Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

july 14th 2026 meeting of the planning commission order would you please join me for the pledge of allegiance i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america Welcome everyone for a nice warm day out there today. That one surprised me. So first of all, we'll do is a roll call. Let the record reflect, we have three planning commissioners present and two absent. So we do have a quorum so we can conduct business. So do you want to call the roll or should we just? You can just note the commissioners that are present tonight. Okay, yeah, so we have Jeff Aguilar, Commissioner, Bill Fitz, Commissioner, and Mr. Dillon, Commissioner, present. Two absent. Okay, item number B, B1 is approval of the minutes of the regular planning commission of June 23rd, 2026. A motion would be in order. I'll make a motion. Motion. And a second? Okay, we have a motion by Aguilar, second by Dillon. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries, three ayes, two absence. Item number C is written communications.

Any written communications, sir? No written communications this evening.

No written. Okay. Oral communications. Members of the public are invited to address the Planning Commission on any item not listed on the agenda. Public comments are generally limited to five minutes per speaker. Please note that the state law prohibits the Commission from acting on any non-agenda items. Is there anyone in the vast audience wanting to comment on anything that's not on the agenda? Okay, seeing nobody in the chambers, and we don't do the, you don't do Zoom, just for the council, they do Zoom. Correct. Okay, fine. So no oral communication, so we'll close that portion of the meeting. D, item number E is public hearings. E1 is a hearing to consider... Z2025-0048, Zoning Tax Amendment to Title 17 Zoning of the Newark Municipal Code to add Chapter 17.28, Residential and Residential Mixed Use Design Standards and Chapter 17.18, For two, reasonable accommodation and amend division two, base and overlay districts. Chapter 17.17, general site regulations and chapter 17.21, landscaping. Chapter 17.23, parking and loading in Chapter 17.34, design review, and Chapter 17.37, waivers, and Chapter 17.46, definitions, generally affecting development and design standards for residential and residential mixed-use development. Staff report.

Yes, I'll look to staff to see if, are you plugged in with your presentation?

It's not showing up here. Give us just one moment.

Thank you. And apologies for the delay there, just technology. Thank you, Vice Chair, and good evening, Vice Chair and Planning Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to present this evening. The following presentation is for a proposed zoning text amendment to Title 17 zoning of the Newark Municipal Code, which is also referred to as the City Zoning Code. This proposed zoning text amendment is the result of a comprehensive planning process to develop objective design standards for the city. Objective design standards will be referred to as ODS throughout this presentation. This amendment would establish two new chapters and amend several chapters in the zoning code, generally affecting residential and residential mixed-use development. As the Planning Commission may recall, the ODS project was discussed during a study session on April 14th during a past Planning Commission meeting, which was at the tail end of the three-week public review period of the draft standards. The project team has considered the feedback received and made revisions to the draft standards, as well as made updates to the city's existing review processes. And we are now ready to present the proposed zoning tax amendment to the Planning Commission this evening for consideration. I will note that this is quite a long presentation, so we will allow for some breaks in between just to allow for some questions. So we will let the commissioners know at that moment when we will accept questions, but there will be quite a few breaks sprinkled in the presentation. As for the agenda for tonight's presentation, I will start off with introducing staff and the project team. We will then provide some background information including objective design standards are, its connection to the city's housing element, and a brief project overview. We will then provide a high-level overview of the proposed zoning tax amendment, and then discuss the benefits and potential outcomes of the proposed amendment, as well as the CEQA analysis that was conducted. And at the end of the presentation, we will provide staff's recommendation and then allow an opportunity for questions and discussion. For the City of Newark team, it includes myself, Carmelisa Lopez, Senior Planner with the Community Development Department, Michael Coulombe, Housing Policy and Programs Manager, who will be presenting with me this evening, Stephen Turner, Community Development Director, Art Interiano, Deputy Community Development Director. Also not included on this side, we do have a representative from our City Attorneys team via Zoom, in case there are any questions for him. His name is John Goetz. And as for our consultant who has assisted us with this effort, it is Good City Company, Nicholas Hamilton, public policy lead, who will be available for questions via Zoom, and then Ralph Robinson, senior planner, who will be presenting with me this evening. Before we present the proposed text amendment, we wanted to provide a refresher on the differences between objective and subjective standards and what an objective design standard is. As many are aware, the state has enacted laws that require approval for multi-unit and mixed-use development to be based on uniformly verifiable criteria, also known as objective standards. Law defines objective standards as those that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and nullable by both the development applicant and public official before submittal. In other words, 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 which define the fundamental parameters of what can be built are objective standards, but design standards can also be objective. Design standards address how a building and site are designed within the parameters of the development standards. On this slide are some examples of the differences between objective and subjective standards and some examples from our zoning code. So on the left, All units located along public rights of way must have the primary entrance facing this right of way. The standard is very clear in the orientation of the primary residence. And to the right is an example of a subjective standard. New residences, in addition, should be compatible in scale and height with surrounding houses so as to blend in with them versus overwhelming them in disproportionate size. Within the standard, there's a lot of vague terms such as visual variety and bulky appearance. So it can be interpreted differently based on the reviewer. These standards describe intent but do not provide clear enforceable rules. And for the development of ODS, it is largely in response to broader state and local efforts to address California's housing crisis. These efforts include creating efficient processes through streamlined ministerial review and limiting the use of subjective standards that can delay or constrain housing development. State law has increasingly emphasized streamlined review processes and those limits, and together with the development standards and the zoning code, ODS provide a clear understanding of the city's expectations for project design, resulting in a more streamlined, objective, and efficient project review process. I will now hand the presentation over to Housing Policy and Programs Manager Michael Coulomb to provide some background on Housing Element and the importance of ODS.

