Council advances housing text amendment but removes ministerial approval provision after close debate

Fresno City Council on June 19 moved forward on a broad land-use text amendment (P24-00794) intended to ease conversions of office and vacant parcels to residential uses and to add other pro-housing measures, but the council removed the item's proposed expansion of ministerial approvals after extensive public comment and a split vote.

The afternoon hearing drew large public turnout: speakers from homeowners'associations, long-term residents of neighborhoods such as Sierra Sky Park and West Herndon, and planning and economic development groups all addressed the council. Residents warned that a blanket, citywide ministerial approval would curtail public notice and local input and could allow large increases in density and height near long-established neighborhoods. Business and development advocates, including Fresno County Economic Development Corporation and Invest Fresno, said the amendment would reduce permitting delays and help reposition vacant office buildings to meet housing demand.

Planning and legal details discussed on the record included: the proposed 500-foot buffer that would exempt parcels within 500 feet of a school from the ministerial path; the city's current 15-day appeal period for project approvals; and staff estimates of conversion capacity in high- and highest-resource areas (the transcript records roughly 1,770 units in highest-resource conversion capacity plus 250 units in high-resource conversion capacity, for about 2,020 units of conversion capacity, with an additional roughly 1,578 units needed to meet adopted housing-element targets).

Council Member Esparza moved to approve the text amendment but to remove all ministerial-approval components; Council Member Richardson seconded the motion, with the caveat that the 500-foot school buffer remain. After extended discussion the motion passed on a 4-3 roll call: Council Members Vang, Richardson, Esparza and Council President Carabassi voted yes; Council Members Perea, Maxwell and Vice President Arias voted no. City staff and the city attorney cautioned that the change constitutes a material alteration of the ordinance as introduced, meaning the altered ordinance will need to return to the council and likely to the planning commission before final adoption.

One council member noted the mayor has been supportive of actions that would ensure units on paper for the city's housing element; staff clarified ministerial approval is not required to achieve the housing-element capacity but would be a streamlining tool. The city attorney reminded the council that no ordinance can be adopted on the day of its introduction if it is materially altered; the council's vote therefore advances a version of the amendment that will be reintroduced for subsequent hearings.

What happens next: City staff said they will work with the council and the planning department to refine the text amendment and return it for further hearings. If adopted as amended at a subsequent hearing it would change how certain office and vacant parcels are processed; the mayor will have the normal 10-day veto window once the ordinance reaches his desk.