Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

transit-rich urban cores. These missing middle buildings can provide moderate-income households with homes in high-cost cities. We have a few examples. Sorry, we can go back real quick. A few examples on this slide. I just want to point out this can range from a duplex, which is on the left, to a more townhome-like form in the middle. And then on the right is something which is essentially just a real big house with multiple homes inside. If you look closely, you can see there's four mailboxes outside of that house.

So that term house scale is?

Basically, if you were just driving by and you were driving on a residential street, you wouldn't necessarily, unless you were looking, be able to tell, oh, that's a single unit home. That's a four unit home. That's three units. You would just kind of see similar heights, similar house shaped buildings. Thank you. So there is this missing middle housing currently in Newark. We've estimated that there are about 150 smaller multi-unit buildings in Newark, many that are dating from either before or shortly after Newark incorporated a city in 1955. You can see on this map that most of these buildings are either in or around the Old Town area. The dots show where these buildings are. The size of the dot shows how many units are within the building and the color blue dots are newer after 1955. Yellows around that time period and red are older units. These type of buildings became less prevalent as the city expanded as federal and state laws incentivized single unit development. Today, Newark zoning limits development to only single unit homes on 76% of the land that's zoned for residential use. This existing missing middle housing typically charges residents lower rents. However, this is a bit of a double-edged sword because although this does make the units more affordable, the buildings often lack financial incentives for upgrades or for redevelopment. Because of this, the buildings might appear to be aging or underutilized despite being in areas with high land value. And also, as I mentioned in the last slide, much of this housing stock is from mid-century or earlier. They might lack air conditioning or other amenities that might be expected or indeed required from 21st century development. And as I'm sure you know from the many programs that come before you, the missing middle housing study is related to other actions the city's taking. This includes objective design standards, the ADU ordinance update, and the city's first-time homebuyer program. The city is also initiating a parking study. It's in the earliest stages of studying residential parking standards. This is not an MGRU project. The staff is available if you have questions about that work. moving to outreach. We did community outreach in order to get a sense of where residents were when it comes to missing middle housing. This included an online survey and we received 94 respondents, 70% of whom lived in Newark and 75% lived in single unit homes. Similar to what's just been said, many Newark residents were on board with the missing middle housing concept and the study's goals. A majority said that Newark needs more housing and most believed that the city's either somewhat unaffordable or not affordable at all. We also hosted focus groups with architects and local developers. The big takeaway from these conversations that they recommended the city align the implementation of its housing goals to state programs. And this would serve to link Newark's local preferences to legible products that housing developers understand and can deliver. They specifically called out ADU law as something that has a lot of flexibility beyond the floor's state requirements and can allow jurisdictions to incentivize their own preferences through the implementation of that law. The people we spoke with emphasized that clear guidelines and transparent processes helped indicate to housing developers that a city was a good and willing partner in producing housing. And what I found really encouraging is we heard from them that Newark's ideal market segments for the sort of housing we're talking about is older adults, young families with children, which were, you know, coincidentally or not, two groups that we were trying to focus on. I want to pause there. Sir Michael, if anyone has any questions, clarifying statements before moving on to implementation options.

Well, the one item that jumped out at me was 76. in the zone for housing in this community is restricted to single family. I mean, to hear it, it's not surprising to me. You just have to drive around the city to understand that. But it's still, when you see that number, it presents a challenge. The other thing is it's not surprising to me that developers would like to see local zoning, local changes reflect state. It's kind of a one size fits all, I think. And unfortunately, I'm in disagreement with that, that I think you've got to still allow local cities and towns to be able to alter their plans to fit their communities. But I do understand why developers and advocacy groups would want to see a... It just makes it easier. They can go anywhere in the state and pretty much know what the requirements are. But...

So I understand.

Thank you for that comment. And I think that's exactly the needle that we are trying to thread. And to add some context, again, to that feedback that we heard from the development community, Part of the reason that they saw success and opportunity in the state laws is because those are familiar to lenders and insurers. Makes sense. And so to the extent that we're proposing something new, we would want it to be mutually legible to those lenders or insurers so that a developer could actually get financing to build it.

Yeah, I hadn't thought about that. That's an important factor if you're looking to finance a project.

And just to add on to what Michael just said, I think it's especially the case for missing middle housing where it might not be a large developer, it might be a property, a homeowner who is interested in building an ADU or building a duplex, these types of things where they might not necessarily have all the wherewithal that a large developer would have. But yeah, thank you for that.

And I do remember a presentation that Mr. Kuhlman made last year, maybe two years ago now, where you were explaining why rental housing was so difficult for developers to build, why it was very difficult financially for them to make happen, and why multifamily, other types of multifamily developments were very difficult to get financed and built. They just didn't pencil out in a lot of cases. So I think that may be another one of these that you're going to be identifying as a challenge.

older looking duplexes and triplexes and fourplexes. Is there a program we have within the city that could incentivize the owners of these properties to upgrade their physical appearance from the street to make it look better, more contemporary, to give an overall better look to the community, and in addition, maybe upgrade and expand the interiors to make the larger units?

Director Turner would you like to take that question?

Certainly. We don't have a program now that encourages property owners to improve the appearance of their structures. What we are focusing on almost immediately is making sure that the owners of those older units, particularly rental units, are keeping those units in safe and habitable condition. So we are starting kind of from the inside out with a pilot program this year to inspect rental units and we'll be inspecting about 60 units during the pilot to make sure that those units have things like running hot water, that there's no mold, that essentially that those units are safe and healthy to live in. So we want to make sure that our existing units meet the building code and health codes for those types of things. I don't think it's, we can certainly look at a program where property owners are incentivized in some way to improve the exterior appearance of their home, which could certainly add value to the home and allow perhaps additional reinvestment. But we don't have a program at that time and it's not a particular focus, but I certainly understand the comment for sure. But much of our housing stock is getting quite old and does need to be maintained. Yeah.

Two comments. One, I was surprised that only 94 people responded. Was that just... done by like a postcard sent to the houses or was it advertised like at the library or anywhere else?

