny a rezoning when no concrete site plan or subdivision map was before the commission. Several commissioners emphasized that state law and recent legislative changes limit a city’s ability to deny development consistent with its General Plan; others said that, given neighborhood impacts and the lack of a concrete plan, the council should deny the change or require a broader review.

After deliberation Commissioner Stevens moved to recommend denial to City Council; the motion carried on a roll call that recorded a majority in favor of recommending denial. The clerk recorded the vote as: Goodbody — yes; Hammond — yes; Lowe — yes; Myers — yes; Stevens — yes; Georgov — no (reluctant); Hardie (Chair) — yes. The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be transmitted to the City Council, which has authority to approve, deny or modify the rezoning request.

Staff noted that a City Council‑led general plan amendment remains a separate legislative path if the council wants to reconcile broader land‑use policy in the area. Commissioners and neighbors asked staff to clarify the general plan amendment process and required offsets under current state law (cities proposing to reduce allowed housing capacity locally must identify sites or measures to avoid net loss of housing capacity).