Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We can begin. Thank you. The meeting of the Newark Planning Commission will come to order. Will you please rise and join me for the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay. Let the record show that all members of the planning commission are in attendance this evening. Next item on the agenda is minutes and this is item B1, approval of the minutes of the regular planning commission meeting of March 24th, 20126. Can I have a motion to approve the minutes, please? Commissioner Boasich, can I get a second? Second. I was wondering whether I was going to get a second on the minutes tonight. Continued. Thank you, Commissioner Fitz. All those in favor say I or raise your hand.

I. Anybody opposed? Okay, motion passes. Five eyes. Okay, that brings us to written communications. Do we have any written communications this evening? Done this evening.

Thank you. Brings us to item D, oral communications. giving anybody in our vast audience an opportunity to come up to the podium and speak on any item that's not currently on the agenda. And just please note that state law prohibits the commission from acting on any non-aggendaized items. Do we have anybody wishing to address the planning commission this evening? Okay, seeing not brings us to item E, public hearings. And we have no public hearings scheduled this evening. And that brings us to item F, staff reports. Item F1 is the objective design standards project update from staff. So, I'm not sure who's going to be going first, but good evening, chair, vice chair, and planning commissioners. My name is Carmelissa Lopez, senior planner with the community development department. Thank you for the opportunity to present on the objective design standards project this evening. staff has made significant progress on this project and we are excited to present to you what we've worked on so far. Uh the purpose of this study session is to provide an o overview of the objective design standards project um provide an overview of the draft standards and associated zoning code amendments obtain input from the planning commission. Uh throughout this study session, I will we will be referring to the objective design standards also as ODS. Um and as I'm sure many are aware, the uh draft standards were posted on the city's website for public review starting on March 27th. So we're currently in the 3-week review period that will end on April 17th, which is this Friday. This is the agenda for this evening. Um we'll try to be brief with these items. Um but uh it is a lot of information so um if you can bear with us um we'll hope to provide a great presentation for you

tonight. Um so first we'll start off by introducing the project team. We will then provide some background information on the project and and the intent and importance of ODS. We'll then go over the draft standards and some key changes. We will then explain what streamline ministeral review is and why it is required for certain projects. We will then briefly discuss the benefits and potential outcomes of adopting ODS and conclude with next steps in an opportunity for discussion. I'd like to introduce our project team um including myself um from the city team um we also have Michael Kulump, housing policy and programs manager uh community development director Stephen uh Steven Turner and deputy community development director Art Intero. And from the good city company team, uh, which are our consultants for this project, we have Nicholas Hamilton, public policy lead, um, who's joining us via Zoom this evening. Okay.

Um, and Ralph Robinson, uh, senior planner, who's, um, to my left for tonight's presentation. Um, Mr. Kulum and Mr. Robinson will be uh, presenting with me. Um, so you may ask, you know, what are what are objective design standards and how are they different from the standards in the city's current zoning code? There are several types of standards that we will be discussing this evening. So we thought it would be important to um to recognize the differences. So in the zoning code there we there's reg uh in the zoning code it regulates development through two complimentary types of standards. Um those are development standards um also known as base standards and design standards. Development standards define the fundamental parameters of what can be built on site. These include measurable requirements such as building height, setbacks and parking. uh to the example on the right that that shows a residential single family and residential lowdensity uh zoning districts. Um it shows the development standards uh regarding height and setbacks. Um these standards establish the building envelope and intensity of development in the zoning code. These will generally be located in the base zoning district and overlay district chapters. As for design standards, which are also called um design guidelines, um in some documents, um they address how a building and site are designed with within the parameters of development standards. These standards focus on elements such as building massing, articulation, um and the relationship of the development to the street and neighboring properties. Design standards are intended to improve the visual quality, functionality, and compatibility compatibility of development. in the zoning code. You'll find them in the base zoning district and overlay district chapters as well as um chapters addressing citywide regulations. Together um they work to establish both the allowable scale of development and the quality of its physical design. So now I'll go into the difference between objective versus subjective

standards. Um the definition on this slide is from the state. Um uh and generally you know objective standards are requirements that don't rely on personal opinion. They are clear, measurable and based on fixed criteria that both applicants and staff can understand before a project is submitted. Generally development standards are objective standards but design standards can also be objective. In contrast, subjective standards um are not clearly defined and can be interpreted differently by different people and at different times. Uh many of the city's current design standards are subjective. On this slide, you'll see some examples from the um current zoning code as well as the single family residential design review guidelines. So on the left, new res residences and additions should be compatible in scale and height with surrounding houses so as to blend in with them versus overwhelming them in disproportionate size. And the one on the right, buildings shall include adequate design features to create visual variety and avoid a large scale and bulky appearance. Um these standards and guidelines are subjective because they rely on interpretation rather than measurable criteria. They use terms such as adequate, bulky, overwhelming. Um there's no defined metrics or thresholds. Um different reviewers may reach different conclusions which leads to inconsistent and unpredictable outcomes. Uh the state has enacted laws that require approval for multi-unit development which include development with two or more units as well as a single unit development with an ADU which is accessory dwelling unit and mixeduse development to be based on objective standards. The development of ODS is in response to broader state and local efforts to address California's housing crisis driven in part by rising construction costs and lengthy unpredictable approval timelines. In response to evolving state laws, the

city's six cycle housing element includes several programs that commit to implementing ODS and incentivize how housing production and improve permitting uh efficiency. Adoption of ODS would implement these various housing programs. ODS will not remove the city or community's role in setting the standards by which projects are evaluated. They will simply codify that discretion at the beginning of the review process. I will now hand the presentation over off to Mr. Kulum to provide more information on the housing element and the intent and importance of ODS.

