Council hears workshop on zoning text amendment to speed infill housing approvals

Planning staff gave a workshop on May 15 on proposed text amendment 2400794, which would restore two residential options to the office zone — conversions of office buildings to dwellings and new multi‑unit housing on vacant or underutilized office parcels — and would also allow a ministerial (objective, streamlined) approval pathway for housing in three categories: office zones, multifamily zones within a half‑mile of a bus stop, and mixed‑use zones in the city’s infill priority area.

“We bring you a workshop on text amendment 24 0 0 7 9 4 regarding streamlining housing opportunities,” Planning Manager Sofia Pagalades told the council when she opened the presentation.

Why it matters: the amendment responds to state housing planning requirements and the city’s “pro‑housing” designation; staff said the proposal adds capacity analyzed in a mitigated negative declaration and could affect the city’s ability to compete for state housing funds if the capacity or the pro‑housing commitments are not met.

What staff proposed

Staff said the text change has two independent components: (1) add residential uses in the office zone (office‑to‑dwelling conversions and new multifamily on vacant office parcels) and (2) create a ministerial approval process with objective standards that would apply in the three categories described above. The staff presentation included a list of exclusions and “sensitive site” criteria that would disqualify ministerial processing — for example, sites in flood hazard areas, Williamson Act contracts, airport safety zones, important farmland, or locations exceeding thresholds for health risk or vehicle‑miles‑travelled. Staff also proposed a 500‑foot buffer that would prohibit new residential development on office parcels within 500 feet of a school.

Capacity, environmental review and state ties

Staff said the environmental analysis (a mitigated negative declaration) considered roughly 4,868 dwelling units of additional capacity (about 2,600 from conversions and about 2,100 on vacant office parcels). The presentation tied the change to the city’s housing element commitments and the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) pro‑housing designation, which staff said can affect eligibility and scoring for affordable housing grants. Staff also said the city has an active $10 million homeless housing assistance application that depends on the pro‑housing designation.

Council debate and issues raised

Council members asked technical and policy questions about notice and appeals, district authority, potential spot‑zoning effects, and the practical differences between ministerial processing and the existing development‑permit process. Several members supported the goal of creating capacity and streamlining approvals; others said they worried ministerial approvals could remove a public hearing step that residents expect when a land use pattern changes.

Councilmember Perea and others emphasized that ministerial approval does not eliminate appeal rights: a council member can appeal a ministerial decision to the planning commission and ultimately to the council. Councilmember Richardson said his main concern was that allowing ministerial approvals for conversions or vacant office parcels would let an unelected official effectively change the use of land without a public hearing, and he said he preferred additional safeguards or a more limited, area‑by‑area approach. Several council members asked staff to provide written lists and maps, and some asked that the department proactively notify council offices when ministerial permits are processed in their districts so members have the option to appeal.

Staff and the city manager warned of a tradeoff: if the council declines to add capacity through this or a similar measure, the city might need to rezone parcels individually in the high‑resource areas to meet housing element requirements — a process that staff said could delay compliance and reduce the city’s competitiveness for state housing funds.

Next steps

This was a workshop; the item is scheduled to return for first reading. Staff and councilmembers agreed to additional briefings and to provide the council with public comments, maps of affected parcels, and clarifications on the ministerial appeals process. No legislative action or vote was taken at the workshop.