Thank you, Carmelissa. Vice Chair, members of the Commission, Michael Coulomb, Housing Policy and Programs Manager. As the Commission knows, the Housing Element is Newark's plan to meet the housing needs of all members of the community. The ODS project contributes to two of our housing element goals, goal H2, which aims to develop more homes for more people, and goal H3, which 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. Go to the next slide, please. The primary programs that the ODS project addresses are H3.2 and H3.4, which call for adopting ODS for single unit, multi-unit and mixed use development. And the quantified objectives for these programs are how we will assess their effectiveness or standards that support high quality new development and balance being responsive to local context while also reducing the cost of new development. There are other programs this project will help to address in whole or in part. H2.8 is to zone for missing middle housing. The ODS project is considering this program and proposes certain zoning amendments that would contribute to its implementation. And at the same time, staff are working on a separate missing middle housing study, and we're preparing to present to this commission and receive information on the topic at an upcoming study session. Program H3.1 is to prepare and publish procedures for ministerial approvals. Program H5.3 commits to several items related to repurposing underutilized public land for affordable housing. And the ODS project proposes zoning amendments that contribute to this program. Although the majority of quantified objectives will be implemented through a forthcoming public land strategy that would be presented to city council. We're also crafting ODS to take into account the housing needs of priority populations and priority housing types as identified in the city's affordable housing work plan. The majority of the city's affordable housing stock is not affordable to these populations. And for that reason, the work plan provides a policy directive to encourage the development of housing types that could be more naturally affordable. ODS served to comply with state laws, Ms. Lopez said, 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 to ODS. Under these laws, cities without objective design standards have limited basis for conducting design review, meaning they have little design authority. ODS work to communicate the community's vision and expectations to each other and to developers. For that reason, it's important that ODS go through a rigorous public engagement process prior to adoption, as we've done here. If we can communicate the community's expectations clearly from the beginning, we can complete design review faster, get to yes or no quicker, and reduce uncertainty for the applicant, the reviewer, and the public. One way ODS do this is by front loading the discretionary process to the very beginning. Very few developers closely follow the individual decisions of a planning commission or city council, but they all have to become experts in the zoning code. This is the main way that these decision-making bodies communicate their requirements and expectations. This doesn't mean that individual projects can't and won't still be approved on a discretionary basis at a public hearing, but we should keep in mind that those types of approvals take four to seven months longer to process than ministerial permits. So it bears asking the question whether there are certain types of projects or conditions that meet all community expectations and are worthy of a different process that can thereby deliver on the community's vision quicker. This is also an important question to ask because reducing the time it takes to build housing is key to making it cheaper to build housing. I shared this slide at our study session a few months ago, it should look familiar. Although again, it's a figure from the RAND Center's report on housing and homelessness. RAND found a strong correlation between discretionary approvals, development timeframes, and total development costs. California is the slowest of all 50 states in terms of bringing new housing to market, and the Bay Area is the most expensive region in the country to build. Over half of the time that it takes to build housing in California isn't even on construction. It's on pre-development, entitlement, approvals, permitting. On average, Texas is done with construction by the time California has put a shovel in the ground. The report concludes that if California could reduce development timelines by 22 months, it could reduce development costs by 8%. 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 if the project is built at all. This means that a city can meaningfully support new development by having an efficient process for entitlements and permits. This chart is a new one. It comes from legislative testimony delivered a few months ago on one state streamlining bill. The set of blue and orange bars on the left side of the chart labeled base project represents the project's feasibility with streamlined ministerial approvals. There's a big gap between the blue bar, which represents the project's market value, and the orange bar, which represents the total cost to build it excluding land. You want to see that gap. That gap is the residual land value or how much a developer could pay for the land and still have a feasible project. As you move to the bars on the right, you add on additional requirements, labor standards, prevailing wage, inclusionary housing, and the gap shrinks and the residual land value diminishes. When you see a vacant lot or an underutilized property that's been for sale for a while, there's a chance that the residual land value is too low to make it profitable to build what a city might otherwise allow to build there. The ODS project and related recommendations present a meaningful opportunity for the city to consider policy changes that could improve the likelihood of development and in that way address the city's housing needs. Streamlining can also create risks for the city if the process for how it's implemented isn't done right. One such risk may be Senate Bill 423, formerly known as SB35. This chart shows how many units the city has issued building permits for since 2023, and where we would have hoped to have been by the end of 2026. The city is making progress on its housing goals, and indeed we're actually doing far better than many other Alameda County jurisdictions, but we're still falling short of where we had hoped to be by this time. We're nearly halfway through this housing element cycle, but we've only issued permits for about a quarter of our targeted homes. That means the city is likely to be subject to an expanded version of SB 423 beginning in 2027. SB 423 allows developers to opt into a streamlined ministerial approval process for certain projects if they meet labor requirements and restrict 10% of new units to low income housing or 20% to moderate income housing. Staff expect more applicants could use SB 423 based on these more achievable affordability thresholds, as well as other state streamlining bills, in which case the city could lose additional discretionary authority and be exposed to greater legal and political risk to approve projects under short and strict timeframes. For that reason, staff have drafted an alternative local program with strict eligibility requirements that Ms. Lopez will discuss later in the presentation. That concludes my portion of the presentation. I will pause here if there are any preliminary questions. Otherwise, we can proceed.