Thank you, Miss Lopez. Objective design standards and related zoning amendments address two of our housing elements seven goals. Goal H2 aims to develop more homes for more people and goal H3 aims to reduce and remove development constraints. I like to think of these goals as working together to build high quality housing faster and more affordably. There are several specific housing element programs that this work addresses and all of these programs have quantified objectives. As a reminder, quantified objectives are the commitments that we made as part of our housing element to track and demonstrate our progress in meaningfully addressing Newark's housing needs. Uh the two primary programs that involve objective development standards are programs H3.2 um and H3.4, four which are to develop objective design standards for single unit, multi-unit and mixeduse developments and to amend the neighborhood commercial and community commercial zoning districts to facilitate mixeduse development. Other programs that objective design standards will help help to address our H2.8, H2.12, H3.1, and H5.3. We're certainly happy to take any questions on those later in the presentation. We're also crafting ODS to take into account the housing needs of priority populations and priority housing types. Some of you will recall that in 2021, the planning commission recommended and the city council adopted the 2021 2023 affordable housing work plan which was developed based on research, best practices, and interviews with planning commissioners and city council members. The adopted work plan prioritized housing for young families, key workers, people at risk of homelessness, people with disabilities, and other special housing needs, and low-income seniors. Unfortunately, much of the city's existing housing stock is not affordable to these populations. And for that reason, the work plan identified

priority housing types that could be more naturally affordable to the priority populations and the middle class more broadly. These include medium to highdensity apartments, condos, and town homes, as well as duplexes and forplexes. Those housing types are illustrated in the image on the screen and are commonly referred to as missing middle housing. Missing because this type of housing is commonly missing from a city's housing stock and middle because it's somewhere in between the size of a single family home and a larger apartment building and because it's intended to serve a more middle or working-class household. Objective design standards aim to facilitate the development of these priority housing types and in that way to serve our priority populations. ODS also serve to comply with state law and to externally communicate the city's vision and expectations for new development. Over time, several state laws have layered on top of one another to limit the scope of design review against objective standards. Under these laws, cities without objective design design standards have limited basis for conducting design review, meaning they have little design authority. That's why it's important that ODS go through a rigorous public engagement process prior to adoption and with each revision. ODS work to communicate the community's vision and expectations to each other and to developers and to allow all members of the community to weigh in. In this way, ODS can be a more inclusive and representative way of conducting uh design review than the traditional public hearing and interpretation of subjective standards. I once had a boss in affordable housing who would always ask, "What's the quickest way to know?" A quick no can be a lot better than a maybe or time and money wasted uh waiting for a response. So a nice thing about objective design standards is that they frontload the discretionary process to the very

beginning and by being objective aim to complete design review faster, get to yes or no quicker and reduce uncertainty for both the applicant and the reviewer. This is applicable for both our ministerial and discretionary permit processes. As a refresher, ministerial permits are reviewed and then approved by staff without a public hearing or meeting of the planning commission or city council. Many ADU applications are processed ministerially in compliance with state law. Um meaning staff reviews them against our objective standards and then approves or denies them. We also have a buy housing overlay zone which is another example of ministerial permitting and also building permits are typically always ministerial. Discretionary permits, on the other hand, are most commonly reviewed by staff and then referred to the planning commission and/or city council with a recommendation for approval or denial. An example of this would be a design review application for a multi-unit or mixeduse building. Newark's discretionary design review permits can take four to seven months longer to process than ministerial permits. So, ODS subjective design standards aim to speed up both discretionary and ministerial processes by first giving applicants clear and intelligible requirements that they must meet for approval and then giving reviewers, whether it be staff, the planning commission or the city council, the same set of requirements. There was a report recently published by the Rand Center on Housing and Homelessness that attracted quite a bit of attention from policy makers and those interested in reducing the cost of housing. Uh it had a lot of takeaways, but a significant one is that there's a strong correlation between discretionary approvals, development time frames, and total development costs. Ran found that it took 22 months longer to build a market rate apartment in California than Texas and a year longer than in Colorado. Along with that, the development costs were highest in Colorado with the highest costs and

longest production times in the Bay Area. The bar chart on the right is from that study and it shows that of the 22-month difference between California and Texas, 15 months is just pre-development, meaning the time between application submittal and the start of construction and then construction takes an average 7 months longer than Texas. The report concluded that if California could reduce its development timelines by 22 months, it could reduce total development costs by 8% on average, or a savings of nearly $30,000 per unit. For a 50-unit building, that's a savings of $1.5 million that would otherwise ultimately be passed on to the home buyer or renter. And so these savings are really achieved by shortening the amount of time and money spent on carrying costs for things like land and interest as well as inflated architectural and design fees that account for various rounds of subjective review. You can understand why it attracted so much attention this report. And so finally I just want to turn back from to to this slide from our presentation on the inclusionary housing ordinance which has since been adopted. As part of that study, we modeled the feasibility of various housing types, much of much of which are those in the uh priority housing type that I spoke about a few minutes ago. And that study assumed that return on investment builders would need to see for projects um would need to be feasible. Return on investment, super generally speaking, the difference between what it costs to build a project and what it could rent or sell for. The study found that most housing types were not feasible today because they don't achieve that targeted return. So there are two ways of making projects more feasible. One is to have rents and sales prices rise. City doesn't have control over that. We don't control the market and even if we could, I don't think we would necessarily want to make housing more unaffordable. But the other is to reduce development costs. Um the Rand study suggests that this is an area in which the city can exercise some influence. If we can