We advertise the surveys through several means. the survey to coincide with the state of the city address first and foremost and so staff participated hosted a community development booth at the state of the city to encourage people to take the survey we also sent it to different community organizations throughout the city and then we posted flyers with the survey at different city facilities and also We do intend to do at least one other sort of pop-up event, so to speak, like we did at the State of the City to inform the community of this project and get their input and feedback. And similarly, the worksheet that is before you will also be posted to our housing website if, you know, any of the kind of like policy walks want to participate. Yes.

And then the other comment was those apartments you meant, they do look a little drab on the outside, but I think, like Stephen said, important that everything inside is just working too. And I think the residents are probably like if they do give it a facelift, then they're probably gonna try and raise their rents, and that wouldn't be very good for the residents. Just a thought.

Always a challenge. Yeah. The city also has a Facebook and an Instagram account, right? That's correct. These things are advertised on?

The survey was also promoted on city social media, yes.

Also could be promoted at Newark Days. This could be concluded by then.

The current project schedule would bring this to the Planning Commission in the fall. And so we could look at the potential alignment between doing outreach at Newark Days and recommending actions to the Planning Commission.

Any other comments before we move on? Okay. Okay.

Thank you. So next, we're going to go through the two strategies or options that were identified in the staff report. And again, to reiterate, these two options can be pursued individually or jointly. We really invite flexibility and creativity there. So these two options, option one is to take a proactive response to changes in state law. Option two is limited to implementing the very specific zoning tax amendments that are identified in the housing element. For option one, we're asking the Planning Commission to look at how recent changes in state law establish development pathways for missing middle housing that are not necessarily subject to local control. We're considering leaning on, we ask you to consider leaning on these laws so we can think about how we can build off of them to create a local alternative that meets state requirements, meets community goals, and is attractive to housing developers. So these include ADU law, including AB1033, which allows separate sales of ADUs, urban lot splits via SB9, and the Starter Home Revitalization Act, or SHRA, which was most recently modified by Senate Bills 684 and 1123. Two major themes of these laws as a whole are that density, as is traditionally understood, is not a very useful metric used for these sorts of developments, And two, many local development standards can be waived if they preclude the development through one of these pathways as envisioned by state law. So first, I want to go through ADU, accessory dwelling unit law. The city is in compliance with state ADU law, allowing one detached ADU, one junior ADU or JADU, and one conversion ADU. Generally, ADUs are allowed by right with four-foot minimum side and rear setbacks. and are up to two stories, although certain height controls exist. Other standards are waived if they make it impossible to build a unit less than 800 square feet, and there's an impact fee exemption for units of 750 square feet or less. And again, to reiterate, ADUs must be reviewed ministerially, meaning the city staff makes the decision to approve individual ADU applications. You can see on the right a diagram of what this might look like on a 6,000 square foot lot. 6,000 square foot lot, pardon me. Now starting in 2024, cities can allow for separate conveyances of ADUs via AB 1033. What this means is that cities can allow ADUs to be sold separately from the primary dwelling unit on a parcel as a sort of condominium, or a property owner can choose to reside in the ADU and sell the primary unit. San Jose is one of the few cities that have enacted AB 1033, and here's an example where They developed a 749-square-foot ADU, which was sold for $530,000. So this is a relatively new pathway to develop relatively affordable home ownership. Next, I'll discuss SB 9, which allows urban lot splits. This allows a parcel to be divided into two, with two residential units permitted per lot. So that'd be up to four residential units with two primary units and two ADUs, rich ADUs, as shown in the diagram on the right. Generally, these lots have to be split at most 60-40, with a minimum new lot size of 1,200 square feet. Similar to ADU law, there are four foot minimum side and rear setbacks, and other standards are waived if they preclude two units of at least 800 square feet per new lot. A jurisdiction can require one parking space per unit, and also there's an owner occupancy requirement in state law that jurisdictions can waive, which could serve to further incentivize SB 9 development.

For sure. Under this SB9, could somebody who has, let's say, a home, a 2,400 square foot home on a single family lot, could a developer, even a corporate developer, come in, buy up multiple single family homes in an established neighborhood? and build multiple units on an and build multiple units on an existing lot with this within existing lot with this within an existing neighborhood?

an existing neighborhood? Thank you for the question. Thank you for the question. The major, the major, the The first stop sign, I would say, is that if an urban lot split cannot neighbor an urban lot split, and there's some nuance there. I'm sorry, repeat that again? If a developer bought two houses, two parcels next to each other, and they split one, they could not split the other.

Okay. I'm talking about if a developer bought a, let's say a developer bought my house. I've got about a 10,000 square foot lot. Could they tear down my home, split the lot and build up to four units on that within an existing established neighborhood?

Not through this law, but through SHRA, something similar could happen, which we will get to next.

Okay. And why would that be good?

That is for the four of you to discuss. Got it. Okay, I'm sorry.

I have a question. Is there a reason where the four-foot minimum side and rear setback would be waived? And it would be like two feet?

Oh, thank you for the question. I believe the city could make that decision. They chose to, but there's no other reason. I can't think of one.

The side and rear setbacks of four feet are the state standard and so that's been the kind of general evolution from ADU law that sort of set that as the standard and now that's being applied to all of these other subsequent laws as you see here in SB 9 and in the next bill that Asher is about to present.

So if there was an ADU on a property that was like two feet from a fence, it couldn't be like, oh, we'll just grandfather that in?

If that's, I think that would depend on, that would depend on if it was, I think in part, a conversion ADU of an existing structure that was non-residential that was converted into an ADU and potentially then grandfathered in, as you might be stating, or if it was new construction. I think that would be the important question. Okay, thank you. And Lopez.

I have a comment on the forefoot minimum side where it said that it doesn't have Does that have something to do with the fire codes and access to wellings, that they can't be so close to the fence that it eliminates an ability for fire to perform their duties?

Mr. Lopez, would you like to take that question?

Sorry, I just wanted to go back to Commission Member Bogacic's initial question related to precluding standards. It's staff's understanding that these state laws, you know, the forefoot minimum side and rear setback, that would be the standard, but that is not the standards that could be precluded. So they would have to adhere to the forefoot setback requirements. The preclusion of the other standards could be related to landscaping, open space, and other standards. So standards that are not set by the state, that's something that the city could consider allowing.

