Bell Gardens introduces zoning changes to meet state housing rules, sets density aimed at housing element goals
April 14, 2026 | Bell Gardens City, Los Angeles County, California
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
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.
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.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