design a process that moves quicker, uh, then we could save cost and help move the needle on some of these project types that are currently infeasible. And so with that, I will turn the presentation over to Mr. Ralph Robinson from Good City Company to discuss their role in the project and development of the draft standards. Thank you so much, Michael. Uh, good evening, commissioners. Thank you for your time. My name again is Ralph Robinson. I'm a senior planner with good city company and also we're again we're joined remotely by Nicholas Hamilton our public policy lead. Um we go to the next slide. So we started on this project in the fall of 2024. Um so we'll go through those steps in a bit more detail here. Uh but the important thing of course is we've now finally landed this point where have the draft standards published um and available for review through this Friday. So, anyone from the public online, please make sure you get on the website and send us your uh your feedback. Uh, next slide, please. So, I want to reiterate that our goal, our objective here is not to totally rewrite the design standards for Newark. Ultimately, we want to still apply the same um the same goals, this the same kind of baseline standards and the same discretion the city currently has. We're just as as Carmelus has summarized earlier, we're just frontloading that more to the beginning of the process. And the way we're doing that is by translating anything that might be subjective into more objective terms. Uh next slide, please. So to start this process, we began um our community engagement efforts um summarized here. Uh probably our most successful ones being those family day at the parks uh where we had the most engagement with the public. Uh next slide please. And so few priorities that came out of that which should not be incredibly

surprising but of course people want to see good quality design. Um we want to see human scale uh and functional design. And I think we all know that feeling of being in a place that feels intentional and well thought out. And so of course people want to see that in their community and they also want to see the things they enjoy about Newark preserved and and maintained and carried forward. So another goal for us as we embarked on this project. Uh next slide please. So from there we had to get into drafting the actual standards. So, I mentioned before our goal of translating what is already there again into objective terms. That's not to say that things weren't maybe softened in areas. Things weren't maybe rewritten for clarity both for applicants and for staff. Um, and in addition, we also want to make sure we're providing new options within the standards for people to follow to improve feasibility, make projects more likely, and get more of the housing types that Michael was summarizing for us earlier. Next slide, please. So, the primary changes you'll look for, and you've probably already seen in the draft standards, the main one being that new objective design standard chapter, chapter 1728. So again, we're replacing most of the existing chapter 1707 for consistency throughout title 17. There are then associated changes uh in the design standards tables for the base and overlay districts as well as in some of those general site regulations. So many of those standards are still in place and will remain in place particularly for commercial development but again we want to bring everything in line to provide uh clarity and objectivity for all residential projects. Next slide please. So these standards as mentioned were focusing on residential currently. Um

and as part of that we also had to define what is residential mean in a mixeduse setting. So we came up with this standard we've proposed is that if 2/3 or more of the building is dedicated to residential the entire building will fall under these objective standards. uh if it's less than that then it would just be the residential portion being evaluated based on the standards. Um also applies to those ministerial projects as dictated by state law. Um and then also there was a lot of conversation about how do we apply these to existing buildings where maybe they're doing modifications, additions, etc. So, we also wanted to be careful to write them in a way where when they did apply, we weren't being overly exacting of those current of those existing buildings. Um, and also providing waiverss or or other exceptions um for those cases throughout the standards. Uh, next one, please. So, as you go through that chapter 1728, you'll notice that the standards apply in three different ways. We have broad ones applying to all development and then we also divided them into two categories generally being small unit development and large unit development. The distinction being less than five units or more than five units. So similar priorities and design concerns with both types of development but the application is a bit different right the scale is a bit different of those types of developments and that's reflected throughout the standards as well. Uh next slide please. And then just quickly summarizing so the organization of chapter 1728 so similar to the existing 1707 organization but also bringing in some of these standards existing from other portions of the code uh and modifying as needed um for again flexibility feasibility. Next slide

please. So what do those priorities look like in practice? So consider a single family residential example. So new development. So what are these things that we want to see or things we want to control for? Well, we don't want long blank walls, right? We want modulation. We want variety in the building facade and principally in the street facing facades. So as you see an example here, you have variation in the wall plane. You have variation in the roof form with the gables. Um, we want to minimize garages so they're not dominating the visual appearance of the house. So, restrictions on things like the percentage of the frontage that can be dedicated to your garage, having a recess for the front of the garage from the front of the house. And then we can also achieve uh these goals through design of the site. So, separate walkways for pedestrians, landscaping, and again minimizing driveways and overall paving in the front yard. um all things that are in the standards in one form or another already. We're just again putting them in those objective terms. Next slide, please. And so for larger development, similar goals, but the application is going to look a little bit different as you go through those standards. So again, we want variety in the building form. That could be through articulation through projecting elements. It could be through changes in materials as you see reflected here. changes in the wall plane also reflected here. Uh and then for our mixed use, we have those specific standards. So maintaining things that again already in the code like required transparency for the ground floor. So clarifying those requirements. Um having welcoming entry entryways that are parallel to the street, easy to access, easy to find. Um and also making sure those ground floor uses is where the active uses that'll generate that foot traffic um are located.