OK, thank you.

And I apologize, do you mind repeating your question, Vice Chair?

Yes, as far as the forfeit minimum side and rear setback, does that have anything to do with the fire codes and giving firefighters access to those properties to stop them from burning?

That is a really good question, and it's likely so. We'd have to double check to confirm, but it is a theme like Mr. Kuhlman mentioned. I know it could be as low as three feet. In other circumstances, there could be fire separation requirements that would allow a lesser setback, but that's something we'd have to research and provide the commission with an answer.

Certainly something to be considered.

Mm-hmm.

Okay.

Okay, thank you for the questions. I'm gonna move on to the Starter Home Revitalization Act, SB 1123 SHRA. So this is in many ways the newest and could be perhaps the least familiar of these state laws. It allows for the subdivision of a lot into up to 10 smaller lots, or 10 units. The process, similar to ADU and SB 9 law, is a ministerial process without discretionary hearings. And this can be used for a subdivision of lots up to five acres in multi-unit zones and up to 1.5 acres in single unit zones. The new units that would be creative must have a net maximum average floor area of 1,750 square feet. And the lots themselves have a minimum lot size of 600 square feet for multi-unit zones and 1,200 square feet for single unit zones. So here we have a diagram with a couple of examples of how this could work in practice. We use the 6,000 square foot lot. If there's a vacant parcel, like the one on the left, you can have units lined up alongside a common access road. And SHRA also allows for a remainder parcel, which they call when there's an existing home, seen on the right, and the new lots are built around that parcel.

Help me out. What's the minimum?

lot size to be able to do this um it says parcels up to five acres in multi-unit zones up to 1.5 acres up to what does that mean um so it means you in a single family area i think let's just stick with that for ease um if there's a two acre single unit you could not do this uh you asked for the minimum yes um The minimum would be, the subdivided lots have to be at minimum 1,200 square feet. That math, so I would say 2,400 square feet would be necessarily the minimum. Whether that's viable on the parcel is kind of the, there's more of a design constraint at that stage.

This act has already been passed by the Senate? That is correct, it's signed to law.

Okay. So I think in the, excuse me, in the example that you're seeing here, a 6,000 square foot lot, if the minimum lot size, resulting lot size is 1,200 square feet, you could do up to five units on this particular example.

Could you demolish the existing home and put six units under this law?

You could. I'm thinking of the math on the fly. The other constraints come in terms of building department review in terms of road access and those sort of considerations as well.

Different jurisdictions have also interpreted that demolition question in different ways. Some have interpreted that you could demo the existing home and start from scratch. Others have said that you cannot.

Again, I'll go back to my original question. Under SB 1123, what would stop a large corporate developer from coming in, buying up homes within single family developments, unbeknownst to the neighbors, and then just start building these units with minimum lot sizes of 600 feet and planting these in existing single family neighborhoods.

I'll take that question really just from a financial feasibility standpoint. And Asher has one more slide, and then we'll show a couple of examples. But in practice, in many areas, the value of the existing home is going to be too high for one of these redevelopment projects to pencil. When we've done some preliminary analysis of this, we think there are certain parts of the city where this could be more likely because the home values are less or because there are larger parts of the lot that are vacant. But the other component is that what the market is showing right now is that most of these are home ownership units. Rents aren't high enough for these to be rental housing. And because they're home ownership, the developer still has to sell them. The buyers still have quite a bit of money, right? Like you saw software developers, administrators, and they're looking for a type of development that is more akin to the single-family home than the very dense kind of product. They still want parking, things of that nature. And so that's kind of what we've heard from the developers that we've talked to and the research that we've done.

Oh, they definitely would want parking in neighbors would certainly want parking as well. And the way these things are set up, and again, doesn't mean they're gonna be built. They can be built. One car garages for units like this, probably is not enough. Anyway, I understand you have another couple of slides. A few more slides, yes.

Thank you for those questions. So this slide, Great, sorry, I was going back to work. OK, so as we've discussed, SHRA is designed to allow greater density and additional homes that might be smaller and more affordable than would be typically allowed. Again, there's modifications to what can be required in terms of setbacks, similar to ADU law. And in the development scene so far, covered parking is usually included. There are a few unique wrinkles in SHRA. For one, as Michael just mentioned, vacant parcels, it could include recent demolition. Jurisdictions are kind of disagreeing on how to interpret that. But I should say there are tenant protections if demolition includes existing rental units. The remainder parcel can be used to keep existing residents, including existing property owners, in their homes. It's important to note that density, the way density is calculated in a zoning or land use doesn't really work, I would say, to use the technical term, for how SHERA is written, and that other local development standards may be waived if they preclude a certain number of units and homes or lots on the subdivided parcel.

That's a perfect picture to show, though. When people see that, Again, a lot of these laws are passed, people aren't paying attention, they don't realize it until the bulldozers pull up and construction begins in their neighborhood.

So we have a few examples that show different ways SHRAs use to produce different types of developments. These two photographs show modular construction on a SHRA project in Southern California. On the left, you can see the floor of a unit being installed, essentially, being dropped behind a remainder single-family unit. When this project was wrapping up, you can see on the right, you see the two-story row homes in the rear of the development. This slide and the next one show different planned projects in Berkeley. The first one here shows that this law is used to have several detached homes on small lots. And this next one, again, also in Berkeley, shows a multi-unit building. SHRA project on a previously vacant lot. And now moving to option two, which is implementing the housing element. In programs H2.1 and H2.8, several quantified objectives are identified. I'll go over these in A through F order. For A, adopt ordinances for SB9 and SB10 to enable missing middle housing in the northern portions of the city. B, review the city's zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance to facilitate housing development under SB9. C, be to increase the maximum density of the RL zone to 15 dwelling units per acre in high opportunity areas. These are the darker areas, if you recall, that blue and green map that Mr. Coulomb shared a few slides ago. D, consider amendments to zoning and development standards. It's gonna be minimum lot size, reducing setbacks, and eliminating minimum unit size requirements. E, allowing development standard waivers when development standards limit a maximum allowable density. And F, to evaluate the missing middle housing progress in 2027 and consider increasing development intensity in RL zones by 2028. In addition to these two strategies,

