Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bell Gardens introduces zoning changes to meet state housing rules, sets density aimed at housing element goals
Summary
Council introduced Ordinance No. 965 to amend Bell Gardens’ zoning code in response to a state Housing and Community Development request; staff said the changes enable by‑right ministerial approvals for projects that include at least 20% low‑income units and codify a local density target that planners say aligns with the city’s housing element.
Bell Gardens city officials on April 13 introduced Ordinance No. 965, a zoning‑code amendment designed to implement guidance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and to support the city’s adopted housing element.
Associate planner Adrian Duko told the council the ordinance (PLN26‑00007) would add "by‑right" language allowing ministerial approvals for qualifying residential projects identified in the housing element and the reuse/rezone sites, provided those developments include a minimum of 20% low‑income units. He said staff found the amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under the cited categorical exemptions and asked the council to waive full reading and introduce the ordinance by title.
Why it matters: Staff said the change is intended to remove discretionary review barriers for projects that meet objective development standards and a minimum affordability requirement, helping the city implement its 2021–2029 Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
During council questions, members pressed whether the ordinance requires a minimum of 20 or 24 units per acre. Adrian said the state law requires a minimum of 20 units per acre, "however, our housing element calculations for the identified reuse and resite sites result in an effective density of 24 units per acre," and that the proposed code language was drafted to be consistent with both state law and the city’s housing element.
Public comment at the planning commission stage was noted in the staff report; a planning‑commission resolution (PC‑2026‑2) recommended the council adopt Ordinance 965.
The council voted to find the ordinance exempt from CEQA and to introduce Ordinance No. 965 by title; the motion passed on a recorded roll call (Barca: yes; Chavez: yes; Sanchez: yes; Mayor Prom: yes; Mayor De la Rosa: yes). Staff will return with final reading and any additional materials required for adoption.
What’s next: The ordinance must return for a second reading and final adoption for the amendments to become binding city law. The council’s action at the April 13 meeting was an introduction and finding of exemption, not a final adoption.