Next slide, please. So, a couple examples again of what's already there and how is it maybe evolved to this point. So, I mentioned building entrances and prioritizing having those factor right away. And so, with residential development, you had that requirement and this narrow exception for courtyard developments where you don't have to face the front. So how do we evolve this to again consider other um design types, consider other site conditions where maybe they want to consider a different approach. So go to our next slide. So we see the change here. We are still again the preference is for those street facing entrances, but we're providing another alternative with an entry feature for example. So this is something I've seen in practice in other jurisdictions where for example maybe you have a narrow a narrow lot and it's town home style development, right? And so by necessity your entrances are facing the side but you have this requirement. So what do you do to make it attractive and welcoming? You can use an entry feature. Um next slide please. Another example and this is specific to our mixeduse developments. So existing code there are these requirements for minimum dimensions for required ground floor commercial space as well as an overall requirement for how much of that space should be dedicated to commercial space with this figure of 15% of the gross lot area. So again how do we incrove flexibility feasibility? Next slide please. So we still have the same standard as far as 15% of the gross slot area. We're still kind of adhering to what the overall goal is in the existing code. But again, how do we put in this exception? Well, is there something that makes it geometrically infeasible? Is it a smaller lot where it's really

difficult to build uh commercial area that is actually going to be leasable? Um, and so, for example, we included this exception that if you're going to end up with a commercial area of less than a certain size, um, you'd be exempted from the requirement because, again, we're not looking for people to just build a small area and check a box. We actually want these spaces to be leasable, um, to be, you know, full of full full of businesses. I think we all have seen plenty of uh these mixeduse projects where you end up with just vacant uh unleashable area on the ground floor and that's certainly not what we want to see um while still getting residential. So thank you. Okay, so that is the very quick overview of all the changes um which hopefully like I said you've had a chance to go through and again anybody listening encourage you get in there any feedback here uh this evening as well as online we'll be incorporating that and from there I'll be passing it back to Melissa.

Thank you Ralph. Uh thank you for the overview of the draft standards. Um in the next few slides, um I will I'll go over a few key changes that we want to make the commission aware of. Um so this project will will change the way the the ODS project will change the way residential and mixeduse development are reviewed uh by the city. One key proposed change is an update to terminology replacing terms such as single family and multif family with single unit and multi-unit. the term those terms have historically been used in zoning codes but can be interpreted as referring to a specific type of household rather than the physical characteristics of a development. Uh this the change from single unit and multi-unit more accurately describes a development without implying a particular household composition. So this terminology shift aligns with current planning practices as well as state housing policy. A second key change is that ODS will apply to single unit development in addition to multi-unit and mixeduse development. That was not a state law requirement. However, we want to proactively um uh incentivize a single unit development. Um and just to be clear, single unit development includes a single dwelling unit on one parcel as well as additions or extensions to those units. Um this change will establish consistent objective expectations across all residential project types. Another key change is allowing deviations from specific standards through exceptions and waiverss. Staff recognizes that some projects may face challenges in fully meeting certain uh ODS. Um this slide shows a development prototype on a parcel in the Oldtown Newark specific planning area. This is an example of the creative thinking that is required for unique parcel shapes to accommodate a development that works for the proposed uses, the site as well as the neighborhood. We understand that some standards may be difficult to achieve in practice and alternative approaches could improve feasibility or enhance project design. Um so the ODS

have been crafted to allow limited flexibility. Um exceptions and waiverss um are have been designed to be subject to review by the community development director pro to provide a streamlined process for small adjustments. Uh another key change is the development standards tables have also been updated to ensure consistency with OES. Um these updates include refinements to height limits, setbacks, open space, etc. to improve feasibility and eliminate conflicts with the new standards. These changes also proactively support housing feasibility and anticipated future regulatory changes such as those related to density bonus provisions and small lot residential development such as um SB9 and SB10. Um and a few of those changes that we highlighted on this slide are removing the minor use permit requirement for building heights over 35 ft in the residential medium and residential highdensity districts, which is a housing element commitment. um transition standards between higher and low lower density zoning districts. So for example um a larger setback if you're closer to a lower density development as well as incentives for projects proposing two plus units in residential districts which is um specifically a regulator uh proactive regulatory approach. Uh, one last key change that I'd like to highlight is that permitted uses were expanded and refined to support housing production and align with housing element programs. Some of those changes include allowing attached single-use development um, in residential single family um, attached single unit and multi-unit residential development um, in most commercial districts as long as they're not on the street facing facade. And then allowing 100% affordable housing permitted um allowing 100% affordable housing by right in the public facilities district and which all of which are um housing element program commitments.

Currently most residential and just to go into streamlined minister ministerial review processes. Um just some background on that. Currently, most residential projects are subject to discretionary review, which typically include a public hearing before the PC or city council or discretionary decision-m as Michael mentioned earlier in the presentation. Um, an example of that is design review which requires review by the director and in some cases review by the planning commission. For some qualifying projects, uh, residential projects specifically, certain state laws require them to be reviewed through a minister of process. Um the state's rationale for many of these laws is that if a a city has an adopted general plan, zoning code, and objective standards and other requirements, um discretionary process and public hearings may not be necessary for conforming projects. Uh projects involving notable environmental constraints or require requiring legislative actions such as resonings or general plans are generally not eligible. Um there are certainly a lot of projects that could be eligible um but there are a lot of projects that aren't. Um this slide shows common criteria for projects that are eligible for minister review and not um so as highlighted here um you know it needs to be an infill um site. So it's surrounded by existing uh development. Um generally not subject to squa. Um some examples of projects that are not um uh that do not meet the criteria if they're in an environmentally constrained site such as um a site with hazardous waste site or um wetlands etc. Um and some examples of state laws that require ministerial uh approval um is SB9, which requires um ministerial approval of housing development with no more than two primary units in a single family zone, the subdivision of a parcel