I can just jump in really quickly. So we presented two options for the Planning Commission to take a look at tonight. So you're looking at option two, which is coming from the, well, built upon the housing element programs, H2.1 and H2.8. These would essentially adopt ordinances and language to be entirely consistent with state law without any sort of sense about can these work for Newark or do these work well for Newark in our community? As you mentioned, these state laws are adopted without any sort of consideration on their effect or even success in a local community. But per our housing element, we need to adopt ordinances that are consistent with state law. option one is closer to what we're considering to be the Newark way which Miss Lopez will talk us through as we go through the exercise but it is a way for us to for us to be consistent with state law but adopt particular standards that will work better for our community so we want to be able to present options that say well listen Newark doesn't have any leverage or control we have to just adopt the state laws and close your eyes and just do it. We don't think that's appropriate. We want to be able to provide an alternative that we believe and through this exercise that we're about to go through, that could work better for Newark and still be in compliant with state laws and allow us a better chance to meet the quantified objectives within our housing element. So that's really important to us because we feel like we need to provide the decision makers with an opportunity to consider a Newark way of providing this type of housing to the folks that can afford it within our community. So that was a little bit of an editorial, but I wanted to kind of make it sort of clear that these options are complimentary in a way, but we're hoping through option one, which we believe is the Newark way, we can start to formulate what that could be through the following exercise that we're about to start and see if we can get to a place that works for our community rather than just adopting state law.

I would suggest when you present this to the council, add your slide before these two because that's a perfect preamble okay mr turner i think it is it explains now i kind of understand why you're presenting these two options okay because i was looking at this one and saying why in the world would the city just adopt these yeah blindly right yeah we we know that we do have to be consistent with state law these are the sort of the state laws that and commitments that we made through our housing element but we think there's an we think there's another way Okay, good.

Sorry, Asher.

No, I also thank you for that, Mr. Chair. Okay, so in addition to the two options that we've just discussed, there are several other strategies that implement development as envisioned in the general plan. These strategies are listed sequentially in the worksheet, which Ms. Lopez will walk through shortly. And finally, we have a slide that shows the building envelopes that are currently allowed by the zoning code in the RS in yellow, RL in green, RM in blue districts. The strategies included in the worksheet show ways to clarify development in these zones, whereas you can see currently similar developments occurring in all three districts because there are similar constraints. So that concludes my portion of this, and thank you very much for the opportunity tonight to have me and Shafi here. And I'm going to turn it over to Ms. Lopez to introduce the exercise.

Thank you, Mr. Cohn. Before I get started, I'll just take this opportunity to pass out the handouts just so you have before you what I'll be talking about.

The missing middle sounds like a murder mystery or something. The case of the missing middle. Just gotta say that.

Thank you. So as Mr. Coulomb and Mr. Cohen discussed earlier in the presentation, Newark has several opportunities to incentivize context appropriate development standards. And as previously discussed, there are two options that the city has presented to the commission and the public. that would meet housing element obligations in response to state law. It is important to note that it is staff's recommendation that both options be supported and implemented if desired by the commission. But they would essentially, like as Mr. Turner stated, would work together.

Ms. Lopez, could you repeat that again, that last statement? Okay. About... Your recommendation for the options?

As discussed in the staff report, the two options presented to the commission this evening, staff does recommend that both options be considered and move forward with, as they do complement each other. Option two, as Mr. Turner has stated, it is directly responding to the housing element programs. And option one, it is the Newark way of a local alternative similar to it was, I think a good example of something we've done most recently is with the objective design standards project. We presented an alternative, local alternative to the design review process. It's kind of the same idea where we would craft or develop our own standards that we believe would fit the Newark demographic and environment.

the housing element. Right. And that's just Right. And that's just to, again, indicate when the to, again, indicate when the state reviews our progress on state reviews our progress on the housing element, they don't the housing element, they don't see us essentially, well, we're these two housing element programs and not adopt state housing law. We do need to do that, but I think we're also recommending that we do it in a way that works for Newark. So that's why they're complementing. So you could adopt both? I think we can craft, I think we can do both. in a way that would be ultimately satisfied to HCD. Now that might include us negotiating and working with them closely about why the actions we take are consistent with our housing element and would result in meeting our quantified objectives going forward, but we think we can put a good case forward for that.

Okay.