Any questions?

I'll ask Mr. Ralph Robinson of Good City to continue the presentation.

Hi. Thank you, Michael. Good evening, commissioners. Good to see you again. My name again is Ralph Robinson. I'm with Good City Company and joined online by my colleague, Nicholas Hamilton. Good City Company, we've been working on this project going back to the end of 2024 through all of our analysis, community engagement, and then into eventually the drafting and refining of the document before this evening. Go next slide, please. I'm going to do a bit of a high-level overview as far as timeline and milestones since we've gone over this before. But when we get into questions at the end, if there's anything you'd like to expand upon, happy to do so. Briefly go over those milestones so far. So as mentioned, first we did a robust analysis as far as the existing code in Newark, the existing design standards, as well as looking at equivalent jurisdictions and objective design standards that have been adopted to try to identify best practices for this project. We also did several forms of community engagement, public open house, focus group with builders, a couple days at the park, and from that we identified a list of community priorities, which has also helped guide the ODS documents. And then finally into the drafting and then in March the publishing for public review of the draft ODS and then our study session with you all in April. Next slide. So from that public review, we identified some helpful feedback as far as ways to refine and improve those standards, principally things like clarity of language, language where, for example, maybe we thought we were clearly defining the standard in one way, but people were reading it in a different way. So how could we improve the language for that clarity for everybody? There were also some items pointed out that presented potential compliance challenges. A very simple example being for windows, we had a standard for window glare, we had required measurement of reflectivity for those windows. It's not as straightforward to actually find that data or provide that information, so it was a compliance challenge for both our applicants and also for our staff reviewing the projects. So for example, we struck that requirement In the PC study session, we also got some very helpful feedback from you all. and some concerns as well. So we'll spend a little more time talking about, for example, how are we dealing with higher density residential next to existing single family and being sensitive there? What are potential impacts from, say, having 100% residential projects in what were previously strictly commercial areas? So these are things we're going to get into touch on a bit here in a moment. And we also got a very good note on, yes, we need objective measurable standards, but as we know, sometimes when we put ourselves in that box of objective standards, it limits us to get kind of the highest quality project we can. So where can we build in that flexibility for applicants and discretion for staff to achieve better outcomes, but still working within the framework of objective? MEASURABLE STANDARDS. NEXT SLIDE. SO I'M GOING TO GO OVER KIND OF THE OVERALL FRAMING OF WHAT WE HAVE HERE AND AS WELL AS GET INTO SOME EXAMPLES BEFORE PASSING IT BACK TO GET INTO THE MORE OF THE PROCESS AND HOW THAT'S BEEN IMPACTED. NEXT SLIDE. So the principle change is our new objective design standard chapter, chapter 1728 for residential development. This is replacing most of the existing design standards from chapter 1707. And then we also have related zoning text amendments throughout the zoning chapter, dealing with consistency and also again, updating standards where needed for that needed objectivity. Next slide. So within 1728, as mentioned, we're talking about all residential development. We define that both in terms of small scale and large scale. We're also applying that to mixed use projects. There are some carve outs for smaller additions to existing residences. We didn't want to necessarily put people where you have a house that doesn't comply with these standards into a box where all of a sudden you have to comply with standards that do not exist before you build your house. So again, wanted to provide kind of an alternative pathway for those projects. But of course we also wanted to satisfy the requirements of state law to provide this ministerial process for these other newer projects. Next slide. So within that, those standards are organized by universal standards as well as more catered standards for smaller unit development and larger unit development, defined as five units or more. Next. So through our... EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS, THERE ARE A LOT OF STANDARDS WE WANTED TO BRING FORWARD AND PRESERVE IN THIS DOCUMENT, BUT TO DO SO WE HAD TO UPDATE THE LANGUAGE AGAIN MAKING IT OBJECTIVE AND MEASURABLE. SO WORDS LIKE ADEQUATE, WORDS LIKE INTEGRATED COMPOSITION, VERY MUCH eye of the beholder kind of standards. So how do we write them in a new way where we can make them more universally applicable? So by way of a few examples, we can go next slide. So the existing chapter 1707 included some standards for massing and articulation. we expanded upon those to provide, as mentioned, more flexibility. So you can satisfy that through horizontal variation across the building, through vertical variation across the building, the plane breaks, changes in materials, projecting features, and then each of those elements also being specifically