in a single family zone into two parcels, which is called the urban lot split, or both. Um there's a lot of ways you could do it. You can even combine ADUs. Um but essentially whatever way whatever calculation you do to um achieve SB9 um it would essentially allow for up to four primary units to be built on the same lot area typically used for a single family home. A another couple of um state laws um that we'd like to mention is SB 1123 which requires ministerial approval for subdivisions of up to 10 parcels or for specific residential developments containing 10 or fewer units. This applies to all lots zone for multi-unit development and unimproved single-unit lots. Another example is SB423, which is also known as SB35. Um, allows specified multi-unit housing projects to opt into streamline ministerial review if located in a jurisdiction that has not met its arena targets.

Um, projects in Newark that satisfy labor and objective standard requirements are currently eligible to opt in to streamline ministry rule if they restrict 50% of units to lowincome households. Um, however, in the future and at least until 2031, staff anticipates Newark projects will be eligible to opt into streamline Ministry of Review if they restrict 10% of units to low-income households or 20% to moderate income households. Happy to go into that u during the discussion if there are any questions related to that. Um, and as part of this project, um, staff has has a a few considerations related to streamline ministry review. Um, of course, in response to state law, we are creating a process, a ministerial design review process for projects subject to statemandated minister ministerial approval to be compliant with state law. Uh, we are also evaluating the the city's existing review processes to determine which types of projects may be appropriate for ministerial review and where discretionary review should continue to apply. Um, our goal is to identify opportunities to create a more consistent and efficient review process while ensuring compliance with state law and um, supporting the city's housing goals. Um, an example of that is we are considering creating a ministerial design review process for single unit residential projects so long as they meet all applicable objective standards. Um, and this will allow to create a more streamlined and objective review process for smallcale development. Uh we appreciate the commission's time this evening and understand that you know there's a lot of information that was presented tonight. Um just wanted to summarize a few of the benefits and potential outcomes of adopting ODS. ODS will refine the city's design standards by replacing subjective guidelines with clear measurable criteria. Together with development standards, ODS will set clear expectations for project design, resulting in a more streamlined,

objective, and efficient project review process. ODS will fulfill several housing element commitments and finally ODS will support housing production and highquality design outcomes. As for next steps, um as mentioned earlier, the public review period will end this Friday, April 17th. Uh we will take into consideration the comments received this evening as well as the comments received during the public review period and incorporate that into the final drafts which we anticipate to present to the planning commission and city council for adoption in late spring. Uh as we move on to the Q&A discussion uh of the study session, uh we would like to present the commission with the following questions to consider um just to kind of get the um your thoughts going and uh to start obtaining that feedback. Uh the first question is um what feedback does the planning commission have on the draft ODS? Number two is what are key aspects of design review that the planning commission values? Number three is what is what suggestions does the planning commission have on the city's approach to ministerial review and opportunities to streamline development review processes? And number four, is there further analysis or content that the planning commission would like staff to present with formal recommendations? That concludes our presentation. Thank you so much for your time. Um we are now open uh and welcoming any questions or comments.

Well, thank you very much. Um it's obvious for anybody that's um reviewed this um item, it's a tremendous amount of work that went into it. And so I think I can speak for my colleagues here. We really appreciate the time and effort. Um that was about a halfhour presentation, but to and the ability to summarize this in a halfhour presentation. Uh I've got to give staff credit and kudos for that as well. Um, might I suggest that you uh go back to that previous slide just in the interest of uh discussion just so that we can stay focused on what exactly staff is looking for as far as um our feedback. So I think at this point since we will not be taking any formal action um I think we'll just open it up to uh the commission to perhaps um I noticed a number of folks were taking notes. Um, let's open it up and maybe keep in mind these are the questions staff would like uh answered and uh I'll take a volunteer if somebody has some questions they want to start with.

Oh, I'll break the ice. Okay. I was going to say I was going to call on you if you didn't. Um, and I was taking a lot of notes. So, and again, this is more input related, so I'm going to kind of jump around from from note to note, and I'll try to be succinct as best I can. Um, so this is more of a

or me take a step back regarding item number two. What are aspects of the design review that the planning commission values? I loved the design standards that we have in here. Um, specifically the articulation and facade standards that we have, the breakup of walls. Um, having that in here I think is very it's clean and you guys gave some examples earlier of just how subjective it was previously and now we're really getting down into the weeds and letting a builder or future builder know what we expect if they come to our town and build. So I really value that part of this. Um in terms of and this is more kind of a technicality question as we make the changes or updates in some cases um the types of use or densities will be allowed on sites that weren't previously. And so for instance we talked about neighborhood commercial or community commercial now allowing for residential use. And so in those standards or in those circumstances, hypothetically a year from now, um developer moves forward, provides an application, will we subsequently update our general plan to match the zoning? What is the process? Will they be go through a general plan amendment? What is the process for when that application is submitted to the ultimate approval? Thank you for your question, Commissioner Aguilar. Uh that is a very good question and something that we've definitely uh deliberated on throughout this entire process. Um uh there is a a newer state SQA exemption that was presented and adopted I believe 20 26 of this year um AB130

um which allows the allows jurisdictions to um make changes to our zoning code um to fulfill housing element um program commitments. Um I do believe that you know in the future we we do hope to align the general plan with the zoning code changes. Um that might be a future effort that we would uh be exploring. Got it. Okay. But there's a mechanism in which an applicant can go not need to make a quote unquote GPA at the public hearing and proceed with the the updated zoning per se.