If we go to the next slide, thank you. So before we start the exercise, or just to go back to the purpose of the exercise, So it's really to develop, sorry, let me start off with these questions, and then we'll go a little bit more into the exercise. The questions on this slide before you is a way for the commission to kind of frame their thinking about missing middle and the information that was presented this evening. So I'll just go over those briefly. So this is our way of determining how we can identify a Newark way for implementation of this project. So the first would be which development standards are most important to preserve neighborhood character and orderly development? Two, which development standards could be reevaluated to better facilitate a broader range of housing types while maintaining the city's objectives? Three, do we want to make zoning changes to promote a specific path to increase housing opportunities? And four, what trade-offs, if any, should the city consider to increase housing opportunities? So as we work through the worksheet, just keep those questions in mind to just frame your thinking, to inform some of your comments, and we're happy to clarify any questions regarding those questions. So before you is a worksheet that staff and our consultants have developed to assist with understanding the options. So on this first page, it presents option one that Mr. Cohn presented, which explains SHRA in a more illustrative manner, what levers the city does and doesn't control, and a table comparing existing zoning code to SHR standards. THERE'S ALSO A BLANK COLUMN THAT WE INVITE COMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC TO COMPLETE FOR WHAT THEY THINK MAY BE APPROPRIATE. KIND OF A FUN WAY TO WRITE OUR ZONING CODE OR REWRITE OUR ZONING CODE I MIGHT ADD. ONE THING TO NOTE ABOUT THE TABLE IS THAT THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS AS PART OF THE OBJECTIVE DESIGNS PROJECT, DESIGN STANDARDS PROJECT THAT WERE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION LAST MEETING ARE NOT REFLECTED IN THIS WORKSHEET AS THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ADOPTED. STANDARDS PROJECT DOES ACCOUNT FOR SOME OF THESE INCENTIVES AND I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THOSE SPECIFIC STANDARD CHANGES DURING THE DISCUSSION PORTION. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AND THEN PAGE 2 OF THE WORKSHEET includes the current development standards for the residential districts, which include residential single family, residential low density, and residential medium density, as well as the quantified objectives for housing element programs H2.1 and H2.8. They're really just laid out on this sheet to allow the commission and the public to have them side by side to see how these potential recommended changes or examples COULD BE APPLIED TO OUR CURRENT STANDARDS. AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE THERE'S ALSO SOME CHANGES THAT THE CITY COULD CONSIDER BEYOND WHAT THE HOUSING ELEMENT INCLUDES THAT WOULD PROMOTE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING. MOST OF THESE CHANGES ARE RELATED TO PERMITTED USES AND LOT SIZE AND DIMENSIONS. THESE ITEMS WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED AS PART OF THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS PROJECT AND COULD BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING PROJECT. And of course the commissioners and public are welcome to ask any questions. We invite also to circle any changes that you may particularly appreciate or comment on any that you would like staff to reconsider or rethink. Next slide please. And this last page includes more information on option two, including some examples of potential development footprints that could result from these standards. So it really illustrates a visual as to how, for example, a single family lot could be developed based on those standards. And on this slide is a snapshot of a enlarged table that's for option one, which is on the first page. Happy to keep this up during the exercise. And also if the commissioners need additional time, You can of course submit it to us at a later date, some weekend reading. And I believe we will do the exercise as part of the discussion. So I'll hand the presentation back over to Mr. Coulomb for the next steps before we get into the discussion.

Thank you, Carmelissa. So you've just received a lot of information. The state legislature has been very busy over the last few years. And our role as staff is to prepare and advise you on how you can use your authority and make recommendations to the city council to use their authority. to facilitate orderly high quality development that preserves and enhances the city's high quality of life and character. And so you heard these two different options. Option one, which would consider a Newark way of responding to state law while also addressing our need for housing affordable to moderate income individuals, families. and option two, which meets the letter of our housing element commitments, so to speak. We, you know, welcome to work through with you on these worksheets. All this feedback will be considered and incorporated into draft amendments. We're happy to take these from you Today, if you wish, or later, or never, it's certainly something that you could just hold on to. Homework. Yep. But we want to make sure that you're fully informed of all that's going on and have the opportunity to shape the development of the city, as is your role. So our current schedule will have us returning to the Planning Commission for public hearings in the fall and thereafter to City Council.

I will probably add, hopefully I'm not surprising staff too much, but if the Planning Commission feels like you'd like for us to come back with a second study session before we do formal recommendations, we can take a look at the schedule. That's probably gonna be a staff-driven, because this is not in our consultant scope, but certainly we wanna be able to make sure that the Planning Commission has enough information and understands what we're proposing before it goes to city council. So just wanted to kind of throw that out there that if we need to have a second study session to maybe walk through these things, I think we can look to see how we can accommodate that within the schedule. I think that's some sort of number one. also does it maybe make sense for staff to maybe walk through maybe a potential kind of approach to this exercise just to kind of give an example about how you might want to think about this either tonight or you know over the next few weeks or so and So maybe I would offer that. I don't know if Ms. Lopez or Mr. Coulomb, you would want to walk us through.

It's certainly a lot to digest tonight. Yeah, that's why we're sort of thinking that maybe. Long range decisions. I would prefer to have another study session after we had a chance to really review what we're supposed to be doing here to make sure we're covering the bases. Because this is significant. Right.

I'll make a comment as well. I agree with Commissioner Fitts. This is a good, But I think that, before I say this, I do like the way this is organized. I like the way you list what the key provisions are of the state law, what the tenant provisions are. Then most importantly for us, what levers does the city control? I think that's important. But that's a lot of information on this sheet right now. I wouldn't feel comfortable making any recommendations without really having an opportunity to sit and digest this. And then option two, the same thing. our existing development standards. This is a good summary here. This is really helpful. And then this item, what other changes can the city make? I think that's important for us to understand as well. Then you jump on here. On the third page, still under option two, again, I think I like this ABCDEF list here because you actually list some specific areas. And I like the examples that you provide on what something would look like if it was implemented. But I think tonight, to expect us to make any real coherent recommendations based on this, probably a little bit too much to ask. I hope the other members of the Commission don't disagree.

No, I agree with you. I would actually like to take it home and, like, sit with it and then mark it up and go from page to page to really spend some time on it. I would like to do that.

Yeah, we can absolutely accommodate that. And we welcome any questions or conversations that you request to have with staff subsequently. So we also try to include just these kind of guiding questions to really start to think about what is it that gives Newark's neighborhoods their strong, friendly, welcoming character. so that we can ensure that we preserve that. And if possible, enhance it. As Mr. Turner said, a lot of our housing is getting older and we want to make sure that that is preserved and enhanced as well as possible.

Yeah, if it was just answering these four questions, I mean, I would feel comfortable tonight giving you my suggestions or my feedback on these four, but it appears from this worksheet here that you're looking for a little bit more than just this. Am I reading that correctly?

That's a great question that you've brought up, Chair. And just to provide some clarity to that, we're not expecting you to complete the worksheet. I think it was more of a visual and illustrative guide as to understanding the state law and the options that were presented this evening. It would be really helpful if the commission could share some responses to these questions to assist with the planning process for this project. So if that's helpful at all, you can concentrate on these questions and then at a later date, you could submit your worksheet or you don't need to submit the worksheet. You can just tell us your general comments. It's not intended to be any homework or anything like that. Just wanted to clarify that.

I don't think anybody's afraid of a little bit of homework, but.

So you just want like what we think of these questions?

If that's what you're comfortable providing now, yes.

I think with three, I think zoning changes could be made, but it would depend where they are exactly. I mean, some places I think would be better suited. Oh yes, it's better to have housing there and over here. I think zoning changes is something we could look at to increase housing opportunities. And then I think the standard most important to preserve neighborhood character was, I mean, obviously you don't want something going up in a neighborhood where it's all single story, two stories at the most. You don't want like a four story thing going up there, high density, right in the middle of it. That's all I have.