defined as far as minimum dimensions, frequency of how often these features need to be included, run of the wall before you have a change in plane, et cetera. And then also here's an example graphic that is included in that chapter. So instead of saying, again, avoiding bulky appearance, we put it in more measurable terms. Next slide. The existing code also has standards for Windows and avoiding direct sight lines into more heavily used areas of adjacent buildings, so putting that in objective terms as far as adjacent floor area, for example, facing away in terms of required 45-degree angle from those adjacent windows, and then giving additional options, like, for example, chlorestery windows five feet above the floor or opaque obscured, et cetera. Next one. And then another standard, and this is related to the window standard as well, I mentioned earlier our study session where this concern about how are we addressing impacts when we have large scale residential going next to existing small scale single family. So we have existing window standards, we have existing landscape standards, but again, how to make sure we don't just put those in objective terms. but we make them more robust in some areas. So that again, we're actually gonna get kind of the intended outcome where we get sufficient planting, sufficient landscaping to create that buffer. So here again, it's just touching on another example of how that's been refined and expanded upon in the new standards. Next slide. So in practice, when we're talking about a single family context, we have articulation standards for Small unit development and large unit development, just that's applied at a different scale. So we have a two-story building where maybe we have a moderate setback from the second story, sorry, from the first story to the second story. Maybe we have a roof overhang element to provide articulation. We have a roof cable for articulation. And then also thinking about aesthetics, thinking about how this is going to FEEL AND LOOK FROM THE STREET, SO STREET ORIENTED WELCOMING ENTRY WAYS, REQUIRED FRONT YARD LANDSCAPING, THOSE KINDS OF CONSIDERATIONS. NEXT SLIDE. AND A LOT OF VERY SIMILAR PRINCIPLES JUST AT A DIFFERENT SCALE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LARGER SCALE MULTIFAMILY OR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. VARIATIONS IN THE WALL PLANE, USING PROJECTIONS TO BREAK UP THE MASSING, CHANGES IN MATERIALS, AND THEN ALSO BRINGING FORWARD AND ADJUSTING THOSE EXISTING STANDARDS HAVING TO DO WITH GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL AREAS, SO ADJUSTING, FOR EXAMPLE, HOW MUCH OF THAT AREA IS REQUIRED TO BE AN ACTIVE FOR COMMERCIAL USE, FOR EXAMPLE, HOW MUCH OF THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE TRANSPARENT SO, AGAIN, IT IS ACTIVE AND WELCOMING FROM THE STREET. NEXT SLIDE. AND THEN GETTING INTO THOSE RELATED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS. RELATED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS. SO THIS IS GOING THROUGHOUT THE SO THIS IS GOING THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THE ZONING CHAPTER. REST OF THE ZONING CHAPTER. SO AGAIN WE'RE LOOKING FOR THAT SO AGAIN WE'RE LOOKING FOR THAT CONSISTENCY THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CONSISTENCY THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CHAPTER. CHAPTER. WE'RE LOOKING TO SUPPORT HOUSING WE'RE LOOKING TO SUPPORT HOUSING FEASIBILITY ALL THOSE THINGS THAT FEASIBILITY ALL THOSE THINGS THAT MICHAEL TOUCHED ON. MICHAEL TOUCHED ON. SUPPORTING OUR HOUSING ELEMENT SUPPORTING OUR HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS OF COURSE AND single family development, which is primarily what we have in Newark. Next slide. So by way of example, this is the 1707 design standards table. So we are still maintaining heights for the most part. But for example, if you are doing additional units, there is a modest height increase allowed. IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE ADJACENT IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE ADJACENT TO THOSE, AGAIN, SMALLER TO THOSE, AGAIN, SMALLER DENSITY AREAS, WE STILL ARE DENSITY AREAS, WE STILL ARE MAINTAINING SOME OF THOSE MAINTAINING SOME OF THOSE TRANSITION STANDARDS TO MAINTAIN TRANSITION STANDARDS TO MAINTAIN HEIGHT CAP WITHIN SO MANY FEET HEIGHT CAP WITHIN SO MANY FEET OF THOSE PROPERTY LINES. OF THOSE PROPERTY LINES. AND THEN JUST SOME OTHER THINGS AND THEN JUST SOME OTHER THINGS LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, OLD TOWN LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, OLD TOWN STANDARDS. STANDARDS. AGAIN, REFINING THOSE FOR AGAIN, REFINING THOSE FOR SIMPLICITY And then some other areas you'll see these themes carried forward throughout the zoning text amendments. So a change from verbiage, single, multifamily, to single-unit, multi-unit. Because again, we're not necessarily talking about one household, right, when we're talking about these new developments. And then also just expanding upon areas where residential can be provided. So for example, more permissiveness within commercial districts for residential uses. And then also in compliance with our housing element, that provision to allow 100% affordable housing in the public facilities district. Next slide. before we pass over any questions on the standards, the process, or anything else. And I'm gonna pass it over to our Melissa and she'll take us through what's being updated as far as the process for review and approval of these projects.