That's correct to an extent. Um if it's aligned with the zoning code and general plan. Um but there are some some discretionary re review processes that um allow for legislative changes. So um those could be streamlined but they also could involve a discretionary process. Okay. Okay. The

the main item um which was highlighted in the presentation for me was the shift towards kind of on the same topic allowing structures that are entirely residential in some of our commercial districts namely neighborhood commercial or community commercial. And I understand the direction and how it ties into the housing element. This is something all municipalities have to do. It's the state forcing it down. And so as I think about it, could staff walk us through how this works? Especially I think of neighborhood community or community commercial centers adjacent to single family homes. So in terms of height and density and parking, how do we envision that moving forward? So I can take a stab at that and might have some the project team assist with some supplemental responses. Um but generally we we have taken that into consideration and um you know our approach has been to proactively consider state laws that um that we anticipate would require us to allow um residential and commercial districts.

Um for example, we've made um some changes to the permitted uses table in the commercial districts in most of them. um all but one I believe um that would permit commer permit residential as long as they are uh permit residential um generally but also limit it depending on if it's on the ground floor. Um so we do want to prioritize um mixed use um so it does have to have that um commercial component. Um it also has to have an activated um facade. So um we won't allow residential on the street facing facades.

Okay. Um and in relation to that, there were development standards added and or refined um that speak to allowing residential. So we've included some minimum and maximum densities as well as height and setbacks um that um are very consistent with other um zoning districts um in the current code. um for example the regional commercial that's already have minimum and maximum densities uh related to uh sensitivity towards um lower density developments we have included some um transition standards. So those standards um for example would be if you are for example 15 ft from a lower density district lower density residential district it would require a larger setback or a lower building height. So we have thought about that a little bit. Um Ralph, if you wanted to add anything else to that.

Yeah, and I'd say with um not just in regard to commercial properties and now might be having residential, but also just in general thinking about the fact that we're going to have more density next to more traditional single family. So throughout the standards keeping that in mind of okay when people are assuming people are going to build the kind of the maximum they can build what are the other mechanisms for controlling against or controlling against those impacts. So Carmelissa mentioned transition standards but also things like required landscaping um in some cases required um you know balcony standards to protect you know whether it's views not necessarily views but you know privacy as far as window alignment to residential or you know balcony alignment to residential um screening for balconies those sorts of things. So, um, yeah, I'd say overall that was definitely a focus again, not just for thinking about those commercial areas, but throughout the process knowing that you're going to get these larger residential and, you know, ultimately you do what you can in those objective terms to control the impacts. The one area is I guess two things is where I wasn't clear in reading through it is with our update through this update will will a future developer applicant have a byite ability then to do 100% residential on commercial and because on one hand I do understand there's state law there's new bills and there's new bills every single week

um but SB9 SB423, formerly SB35. There are constraints to those bills. And what I want, which it's there, there's really nothing we can do as municipalities, but for me, I just want to be careful that we're not responding via this update and unintentionally going further than necessary by relaxing our code. And so that's where my mind is thinking. And so, you know, one of the questions and and again, not that doesn't need to be answered today is can you do 100% residential or does it in fact require ground flooror commercial? What are some of the requirements for this community commercial or neighborhood commercial? But that's an area I was hyperfocused when reading through this and just wanting to be careful. we weren't going relaxing it too much um because once it's codified it's codified and via then all of a sudden via SB330 which is a bill that is easy to implement and that takes all the power out of the effectively the residents in the city and so again it's this is more input and questions and exploratory but those are some of the things on my mind as I read through it thank you

thank you any other comments or questions.

Yeah, I just I had a Commissioner Fifth that's actually a comment and a question, but I was reading through this and I read about the Rand Institute report that shows that that um California takes a significant longer time to approve projects than Texas or even u others Oklahoma and Colorado. And I can see why we're having to work on this, maybe streamline a little bit more. And I think that's good. But we got to be careful that uh and I don't know what the reason is why it takes so long in California. Is there is this is what we're doing here is trying to address that make it make it more uh expeditious.

Thank you for the question, Commissioner. Uh yes, I do think that making development review and development um overall production more expeditious is a goal of this project. Um, and there are, I think, several factors that contribute to California having longer development time frames than other states. This is just one of them. There's certainly many more. U, but it's a good place for us to look for time and cost savings.

I was reading along too that it by having more streamlined standards, it could take maybe save 25% of the development costs out of there. And I think that's probably a good thing if we're look looking towards getting more affordable housing. That's the only things I had right now. Okay. Any other comments from any commissioners? Okay. I I do have a couple of comments I'd like to make. Um first of all, I just thought they were very well thought out and very well articulated. Um, anybody that's heard me on this commission for the last six years, I always have a concern about existing neighborhoods where people have invested um the in the character of those neighborhoods somehow being changed. Uh, if you spent a lot of money and you bought into a neighborhood, uh, the last thing you want is a three-story building being built next to the building uh, that you're living in. Um when I think of um subjectivity um I can also interchange that with discretion and you know discretion to me equals flexibility. U when I was sitting in the chair as a city manager. I liked having discretion because it was good in a lot of cases. Um you have unique situations coming up. It allowed you to have some flexibility. But I can understand how um having too much subjectivity can result in basically stagnation as far as development and so forth. But um I just kind of wanted to go on the record as that I I don't think that um discretion or subjectivity is necessarily a bad thing in all cases. Um I do like the terminology changes. They completely make sense to me. Um it's probably about time we did that. I I

thought that staff did a really good job of, you know, balancing what the state is actually requiring with, you know, some fairness and some consistency. Um, I thought you did a good job with that. I do have a question. Um, there was a slide there that talked about the maximum heights in the RM and RH districts that uh there was a previously 35 foot um maximum. Is there going to be a maximum? I can see you can you're going to eliminate the 35- ft height limit, but will there be a maximum height limit?