Yes, I can go down the list. I'm not sure how helpful it's gonna be, but so number one, if this is what you're looking for, we can go ahead and do this. Yes, please. Okay, so number one, which development standards are most important to preserve neighborhood character and orderly development? Well, density, parking, height, the actual architecture, I mean, those are four things I can think of right off the top of my head. I think those are critical.

When you say density, does that mean maintaining like the existing density on parcels within neighborhoods? You know, density... the number of density of x number of units per acre can be a little deceiving and you know folks may not they might take a look at a building and be surprised that the density is more than what they expect because of how the building is is expressed through its architecture so you might have like a fourplex and it looks like a fairly large two-story you know, single family home when in fact it's got four units and has a density of, you know, much larger than what would be there. So I think I understand density is, you know, the density should be expressed in a way that is compatible with characteristics of, objective characteristics of existing neighborhoods. Thank you.

Yes, you did a much better job of explaining that. Yes. But again, without having a whole list of development standards, I'm sure the list goes on and on. It's not just those four things that you said. But those are the four things that, off the top of my head, I'm thinking about.

Yeah, that's perfect, thank you.

Number two, which development standards could be reevaluated to better facilitate a broader range of housing types while maintaining the city's objectives? Well, I think you have to look at all of those. I think you have to look at height. You have to look at density. Again, parking's always a rub for everybody. Yes. And then with that, scale, which would include height. I mean, the setbacks, I do think, as Mr. Fitz had said, I do think that these setbacks were initially established to prevent fire spread and access to public safety and so forth. And these setbacks are being reduced by the state because you could obviously, if you have setbacks, they can preclude ADUs from being built on properties. And if you reduce those setbacks, then you're more likely to be able to build more housing in an existing area. So I think setbacks is another development standard that needs to be looked at. That'll be a fifth one. So anyway, specifically to that question, which development standards could be reevaluated? I think all of those could be reevaluated.

You brought up parking, too. Parking is a huge issue. We talked about it the other night. I guess we're going to be doing some kind of a parking study. I think that has some overreaching implications on any of this stuff we're talking about because we're just not providing enough parking for the amount of residential that is being built. And so to continue on doing that, we're still not going to reach what I consider an acceptable level of off-street parking and that type of thing. I don't know how you tie that in with this, but I think that it could have a large effect on this if we indicate that it's mandatory that you park your car in the garage and things like that. It gets pretty detailed.

Well, I think that speaks to actually question number four as an example. So what trade offs is any should the city consider to increase housing opportunities? So one of those things might be, is the city willing to accept lower or reduced parking requirements in exchange for more affordable housing for moderate income households? So yes, everybody would like to have convenient close by and plentiful parking that's not on the street, but that certainly precludes the development of housing, of missing middle housing that we're proposing. So that would be a, an example of a trade-off by, if we want to have as much parking perhaps as we have now, we'll have likely fewer units within those developments. And I don't know if state law sort of also precludes the city from more extensive parking requirements as we adopt state laws. I couldn't recall if that's the case.

The Starter Home Revitalization Act is that the city prohibits jurisdictions from requiring more than one parking space and that parking space can also not, we can't require that it be a covered or enclosed parking space.

Right, right. So some cities, and I remember in other jurisdictions that I've worked at, the city before objectives design standards, subjective standards that would make it extremely difficult to get the type of densities that even where the zoning would allow those densities to occur. cities would adopt these laws as a way to kind of control growth. I think the state has sort of seen past that and now are coming up with these requirements by saying that the city can't in a way artificially increase development standards to a point where they preclude the density, the allowed densities to be built.

Yeah, so I agree. I'm gonna move down to number three. Do we want to make zoning changes to promote a specific path to increase housing opportunities? I think you're gonna have to. Now, is staff looking for some examples of what maybe the commission would think would make sense or might make sense as far as zoning changes to promote a specific path?

Maybe I'll get some clarification from staff on that particular question.

Yes, thank you for that question. So some of the... Well, it was your question, but anyway. To respond to your question about are we looking for feedback on whether we should pursue zoning changes, Yes, that is the question. In my mind, I kind of couch these things between like a Newark, the Newark way is a sort of, it might look something like a special permit. Whereas if you follow all of our rules and requirements, we do something to make it a little juicier for you, you'll do that instead of the SHRA. And then there's more of like the housing element implementation program, which is just kind of generally across the board, should we be looking at zoning changes? And so pages two and three of the worksheet look at some of those potential zoning changes that could be considered. as part of this project, or I think it could also be a consideration and outcome of this effort that these are things that we look into and analyze further as part of the update to our general plan, which is anticipated to start work on in a couple of years.

Well, I like the idea of trade-offs, so I like that example you gave. Yeah. Because, but what is the state going to say about that? And they want housing built, but if we say, you use the term, make it juicier for a developer, that means, but in some cases, maybe that's something we want, precludes the project from being built, and the state maybe wouldn't like that.

I think, I mean, I think that's what they would be looking at and evaluating, and that comes back to meeting our arena numbers. As of now, with these state laws existing, we haven't gotten any applications, right? And we're not producing any moderate income housing. if we have a juicier local Newark alternative and we're producing units, I would assume that that would be well received.

One of those things could be reducing some of our fees, some of our fees such as our parking loo fees. So if you incentivize that it makes the cost of the development lower, that could be something that could be customized for the city of Newark. See, I like that idea, because it gives you still some control over it. I think that's a great example. I don't know if the city manager would like it, but if you're looking to develop housing and a developer says, this doesn't pencil out, but if you knock off $30,000 on the development, then it can pencil out for me. So I think we have to look at stuff like that.

I think that's an excellent example. And if I can offer you a real world scenario, somebody could propose an 800 square foot unit on their lot. They could do it as an ADU and they wouldn't pay any impact fees. Yes. Or they could propose it as an SB9 unit. It could be the same thing structurally and they would pay impact fees. Got it. The challenge is that that ADU unit is going to get rented. it's not immediately creating the home ownership opportunity that the SB9 would be doing. unless we also adopt this AB 1033 to permit the separate sales of ADUs, but even still that's less preferential to the buyer because that's a condo structure as opposed to a fee simple lot.