Thank you, Mr. Robinson. So for this part of the presentation, I will provide an overview of the proposed updates to the city's existing processes. As part of the project planning process, the project team reviewed the city's existing processes against what state law requires for eligible projects. As the commissioners are aware, state law is increasingly limiting the discretion of decision makers on eligible projects that are consistent with a jurisdiction's general plan zoning code and other applicable standards. In addition, the project team has also considered how other jurisdictions have updated their processes to allow eligible projects to be processed ministerially. It's become quite clear that the adoption of ODS has become increasingly important as the city's primary means of shaping high-quality residential development outcomes within the constraints of state law. The commission's direction during the study session in April to allow for flexibility in the standards and processes was also very helpful in understanding what direction to go with potentially updating our processes. And as a result of these efforts, the proposed zoning tax amendment includes process updates for the commission's consideration with the goal of streamlining review processes and incentivizing housing production. So I'll go over each of the proposed updates in the next slides. So within Chapter 1728, which is a new proposed chapter where our proposed ODS would be contained within, there are some exceptions that Mr. Robinson did mention in his presentation. One of that being ground floor non-street facing additions that comprise less than 50% of proposed total floor area would be exempt from this chapter. So that would be an automatic exemption. There's also exceptions to incorporate exceptions incorporate directly within the chapter. So it's within the standard itself. So as long as the project meets those standards or the site meets certain conditions, they would be granted that exception. For the proposed changes to chapter 1747 waivers, it includes procedures for granting waivers for specified ODS. Staff recognizes that while the proposed ODS are intended to establish clear and objective requirements, Certain project specific or site conditions may warrant limited flexibility in the application of the standards. So within the proposed revisions, the code would allow up to three waivers per development project. If a project requires four or more, they would not be eligible and would instead be required to follow another applicable entitlement process such as a variance. It is important to note that projects qualifying for a state density bonus may also be eligible for other incentives but that is not considered a waiver. That is an entirely separate process. These updates support housing element program H2.12 by ensuring that development standards are applied in a manner that allows for feasible implementation of maximum allowable densities while maintaining objective and consistent design review criteria. The third update change is a new standalone chapter for reasonable accommodations, which would be contained within chapter 1742. Within Chapter 1737 waivers, the chapter that I previously discussed, there are existing reasonable accommodation standards. So what this text amendment proposes is removing them and moving them to their own chapter. It would include provisions addressing applicability, application procedures, et cetera. And this standalone chapter improves the organization of the code and makes a clear distinction between those standards from the waivers process. This chapter is generally consistent with the model reasonable accommodation ordinance published by the Housing and Community Development Department within the state. The approach is also consistent with what many California jurisdictions are also doing. The last process update that I will speak on and include in the zoning tax amendment is the most significant and is largely in response to streamlined ministerial review processes required by state law. The city's current process requires discretionary review for most residential projects, which typically includes a public hearing before the planning commission or the city council, or a decision by the community development director. Over the past several years, the state has adopted housing laws requiring ministerial review for qualifying residential projects. An example is SB 423, which is a state law that Michael discussed earlier in his presentation. This state law establishes a streamlined ministerial approval process for qualifying multifamily housing developments. The state's rationale for many of these laws is that projects that are consistent with the city's adopted general plan, zoning, and applicable standards should not require discretionary review or a public hearing. Projects on site with notable environmental features or that require legislative changes would also not be eligible for ministerial review. These laws are intended to reduce approval timelines and increase housing protection. In this slide, it includes a list of common criteria that you might see in state mandated ministerial processes. A few notable criteria include that the project must be located on an infill site, meaning the site was previously developed by urban uses or is surrounded by urban uses. An example of that would be a vacant lot surrounded by existing or commercial uses. They must also comply with applicable objective design standards and meet specified affordability requirements. In many cases, it's affordability requirements within that state law itself. In response to these state mandated processes, many jurisdictions have established local minister review processes to provide applicants with an alternative to state streamlining laws while maintaining locally adopted standards. Similar to state mandated review, the eligibility criteria is pretty consistent in that we have to be consistent with the general plan, zoning, objective standards, et cetera. The city of Newark already has an established local minister review pathway, which is through chapter 1715, the by right housing overlay district. This was adopted by the city council in 2024 and implements housing element program H3.6 to rezone reuse sites to allow administrative approval of residential development as long as they meet certain standards, which include applicable objective standards, achieving a minimum density of 20 units per acre, and providing at least 20% of units as affordable to lower income households. So within the proposed zoning tax amendment, there are updates to chapter 1734, which is our design review chapter, which would create separate discretionary and ministerial design review pathways. On this table, it shows the proposed pathways and just highlights the differences in the review processes. So for the existing design review process, it would be retitled discretionary design review and would include three paths, which would be standard design review, single unit design review, which is formally single family design