Council voted 5-2 at their last meeting to approve an emergency zoning ordinance that dramatically expands housing development possibilities in single-family neighborhoods, allowing up to 20 units on vacant residential lots and permitting three-story buildings in areas previously restricted to single-family homes.
The measure extends and amends regulations tied to California's Senate Bill 1123, also called the Starter Home Revitalization Act, which became effective July 1. The ordinance eliminates affordable housing fees for projects with five or fewer units and relaxes development standards including setbacks and height restrictions.
Council Members Jesse Zwick, Dan Hall, Barry Snell, Caroline Torosis and Natalya Zernitskaya voted in favor, while Councilmember Ellis Raskin and Mayor Lana Negrete opposed the measure.
The ordinance faced fierce opposition from residents who packed the public hearing, with many arguing the "emergency" designation was unwarranted and the measure would primarily benefit developers rather than create truly affordable housing.
"We can't keep greenlighting projects that may meet numbers or rather ideals on paper but fail to meet the real needs of our residents, especially when they strain resources and lack meaningful affordability," Mayor Negrete said during the meeting.
Negrete expressed concerns about density, infrastructure capacity and community impact, arguing that upzoning often leads to speculation that drives up property values and displaces lower-income residents and people of color.
Supporters of the ordinance, however, argued it would create crucial "missing middle" housing options for young families being priced out of the city.
"The point of an ordinance like this is so that that home could potentially be transformed into say four or five homes each around fairly modest 1,500 or so square feet," Zwick said, describing how older homes often demolished for large mansions could instead become multiple affordable units.
The debate took a heated turn when Councilmember Hall cautioned Mayor Negrete against using terms like "character of neighborhoods," calling them "the exact words that racists use to keep people of color low-income families and workers out of neighborhoods."
Mayor Negrete, who is Latina, strongly objected to the characterization. "When I say character it means making it more unaffordable. A city I grew up in that I don't recognize that I can't afford to live in," she said. "Don't you dare say it's about racism. I take deep offense to that."
The ordinance includes several key modifications to development standards: — guarantees a floor area ratio of 1.5, allows buildings up to three stories and 33 feet in height, reduces front yard setbacks by 30% but no less than 10 feet and eliminates upper story stepbacks and interior setbacks between accessory dwelling units
City staff clarified that the "emergency" designation stemmed from council direction on May 13 to implement the ordinance before July 1, along with findings related to the housing crisis and need for "missing middle" housing.
Principal Planner Ross Fehrman said staff would track applications and construction to assess the ordinance's effectiveness. He confirmed plans to move forward with a permanent ordinance and noted no SB 1123 projects have been submitted yet.
The original emergency ordinance, adopted June 10, was set to expire August 9. The extension approved Monday extends it until December 31, 2026, giving the city time to analyze effectiveness and incorporate anticipated guidance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
According to city documents, eliminating affordable housing fees for smaller projects could result in significant revenue loss. A 10,000-square-foot condominium project would have paid $513,000 in affordable housing fees under the previous system.
The ordinance also expands ADU allowances to projects in multiple-unit zones under SB 684, another state housing law.
Public speakers were divided, with supporters arguing the measure would help young families afford homes and opponents contending it would lead to luxury development that benefits out-of-state developers.