after balking, fresno oks housing-streamlining compromise
by Sal Rodriguez | December 5, 2025
(Editor’s Note: This piece has been updated from the article originally published on December 5 to reflect Fresno’s recent action on the issue.)
The answer to the housing shortage plaguing cities across the country isn’t really that hard – it’s to build more housing. But as the debate over housing in Fresno, Calif., shows, it’s a lot easier said than done when city council members feel they need to be involved in everything.
Throughout the year, the council has considered a proposal from Councilmember Annalisa Perea, professionally an urban planner, that called for allowing ministerial approval of office-to-housing conversions in the city’s office zone and multi-unit residential housing in multiple areas of the city, including within half a mile of bus stops.
This means projects that otherwise meet the city’s development code could go through a much more streamlined approval process at the city staff level rather than get dragged to City Hall to be harangued by council members and a handful of residents who don’t want anything built in their vicinity.
With the city projecting it needs about 37,000 new housing units by 2031 to keep up with demand, and the perennial problem of slow permitting processes adding significant costs to housing developments, it made perfect sense for Fresno to allow for a more streamlined approval process.
Perea’s colleagues, however, bristled at the idea of not dragging developers through the wringer and on June 19 a majority of the council struck down the idea of a ministerial approval process.
“The definition of ministerial is that if you meet abcxyz requirements that you will sail on through the bureaucratic process with a lesser level of public scrutiny,” explained Councilman Nelson Esparza, who argued strenuously in support of so-called public scrutiny.
“I know that these projects can be very difficult, and we do see some resistance from residents, but to me that’s democracy in action,” Esparza said. “It’s part of the process to get to the most optimal outcome for the community.”
Since when are city government meetings the best vehicle for figuring out the optimal outcome for the community?
With the city projecting that it needs about 37,000 new housing units by 2031 to keep up with demand, and the perennial problem of slow permitting processes adding significant costs to housing developments, it made perfect sense for Fresno to allow for a more streamlined approval process.
Some of Perea’s colleagues, however, bristled at the idea of not dragging developers through the wringer and on June 19 a majority of the council struck down the idea of a ministerial approval process.
“I know that these projects can be very difficult, and we do see some resistance from residents, but to me that’s democracy in action,” Councilman Nelson Esparza said in opposition to ministerial approvals. “It’s part of the process to get to the most optimal outcome for the community.”
Since when are city government meetings the best vehicle for figuring out the optimal outcome for the community? The process Esparza defends is one that injects personal grievances and political posturing into the market. That’s essentially how Fresno, and so many other cities across the country, ended up with broken housing markets.
So it was a welcome development when, in November, a council majority settled on a compromise.
As described by Fresnoland, the city “would allow for housing developments in office-zoned districts and near bus stops to be approved ministerially, or, without much oversight from the council.” Projects could be ministerially approved, but council members would retain an ability to appeal staff approvals of projects if they believed the approvals were wrongly granted.
The compromise also limits ministerial approvals for projects higher than 45 feet that aren’t within half a mile of at least two major transit stops.
During the council’s November 6 meeting, Perea spoke bluntly about the importance of streamlining housing.
“We cannot keep doing things the same way and expect different results here in Fresno,” she said. “One of the most effective tools we have to meet this moment is the ministerial approval process for housing projects. Ministerial approvals allow cities to greenlight housing that already meets our local zoning and design standards without lengthy and duplicative reviews.”
Esparza again countered in defense of forcing developers through more elaborate approval processes: “My original concerns stand on streamlining the potential for developments and trading off the potential for community input, tying our hands and putting us back in a position where we potentially turn down a project and are forced to reinstate it.”
“It is hard to give away influence as a councilmember,” countered Perea. “I think it’s a big reason why we’re in a housing crisis to begin with, some might argue we have a little too much power and influence.”
That very much is the crux of the housing fight in communities across California and indeed the entire country.
Politicians, bureaucrats and residents on one side believe it is essential to put developers through the wringer, no matter the consequences. On the other side are those who recognize that way of doing things is precisely how so many communities found themselves with a housing shortage in the first place.
Yes, cutting red tape often means giving up power. But city council members losing some power is hardly a tragedy when it means allowing projects to actually get built.
banner © Tony Scarfone