Yeah, you better like your neighbors when you start doing that because as opposed to a rental unit where you can kick them out if they're doing some strange things, if they own the property, At least now you have a fence separating you from neighbors, but if they're on your same lot, yeah. That one I have a little more concern about. Okay. But anyway, I do like your idea. Something like that I think might pass the straight face test with the state, because you're showing that, but you better be able to demonstrate at some point in the future that you're actually building units, right? Yeah. Okay. So I think I answered that. Yes, I think zoning changes are required. I think we can come up with a couple of specific examples of where it might make some sense to do it. And I think the development fees are one area that you can change. And then the last one, what trade-offs, if any, should the city consider? Commissioner Fitts' idea of trying to protect parking. When you have to provide parking spaces, it takes space. It takes space. land and land is very valuable to developers and if you require too much parking then something can't be built so i can understand why the state got wise to that and started taking our discretion away when it came to that but um are you you're looking for some other specific trade-offs we might um we might wanna consider?

Yeah, I mean, parking is the one that sort of sticks out for sure.

Well, lot space, open space on a lot. Yep. That's, to me, that's, if you wanna build more on less property or on a certain size parcel, eliminate our percentage of open space that we require on a parcel. That would be a trade-off that I think could be acceptable if it's done in the right way, in the right place. I know we require, I think another trade-off would be, again, you could throw in the developer fees, different types of fees. The other thing I'd like to see as well is over the last 30 years, these hookup fees from Alameda County Water District, sanitation hookup fees. I've talked to business owners when they've wanted to upgrade their properties. Even people that are looking to, if you wanted to do a teardown on a house and rebuild, these hookup fees are getting astronomical. So I don't know what type of... you know, what type of incentives or de-incentives can we make to sanitary district and the water district, even PG&E for that matter.

Yeah, getting PG&E to some of these developments takes forever, too.

Yeah, well, there's, yes. But anyway, maybe those are some things that we could look at as far as trade-offs, those things that we might have some control over. And those are special districts, I understand, or private companies, but I think it's something we should look at.

COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE CONSIDERING THIS, YOU COULD CONSIDERING THIS, YOU COULD START WITH THE TABLE ON PAGE START WITH THE TABLE ON PAGE ONE, UNDER OPTION ONE. parameters that are listed there in that first column, you could sort of weigh them yourself, like which ones are most important to you? Like could, as Chair Becker was mentioning, perhaps we reduce the amount of landscaping or open space on the project or lot coverage, but height is one of those things that I'd rather not trade off on, for example, or, you know, rear setbacks might be one of those as well. So you can kind of take a look at that table and see which ones, you know, you might be willing to relax a little bit more versus ones that you would want to be more strict on or keep the same.

One thing that I would like to share is I did mention that the objective design standards project included some incentives for two or more unit development. So the commission was supportive of that project and moving that forward. Thank you very much for that. Included in that those changes are actually reducing the open space requirement as well as reducing some law coverage requirements for development with two or more units. And the idea there is based on our conversation with our consultants and their analysis is that if there are some trade-offs that you have, such as for parking, create an opportunity to provide more parking. An example of that could be reducing a setback. So instead of 20 feet, you could reduce it to 10. That could potentially provide parking in the front requirements. Does it need to be 9 by 19? It could be a little bit less. So I think thinking about it in that way rather than more, I think it's being more flexible with how you would allow it or how you would allow a developer to present it on a property. You could even increase the height. So those are just some things to think about. But I just wanted to remind the commission that those standards were moved forward with as part of the objective design standards project.

Thank you. I know when you were talking about the missing middle, you mentioned like duplexes and fourplexes. And those, I've seen some that look like houses. I guess some of them were called duets. They were like two two-story houses together, and they looked like separate houses. But it was really, they shared a common wall. But I guess the problem with that is that it's not feasible for builders, because it's not a high density. That's probably why.

I think that there's a lot of factors that could be considered as part of that. And it may not even necessarily be in some cases that it's infeasible financially, but that it's less feasible than a large single family home. And so that's part of what, you know, There are some components of pages two and three of the worksheet that try to make that a more preferred, I'm just gonna use the word again, juicier option for developers to consider so that our land is being used in the most efficient way to the benefit of our residents.

that the commission wants to make. What I'd like to do is I'd like to take this with me and maybe I can provide some input to staff offline, if that's okay.

Individually meet with staff or something, clarifications.

Yeah, because there's a lot of good information here and I don't want to sell it short. I'd like to be able to.

To study it, yeah, we need to study it.

then I can provide some, I think, a little more meaningful feedback to staff, if that would be okay.

Yes, absolutely. And if you would like to schedule one-on-one meetings with us to go through it, we'd be happy to do that as well. I think staff will need to look at the schedule and decide when we can come back to the Planning Commission to sort of wrap up the discussion so that we can still bring a recommendation for changes and ordinance changes back to you and keep to our schedule. But we'll reach out to the full commission.

Do you want to be able to show progress on this item to the state? And so, yes.

You know, the city council's not even meeting on August. Right. So September or something, fall.

Okay, well if the commission is okay with that, I think that's a good suggestion that we do a little homework, schedule some individual meetings, and then provide us some feedback, and perhaps when you come back, we can have some slides showing here's what the commission suggestions are, and we have one last chance to look at it, and those could be then passed along to the city council as a package of recommendations.

I think that's an excellent idea. I think up until this point we've been trying to determine the policy scope and intent of this project. And that's why we haven't presented to you specific standards. But I feel like we're now on a shared understanding of what this project is, why it's needed. And now we can move forward working in partnership to develop feasible and achievable recommendations. Great, okay.

All right.

Well, thank you.

Thank you, President.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Cohn.

Thank you, Mr. Lopez. Yes.

Mr. Kuhlman. A lot of work.

A lot of homework. The dog ate my homework.