review, and discretionary streamlined design review. As for ministerial review, that would be named ministerial streamlined design review, which would be established for qualifying projects that meet applicable objective standards and eligibility criteria. These projects can include projects of all housing types, including single unit, multi-unit, and mixed-use development. For single unit residential projects specifically, staff acknowledges that an applicant may want to follow the current process. So we have included the ability to elect to comply with to not comply with the proposed objective design standards and instead follow the single unit design review process. On the fourth row here, you could see some examples of projects that could qualify for each pathway. For example, standard design review that would generally be applicable to non-residential projects such as a new office building. It's a very similar process to how it's being reviewed through our current processes. For single unit design review, I mentioned that briefly, An example could be a construction of a new single unit dwelling that requires more waivers than the chapter 1737 would allow. For discretionary streamlined design review, it's a little, it's an interesting process. For example, if the applicant elects to utilize a state law such as SB 330, the project may require legislative changes such as a rezone or general plan amendment. However, the project can only be reviewed based on applicable objective standards. So in that scenario, it could technically go to planning commission or city council for approval, but the review would be very limited to objective standards. And for the last, ministerial streamlined design review, an example could be any multi-unit development that meets eligibility criteria and objective standards. So for this slide, it shows the process differences for the proposed pathways, including review authority, public hearing requirements, public noticing requirements, and appeal requirements. All pathways can be approved at the director level. For the discretionary pathway specifically, the project could be reviewed by the planning commission if other entitlements that require planning commission level processing are concurrently being reviewed at the same time with the project. or if in the director's opinion, the public interest would be better served by having the planning commission conduct design review. This is the same process that our current design review chapter includes. For the ministerial pathway, planning commission level reviews only allowed if permitted by state law and if the applicable statutory timelines can be met. For example, there are certain state laws that require jurisdictions to make a decision on a project within a specified timeframe, such as 60 days, Staff would need to consider that if the director were to refer it up to the Planning Commission level. For the discretionary path, public noticing is required and appeals are permitted. In comparison, for the ministerial pathway, public noticing would not be required and appeals would not be permitted. However, the director may allow one reconsideration per project. And specifically for the ministerial path in lieu of public noticing, the notice of action, which is the approval letter, it would still be sent to specified parties such as the planning commission, city council, which is typical of our current process. There is also a requirement that it be posted promptly on the city's website. In the next few slides, I will briefly discuss the proposed local ministerial alternative. So as Michael mentioned during his part of the presentation, the city is making slower progress on its six cycle arena goals and is not on target to meet arena targets, not on target to meet arena targets for any income band. If current trends hold, staff anticipates new work may be subject to expanded versions of SB 423, which would lower affordably requirements for applicants who elect to opt into ministerial review. SV423 would also require the city to approve or deny eligible projects within 90 days of reviewing an application, which could strain staff resources. In response, staff is proposing a local ministerial alternative as part of the ministerial streamlined design review pathway. This alternative is modeled in part on approaches adopted by other jurisdictions. The proposed alternative establishes a local minister review process for qualifying residential and mixed-use residential projects containing between two and 200 dwelling units. Similar to state-mandated minister review, eligible projects must be consistent with the general plan, zoning, applicable standards. It may not require discretionary approvals other than waivers that are authorized under Chapter 1737. And they must be located on sites appropriate for ministerial review, which exclude properties with potential significant environmental impacts. In addition, projects involving the demolition of historic resources, recently occupied housing, de-restricted affordable housing, or resulting in a net loss of housing or lodging units would not be eligible. In this slide, it illustrates the key differences between state-managed ministerial review and the proposed local alternative. The alternative is intended to provide applicants with an alternative to state ministerial processes while preserving the city's adopted standards. The proposed alternative is intended to align with state ministerial processing requirements to ensure qualifying projects remain eligible for ministerial review and are therefore exempt from CEQA, which is the California Environmental Quality Act. At the same time, the criteria preserves the city's adopted standards by requiring compliance with the city's inclusionary housing requirements and underlying zoning standards, such as density and parking. Another key difference is that the proposed local alternative would not be subject to state labor requirements, which could be a more attractive option for some developers. Additionally, for state mandated administrative review, there are strict deadlines for jurisdictions to make decisions on projects If those deadlines are not met, projects would be automatically deemed approved. The proposed alternative would have a 90-day target, but it would allow the city and applicants greater flexibility to work collaboratively through an iterative design process so that they could eventually achieve conformance with city standards and expectations. Staff is presenting the proposed alternative to the Planning Commission for consideration with a few options that are presented in this slide. The first option is to approve the alternative as recommended by staff. The second option is to approve with revisions such as to the eligibility criteria or unit thresholds or any other suggestions that the commission might have or to remove the alternative entirely and rely exclusively on the state mandated ministerial processes. I'll just pause briefly and ask the commission if there are any questions at this point in the presentation.