So, yes. Um um from the 2018 zoning code that minor use permit was put in there um for mainly multifamily zone properties. Um so it kind of limited the height to 35 ft but um each district has its own kind of height limit you know whether it's 75 or so I don't know off the top of my head but um you know at least for say medium it's medium density uh it's 75 and then it's for high multif family high density it's 100 it's 100t yes okay

all right um also there was a slide there um and I was trying to find it on my uh on my report. Um I call them the poison pill uh bills that the state passed where if you don't meet your arena requirements, you know, some you basically lose uh uh discretion as far as development and so forth. So of course you want to meet those requirements so that that doesn't kick in. I understand there's nothing staff can do about it. kind of interesting pointing that out that uh it really is something that staff I'm sure will be paying attention to to make sure that that doesn't kick in. Um I think the city has done a really good job of meeting our requirements over the past couple of decades. So I wouldn't anticipate that there would be an issue with that.

Right. I might just add on to that. Um, Chair, uh, Chair Becker. Um, so, uh, we mentioned I had this topic actually in front of the city council when we were talking about our annual progress report uh, last week and we described the number of units that the city has um, finaled uh, and certified as part of this current cycle that we're in. Uh and that at this point we have done about 22% of our goal. Okay. The halfway point which um you know it'd be nice if we were at 50% halfway there but we're not. Um

and you're right in prior cycles the city has produced at the end of the cycle much more housing than what we were required to do.

Um still though we produced a lot of market rate housing but not a lot of affordable housing. So because we didn't prod produce that affordable housing, we were put into a streamlining bucket with a lot of other cities and that bucket was if a developer comes in with a project that is at least 50% affordable that they would have to go through a streamlined process. And that applied either that or the more restrictive I think 20% or or more applied to just about every city in California. There was only a handful of cities that met both their market rate and affordable and were therefore not placed in one of these streamlined buckets for this uh housing element cycle because we haven't produced as much market rate and affordable. It's likely that the state will tell us that we'll be in the more restrictive streamlining bucket of a of a much lower percentage in order to it to be streamlined. So, as um staff has mentioned, um you know, we we don't control the the development market. We don't build the housing. So, actually following through with projects is really up to the property owner. Um and uh but we as a city in a way suffer the consequences of of property owners choosing not to move forward with their with their projects. So, it's something that we're monitoring. we can't guarantee we won't be in that bucket or not be subject to streamlining. So, I just wanted to set those expectations.

I I would suggest that if there's some appendix or something in this report that that be pointed out. I don't think u I think that's a great point. Um that a lot of things are out of the city's hands. I mean, we're required to do certain things to accommodate the housing development, but we don't control the purse strings. Construction costs are skyrocketing. interest rates

interest rates are skyrocketing. Uh land is cost costs more. Um we can do only so much. And of course the um these housing requirements, rent requirements, they don't reduce them. They're just increasing them. And a city like Newark of course where 13 square miles, three miles from end to end. There's going to be a point where you're only going to be able to build up.

I don't know how long that will be. I don't think we're there now, but we will reach that point where nobody's going to be able to meet those requirements consistently. Um, so anyway, I don't think you can say that enough that we're doing the best that we can. Some things are out of our control. I think we need to point that out and uh you might want to lead with that when you do these presentations so that people realize I don't know how many times when people are asking about certain retailers they'd like to see come to the city and they don't realize that the city doesn't control which um retailers come to the city or which restaurants come to the city. you can only accommodate those um those requests when they come to the city and you can be as you can be as streamlined as possible, but if they don't want to invest in your community, there's nothing you can do about it. So, I think we ought to emphasize that as well,

right? And we really appreciate those comments. Uh I will also say I'm certainly not looking to throw our property owners under the bus because we are uh our partners and in fact um the modeling that we've done because as you've known we the city has entitled uh a lot of projects over the last few years. So if all of those projects start construction and get final by the end of the cycle, we're projecting that we our percentage goal will be at 66%. Okay rather than 22%. So we'll be making a lot of good progress. It's just that the production probably will occur at the second half of this arena cycle. Um so our numbers will certainly improve over time.

That's great. Good to hear. U the my last comment here and I just wrote this down at the end. Um there's never any downsides pointed out to this process in these reports and I can understand I mean you'll but I think just in the interest of complete disclosure I mean there are downsides to doing this and um I pointed out one of them frankly I believe that in some cases um it does negatively affect existing development where people have invested and I just think um it's disingenuous to not point that out at some level. I don't think you have to beat a dead horse, but I just think it needs to be pointed out because everything in this is all positive, but there really are some downsides to it.

Yes, thank you for those comments for sure. Okay, that's it. Anybody else have any comments?