Okay, that was the last staff report, the only staff report. Brings us to council actions. Mr. Turner, anything? Nothing to report out tonight. Okay, thank you. All right, that brings us to item H, which is planning commission comments. That'll give the commissioners an opportunity. We'll start with Commissioner Fitts.

Yes, I just wanted to comment. I have an opportunity to walk around the FMC Willow project out there. There's a lot of dirt being moved around there, fill coming in. It looks like they're shaping up the park and everything. It's just quite nice since it's been approved since 2022, and now they're moving some dirt, and it's looking like it's gonna be moving towards completion. It's quite exciting to see that huge project moving forward. Thank you, Commissioner Fitts.

We appreciate you visiting the site and seeing the progress that is going there. That did remind me of Council did take some action, so I apologize for overlooking this. Actions relating to... the Grand Park and some timing adjustments in the agreement as well as changes to the affordable housing agreement for the affordable housing development. So maybe I'll start with Mr. Coulomb first to talk about the changes to the affordable housing component of FMC Willow and then Ms. Lopez can speak to the changes about the Grand Park.

Thank you, Mr. Turner. So yes, at the last City Council meeting, City Council received and accepted a recommendation to amend the Affordable Housing Obligation Satisfaction Agreement for the Harbor Point and FMC Willow projects. Harbor Point is the westernmost component of the Bayside specific plan area. and FMC Willow is the component in the northwest corner of Enterprise and Willow Streets. The recommendation that council accepted and moved forward with was to the construction completion deadline for the affordable housing component from December 31st of 2028 to December 31st of 2031. The reason for this extension is that the entirety of the FMC Willow project has been unexpectedly delayed by an unforeseen title issue with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. And so that issue is now being resolved. And so the project is able to move forward. The project will apply for its financing in September. And then the second component was to revise the project's affordability levels. It's a 91-unit low-income affordable housing community, and the average affordability for that project was decreased from 77%, I want to say, to 60% of the area median income, making it more deeply affordable and thereby eligible for low-income housing tax credits.

Which is a good thing.

Yes. Thank you.

Okay. They didn't reduce the size of the Grand Park, right?

I'll let Ms. Lopez get to that.

Thank you. Not the Grand Park. As for the Grand Park, Mr. Coulomb presented to you some overall changes to the project schedule. As he mentioned, there were some title issues related to SFPUC's, a portion of the project site that affected the timeline, however, staff has been in communication and coordination with the developer team as well as the property ownership team. So they are nearing a resolution. They expect to be at that resolution hopefully by the end of the year, which is great. It's taken quite a few years off of the anticipated time. But for Grand Park, no, there are no changes to the size, not the boundaries or the amenities. So there's still a inclusive playground, dog park, lawn areas for events and things like that. As part of the Grand Park amendment, so this would be the second amendment, the first amendment was approved as part of the FMC Willow Grand Park project. That was actually to adjust the park boundaries just to better align with the FMC Willow project. But for the second amendment there were no major changes that would impact the city's projected completion timeline. So that's still July 3rd, 2028. That's when we expect the park to be completed and delivered to the city. The changes were really to commitments between the property owner and the builder onto when they could receive access to start construction. It is my understanding that they are very close And the requirement is that it be completed now by August 31st of this year. But I anticipate that will be much sooner. And there are other changes related to timeline of performance bonds when you receive documentation regarding the park dedication as well as the depiction of the park parcel. But that's really just to align with the current project schedule.

Great. Thank you.

Nothing else to report?

Okay, we'll go back to item H, planning commissioner comments. Are you done, Commissioner Fitts? Commissioner Bogusich, do you have anything?

Yes, I do. So is there any plan for a crosswalk from like Gateway across Thornton? Because a lot of people like ride their bikes and walk, walk their dogs on a scooter trying to get to Don Edwards. And when you cross Thornton, you're just taking your life in your hands because there's like... I mean even if the light is green for you, there's no crosswalk, there's no stop go sign. So is there something?

I might throw it over to Deputy Director Ardenteriano who may be working, well is definitely working on an update to the city's open space plan, but has also indirectly been involved with transportation planning, I think with public works on changes to Thornton Avenue and things along those lines.

Yes, thank you, Director Turner. So it's a good question. I don't remember, at least right now at the moment, recall if there is any changes, but that is something I can definitely look into at the Public Works Department and get that information to you and to the Planning Commission members.

Thank you.

I think one of the things that they were looking at are improved bicycle infrastructure along Thornton.

Well, they do have that compared to what it was.

There is a plan.

And there's a sidewalk on the... east side of Thornton, but it doesn't go all the way. But if you were walking, you would walk on that and wait until you got closer to Don Edwards and then kind of just run. You mean run across? Yes.

And avoid getting hit? Yes.

And so it would be nice if there was a crosswalk?

Yes.

Because if you crossed right at Gateway, then you're walking on the bike path, which isn't the best. You'd want the sidewalk. So yeah, if there was some kind of

There is, there was a, and there is still a plan for the city to develop a more robust pedestrian and bike pathway, but that is on Thornton where it essentially would connect the, kind of the last development before you get, that's in Newark before you get to the Don Edwards. Right. There's that strip of Thornton that you have, you know, the bay on one side, and then you have the former golf course on the other side, which is near Commissioner Fitzhouse. And so that path there is where they would further develop that pedestrian and bike connection. There is the discussion of a crosswalk there. but we haven't developed any of the details of that. I think there's a portion of Thornton that needs to be further analyzed, so you kind of widen the road a little bit, but it's kind of sensitive because there are wetlands kind of on both sides, but that is something that the Public Works Department had been looking at for the last few years, but I think that's still in development. There's no approved plans yet.

Okay.

Anything else? No. I have nothing further either. I think I've done enough damage tonight.

We really appreciate the Planning Commission's participation tonight. We know we asked a lot of you, but we really do appreciate and value the feedback, and it's been helpful.

I speak for the Commission. We appreciate all the hard work staff does. This is a very complicated, and the state keeps making it more complicated.

A lot of moving parts. Yes.

Yep. Anyway, that brings us to item H, which is adjournment. We are adjourned.

Great.

And thanks for giving us the homework. Thank you.