Any questions at this point?

I do. Okay. Could you go back to, I think it was slide 41, page 41, please. This one. Okay, and all my questions relate to the Ministerial Streamline Review Process, MSDR. I'm going to say MSDR from now on. When I see discretionary design review here in ministerial streamlined design review, I understand many of these things already exist. And so it's staff's approach, at least, and tell me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, it's staff's approach to effectively control a process that would otherwise be out of our control due to state law, such as in SB 423, previously SB 35. Under, the one thing that pops out to me here is just the public noticing. And so, and I'm not sure, this is truly a question. Under SB 423, does the applicant or does the city, is there a public noticing process And the reason why I ask, I'm just thinking, if we were to go down this path, it just feels appropriate to have some type of public notice. If you live within 500 feet of a property, something to where a neighbor doesn't have to proactively go to a Facebook webpage, but hey, heads up neighbor, there is going to be 150 unit project down the road from your house, just out of a courtesy and heads up is where my mind is here on this item. And so just to comment and food for thought on this topic. I think it was the next slide after this, if we can go there. Okay, this one, perfect. And so reading this understanding, okay, qualifying projects include residential or residential mixed use projects of two to 200 dwelling units. So understand if it meets the criteria, it's a ministerial streamlined design review process. It can be done at an administrative level, which again, understand there's state law that allows that right now under different criteria. My question is, let's assume there's a 125 unit housing development, single family homes that will require a tentative map. Would that still trigger that applicant to need to come before a planning commission and city council because of that map? Or does this allow just a pathway to get all of that approved design review and map included?

Thank you, Commissioner Aguilar. That's a very good question. MAP Act is through Title 16 of the New York Municipal Code. So it's separate from the zoning code. So we would have to follow the processes within that title to process a map such as the one you mentioned. So if required by that title, then it would have to go to those reviewing authorities.

So in that circumstance then, from what I understand, correct me if I'm wrong, if that circumstance then it would almost be, would it be a dual prong process to where applicant would go run, they would run design review via this process, get approval internally, and then the map or tentative map would then come for a public hearing I assume we would look at the design review. However, we would not weigh in on the design at that hearing. Our input would be strictly for the tentative map.

That's correct. Because it's in a separate title, the review would be limited to what is before the commission or the council. So essentially, yes, you would just be reviewing the map.

And I will add on to what Ms. Lopez mentioned. It wouldn't be that we would be ignoring the review portion of the project separate from the map. We would bring all of the information, our staff analysis as a summary for the planning commission. It does affect the map in a certain way. The design can affect essentially how the map is going to be drawn. So there's some connective relationship, but purely from the analysis of objective design standards, we would look at that against the the standards that were adopted and bring that analysis up to the Planning Commission. But the Planning Commission's authority may only really be on the mapping part of the project.

OK. One more thing just to add to that is that you had a very similar example of that a few months ago. If you remember the Cherry Street project, it was a five-unit development project. The design review was approved at the director's level per code, but because it required five lots, so it needed to come to the Planning Commission to get that tentative map approved. So that's a very similar example where some of these projects would go through.

I think that's what I have for now. Good.

Any other questions of staff at this point? Okay. Continue presentation. Excellent so far.

Thank you. So we are at our last section of the presentation. Thank you so much for your attention so far. I did want to highlight a few of the benefits and potential outcomes for objective design standards and the associated amendments. A few highlighted on this slide are aligning the zoning code with evolving state law, modernizing the city's development review process, and streamlining ministerial review for qualifying projects. And lastly, reflecting the community priorities through standards developed through community and stakeholder input. This project took about 18 months or so, but there was extensive outreach and community stakeholder outreach efforts. So those were definitely taken into consideration as well as feedback received through the public comment period, as well as through the study session. However, this is the first time that we will have objective design standards being implemented for projects. With that said, They could not be perfect. It might lead to some outcomes that are undesirable or just may require staff to just relook and think about a little bit more about what we adopted and potentially refine those approaches. So they are not set in stone. It does take time to develop zoning tax amendments, but they can be refined based on community priorities and as state law evolves as well as the city's development patterns. I just wanted to highlight those things. As for alignment with the general plan and the housing element, as Michael mentioned during his presentation, there are a lot of housing element programs that we are implementing directly, which is H3.2 and H3.4, as well as a lot of other programs that are supported through this effort. As for alignment with the general plan, through this specific effort, We are adopting zoning amendments, but we are not amending the general plan. We are able to do this through the SB130, which is a relatively new CEQA exemption. However, there is a general plan update that's anticipated to begin in 2020, which is recently approved through the five-year capital improvement program. And that is anticipated to begin in 2028. So that could be an opportunity to align our zoning amendments with the general plan update. And the last analysis that I wanted to just highlight during this presentation is the California Environmental Quality Act, which is CEQA. This project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15061 , as it can be seen with certainty that it will have no significant effect on the environment. as well as section 21080.085, which is connected to SB130, as it is rezoning that implements the scheduled actions contained in the city's housing element. That concludes our presentation. On the slide before you is staff's recommendation, which is to adopt the draft resolution recommending that the City Council approve Z2025-004, which is an ordinance That includes all the zoning amendments that we've discussed during this presentation.

Good. So that's the staff presentation is complete?

Yes. And now we welcome any questions or comments.