Along that same line is the parking requirements they don't require at the state. In other words, we cannot provide enough parking off street to on the lots. And that's one thing that we don't have any control over, but we end up living with it every day when you see these new developments come in like the old Bayor development. Uh just uh parked cars are parked everywhere. I don't know where people guess park to go visit somebody in those homes. I've seen people I drive along there and I see people hopping in a car and they drive and drop somebody off at their car because they can't walk to it so far. So, it just seems to me like it's an overkill and I don't know what the answer is, but we end up living with it in the in the consequence. And I do get feedback from neighbors and citizens about this all the time. There's not really much we can do about it. But that's not really a good answer. They don't want to hear that.

No. Yes. No, that's for sure. Um, as soon as we finish this particularly challenging effort of objective design standards, we'll be bringing the next challenging effort, which is taking a look at our parking standards, which is also a housing element uh goal for us as well. Um, I think everybody knows that parking is very expensive and so we need to balance the need for parking with the community concerns. Um, and we're it it feels like that we are walking the knife's edge on a lot of on a lot of this. So, it's particularly challenging and we're going to be looking to the planning commission for for guidance and assistance on parking soon.

Well, we completely are sympathetic uh because you folks are on the front lines and um you know, you're you like you said, I think that's a great expression. you're walking on the knife's edge because um your your hands are tied in some regards. You've got to meet certain targets and certain goals. You try to do your best you can balancing the community and the city council's desires with what the state is saying that you have to do. So anyway, keep up the good work.

Just a quick question you brought up with parking. I don't know if there's like a law or if there can be a law or if it's up to the city or the state or whatever, but is there anything with how many cars one person could park on the street? Like say, oh, I love these cars and I have five of the cars and I live in apartments, so I just park them on the street. Is there any law how many you can park on the street? Even if you just like move them every third day, but you have five, you're taking up five parking spots and you're one person.

Yeah, I think we can come up with rules. The hard part is really enforcing them, right? And so in finding the mechanisms to to enforce that and that that type of enforcement perceivably could result in additional costs to the city, you know, for enforcement of those things. Um, so we would want to take a look at that as well. I mean the um the you know there's probably some complications about limiting the amount of parking you know that a property owner could use. They the property owner doesn't of course own the streets and curb sidewalks. That's the city. So it may be technically difficult to to do something like that. I wouldn't want to be the individual trying to take that one on,

you know, where you try to uh have some sort of a requirement. Well, first of all, permit parking. That might be one way of doing that, but Yeah, that's true. Neighborhoods have neighborhood only parking, but permit parking. Or how about something that's way out there where somehow the city tries to restrict the number of registered vehicles an individual can have on public property? I don't know what the constitutionality of that would be, but anyway, I'm glad I'm retired and wouldn't have to fight that battle. Anyway, I I do have one more go ahead.

suggestion. Sorry. Is Commissioner Beck Becker brought up a good point and it was understanding there's not a whole lot we can do with some of these items, but just simply addressing it is respectful. And so on that I see right here, what suggestion does the planning commission have on the city's approach to the ministerial review process? And and again, I don't know what the current law is, but

it's it's coming no matter what, there will be more ministerial review, less projects going for discretionary approval. And so when I think of that, I think as much, you know, it when that is occurring, when something is done at a staff or city hall level, not going to a public hearing, just letting the public know via social media updates. Hey, this is what's coming to town. And we already do a good job of that. But again, just kind of building on Commissioner Becker's note of just disclosure. This is what's happening to the best we can.

Yeah, good suggestion. Any other comments? Okay. Okay. Well, as I mentioned earlier, there's no formal action the commission has to take on this. So, we just want to thank staff again for the great job you did on this presentation. Um, okay. There are no other staff reports tonight. So, that brings us to item G, which is commission matters. Um, any report on any city council actions? Mr. Turner? no particular report to uh provide except for as I previously mentioned the city council looked at um our housing annual production report that was sent to the state on April 1st. Um so we were able to go into detail about the amount of housing that the city has reviewed, permitted uh is under construction and has built. Um that's where we came up with the 28% kind of production at this point and modeling that out to 66% uh into the future. Um and uh so the the council heard that information uh as well. Um upcoming though just want to remind the council of the 2026 state of the city address that is happening on Saturday. Uh so that's right here at Civic Center Plaza from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Uh we'll have of course the mayor's state of the city address along with some live music uh performances, food trucks, a resource fair and activities. So we would encourage um the community and the planning commission to come out to that event. That's all to report today. Thank you very much. Okay, that brings us to item H, planning commissioner comments. Do we have any commissioner comments? Commissioner Fitz.

Yes. Uh just tagging along with uh what Stephen Turner said that the state of the city address he's going to I talked with the mayor and he's going to start speaking about the at 11:00 a.m. That's his goal. So it's it's advertised from 11 to 2. So you don't if you want to be there for the speech that that's at 11. And also I wanted to thank staff for our meeting last time. It was great to have the police chief here and our captain here because we had two items that required their attention. One was the carnival and they asked what we we got some good information about them and how they review it and also a little bit of the parking with that seven unit uh townhouse project that we approved. So, I think having the police officers here to handle that and make it it makes us look good and I think it good looks good in the community that we respond to them that we had cared enough to have the them there and I so I appreciate it. That's all I had.

I concur. Commissioner Bogusich, you have anything? Nothing. Okay. Commissioner Aguular? Nothing for me. Commissioner Dylan. And I have nothing either. So that brings us to the final item which is I which is a German. We are ajourned. My favorite part.