Commission recommends code clarification for ROLME zoning, urges council to consider comp-plan change for Baylands protections

The Planning & Transportation Commission voted 3–1 on Aug. 26 to recommend that the City Council adopt a zoning-text amendment clarifying that multifamily residential uses in the ROLME zone may be allowed on a case-by-case basis through a conditional use permit (CUP).

The amendment is a code clarification, staff said: it would not approve any specific project, change zoning-map boundaries, or create a by-right housing path. "This is a zoning text amendment only," said Joey Dinh, senior planner, describing staff's recommendation that the commission forward the ordinance to council and noting a typographical citation correction in the circulated draft.

The vote followed a 20-minute discussion about environmental sensitivity along Baylands-adjacent parcels and the practical effect of state housing laws on local discretionary review. Shani Kleinhaus of the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance told the commission she was "very disappointed" the item did not go to the Parks & Recreation Commission and urged the PTC to continue the item so staff and the city attorney could explore alternatives to protect wetlands and habitat.

Councilor Yang, responding to commissioners' questions about the CUP process under current state law, cautioned that "for housing projects that comply with all of our objective standards, the city is, it's the our discretion over that CUP would be limited by the Housing Accountability Act." Commissioners said the legal landscape makes it harder to rely on discretionary review alone to block projects that meet objective standards.

Given those constraints, the motion that passed directed staff's recommended ordinance be forwarded to council with an additional recommendation that the council consider a future amendment to the comprehensive plan to remove housing as a potential use from properties in the ROLME district, at minimum. Commissioner Aiken moved the staff recommendation with that additional request and Commissioner Heckman seconded. Commissioners Heckman, James and Aiken voted yes; Chair Chang voted no. The motion carried, 3–1.

Staff said the change is intended to correct an internal inconsistency between Table 1 in code section 18.20.30 and the CUP provisions in 18.20.40, not to predetermine the outcome of any future development application. Staff also committed to clarifying parcel ownership and whether privately owned undeveloped Baylands parcels exist before the matter returns to council.