Excellent. Okay. Any other questions? You did a good job there. How about you? I just want to do a piggyback off with Commissioner Aguilar's comment about notice of... A BUILDING COMING IN NEXT TO SOMEBODY GIVING ADVANCED NOTICE WITHIN 500 FEET IS THAT USURP OUR THAT'S OUR NORMAL POLICY IS TO GIVE NOTICE FOR RESIDENTS 500 FEET FOR THE PROJECT IS THAT INCLUDED IN THIS TOO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S ELIMINATED OR COULD YOU ELABORATE A LITTLE ON THAT YES I'M HAPPY TO ELABORATE ON THAT SO FOR

Chapter 1734, design review, there's two pathways, there's discretionary review and ministerial review. For the discretionary review process that will stay the same, as you mentioned, there is a radius requirement for the property. So if you're within 500 feet or whatever required radius it is, you do have to notice those property owners within that radius if the project is approved. For the ministerial review process, as currently proposed, it does not have a public noticing requirement. However, there are some notices that staff will conduct that we normally conduct, which is noticing the city council, the planning commission, anyone who may be interested in the project, who told us during the project review process, as well as posting on the city's website.

Okay, good. Any other questions, clarifications? One thing that, well, maybe this is just an overriding question. I bring it up to maybe not specific to this, but I think we really have to have a serious conversation on our parking requirements. I've seen some jurisdictions where you have homeowners associations that will demand people park their cars in the garage. and not on the street. I don't know if we can get to that point, but I'd like to maybe at some time have maybe with the council talk about parking and the absolute insanity like over in the Bayside development where you can't, I don't even know where the guests would even park. Every parking spot is taken on the street. And I don't know if the people are parking in the garage or putting furniture in the garage, but there are some jurisdictions, like Danville and San Ramon, certain things, where you have to, by homeowners association, get fined if you don't park your car in the garage. This will create a lot better situation in the future. I don't think that's maybe for this time, but I'd like to toss that out there, maybe some kind of a work session or some more in the future. Because I think it's an issue that the more density we get, the more we get, and it just It's kind of embarrassing to drive through there. It's just not right. It looks like an urban environment with no place to park. People are getting rides to their house from guests and stuff. It just seems like it's just gone crazy. You have these multi-family people moving into single-family homes with three or four cars. Where are they going to go? That's my soapbox for that.

Thank you, Vice Chair Fitts. You may be pleased to know that we have or will be starting soon an analysis of our parking standards with a consultant. And as we go through that process, I think we'll have an opportunity to bring some initial thoughts to the Planning Commission for a discussion.

Great, okay, that answers that. Okay, any other questions or comments on the presentation?

I think a resolution motion would be in order. Chair Fetz, this is a public hearing. Oh, it is a public hearing, okay.

I'd like to add a little bit with the parking. I've seen like for the last 10, 15 years, excuse me, And there's no parking in this building. Just like in San Francisco, they do the chalk mark. And if the car is there for the last two days, it means nobody's driving. They should write it down.

Yeah, we do have those existing rules in Newark that you cannot park in a single spot on the street for more than 72 hours. So that is the standing rule. If it's longer than 72 hours, then you could potentially get ticketed for that. So it's not a permanent allowance to park or store a vehicle on the public street.

Okay, so I will open it up to the public. Anyone wishing to comment on this item for the objective design standards? Item number E1, anyone wanting to comment on this? Any input? Seeing not, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. I think a resolution would be in order. Motion? Yes. You make a motion. Commissioner Dillon makes a motion. Second. And in second, Commissioner Aguilar. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries, three ayes. Thank you. Very good piece of business. Important work. Okay, now we move down the agenda. Item number F, staff reports. Any staff reports, sir?

No staff reports tonight. I will perhaps give a brief follow-up on an item that council conducted, I guess, at the end of June. This was the development concept study sessions that I mentioned to the Planning Commission, I think, a number of weeks ago. The city council heard from two potential developers on two separate sites within the city, one at the Holbert Lumber site, the other at 8800 Jarvis. It was an opportunity for the property owner and the developer to describe a potential concept for a project on those two sites. Although they're very, they're different projects, although they're both residential projects, They both need general plan and zoning changes in order to go through. And so this provided an early opportunity for the city council to provide some general feedback to the developer about their project and their potential for those types of changes. So those study sessions were conducted. I think overall, the developers and the property owners received the information I think that they needed in order to assess whether or not to file an application with the city. We haven't received any applications, formal applications on those sites yet, so the developer is likely still thinking about how they might want to move forward if they choose to do so. And then just a quick follow up at the city council meeting last Thursday. The city council during public comment did receive a number of comments from folks who attended the meeting in opposition for any sort of residential development at the 8,8100 Jarvis site. So citing things like incompatibility and environmental concerns. The council of course could not comment on any of that since it was during public comment, but the feedback was and would be transmitted to the property owner and the developer to help them make that decision. Beyond that, no other items to report tonight.

Okay. Let's see. Okay, so planning commissioner. So we had commission matters, report of city council. You just did that. So item number H is planning commissioner comments. Any comments?

Nothing other than fantastic job on the presentation and the work that went into tonight. It's fantastic. not lost on us the heavy lift that was and the amount of time and effort that went into it.

Wonderful job and thank you. That's great. A good piece of work there, too, and I think that's going to help streamline the process and get some stuff built quicker rather than later. Any other comments, sir? Okay, if there's no other comments, I will close the meeting. after I could have stored it up.