Chapter 17.15 BY-RIGHT HOUSING (-BRH) OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT
17.15.010 Purpose.
This overlay zone district provides supplementary land use, affordable housing requirements, and review procedures for base districts located within the city. The overlay zone district implements requirements of state law regarding streamlined review procedures for residential projects identified in the city's adopted general plan housing element that have been "carried over" from previously adopted housing elements. This zone district does not modify permitted uses, nor does it restrict property owners from developing projects consistent with the requirements provided in this title for the base or underlying zone district. (Ord. No. 547, § 4(Exh. B), 1-11-2024)
17.15.020 Applicability.
The standards and regulations of this chapter apply to the planning area designated with the -BRH extension on the zoning map. Except as provided in this chapter, all new structures and development as well as alterations to existing structures, shall comply with the requirements of the base zoning district and Chapter 17.28 – Residential and Residential Mixed Use Design Standards. See Section 17.15.050 for design standards for residential and residential mixed-use development.
(Ord. No. 547, § 4(Exh. B), 1-11-2024)
17.15.030 Permitted uses.
Any use permitted in the underlying district that is combined with a -BRH overlay zone district shall be allowed subject to the procedures of the underlying district, as modified by the -BRH district. (Ord. No. 547, § 4(Exh. B), 1-11-2024)
17.15.040 Procedures.
A. Residential Uses Allowed By-Right. Residential projects that comply with all applicable objective standards and criteria applicable toof the underlying district, include a minimum of twenty dwelling units per acre, and provide twenty percent of the units in the project as affordable to lower-income households do not require discretionary review under this title. Lower income shall have the same meaning as in Health and Safety Code section 50079.5. Qualifying projects are still subject to design review, except that such design review shall be ministerial, notwithstanding anything in NMC Chapter 17.35 to the contrary.
B. Requirements for Affordable Units. The developer of a residential project under this chapter shall comply with the provisions of NMC 17.18.060 for the residential units designated as affordable to lower-income households, consistent with applicable requirements in state law. Where the requirements of state law conflict with the requirements of this title, state law shall prevail. (Ord. No. 547, § 4(Exh. B), 1-11-2024)
(Revisions in Redline)
17.15.050 Design standards for residential and residential mixed-use development.
Design standards for residential and residential mixed-use development (as defined in Chapter 17.46) are prescribed by Chapter 17.28 Residential and Residential Mixed-Use Design Standards. These standards shall be used as described in Section 17.28.020.
Chapter 17.17 GENERAL SITE REGULATIONS
(Proposed amendments to Chapter 17.17 are limited to Section 17.17.010 – Revisions in Redline) Newark, California, Code of Ordinances
Chapter 17.17 GENERAL SITE REGULATIONS
17.17.010 Purpose and applicability.
The purpose of this chapter is to prescribe development and site regulations that apply, except where specifically stated, to development in all districts. These standards shall be used in conjunction with the standards for each zoning district established in Article II, Base and Overlay District Regulations. In any case of conflict, the standards specific to the zoning district shall override these regulations. For residential and residential mixed-use development subject to Chapter 17.28 Residential and Residential Mixed-Use Design Standards, the standards contained in Chapter 17.17 shall be used in conjunction with the standards established in Section 17.28.060 as described in Section 17.28.020.
(Ord. No. 503, § 1(Exh. A), 1-25-2018)
Chapter 17.21 LANDSCAPING
(Proposed amendments to Chapter 17.21 are limited to Section 17.21.020 – Revisions in Redline) Newark, California, Code of Ordinances
Chapter 17.21 LANDSCAPING
17.21.020 Applicability.
The provisions of this chapter shall apply to the following:
A. All new development.
B. Additions to multi-unit and non-residential development that expand existing floor area by ten percent or more.
C. All new and rehabilitated landscaping projects that include new irrigated landscaping over five hundred square feet.
D. Exceptions. The provisions of this chapter do not apply to the following:
1. Farming, agriculture, and crop production including vegetable gardens, vineyards, and small orchards.
2. Public recreational areas (designated for active play, recreation, interpretation or public assembly).
3. Registered local, state or federal historical sites.
4. Habitat restoration projects that do not require a permanent irrigation system.
5. Mined-land reclamation projects that do not require a permanent irrigation system.
6. Existing plant collections, as part of botanical gardens and arboretums open to the public.
E. For residential and residential mixed-use development subject to Chapter 17.28 Residential and Residential Mixed-Use Design Standards, the standards contained in Chapter 17.21 shall be used in conjunction with the standards established in Section 17.28.060 as described in Section 17.28.020. (Ord. No. 503, § 1(Exh. A), 1-25-2018)
17.23 PARKING AND LOADING
(Proposed amendments to Chapter 17.23 are limited to Section 17.23.090 – Revisions in Redline) Newark, California, Code of Ordinances
17.23 PARKING AND LOADING
17.23.090 Parking area design and development standards.
All parking areas except those used exclusively for stacked or valet parking, shall be designed and developed consistent with the following standards. Parking areas used exclusively for stacked or valet parking are subject only to Subsections I through M. Stacked or valet parking areas which will allow parking at some times without attendants must be striped in conformance with the layout requirements of this section.
For residential and residential mixed-use development subject to Chapter 17.28 Residential and Residential Mixed-Use Design Standards, the standards contained in Section 17.23.090 shall be used in conjunction with the standards established in Section 17.28.060 as described in Section 17.28.020.
A. Tandem Parking.
1. Tandem parking is not permitted to satisfy the off-street parking requirement. except for residential parking if all the following requirements are satisfied:
a. The minimum dimension of any tandem parking space shall be nine feet wide by thirty-eight feet deep.
b. A tandem parking space shall only count as two required parking spaces if both spaces in the tandem parking space are reserved exclusively for use by a single residential unit.
2. Tandem parking shall only be permitted to count as two required parking spaces in parking areas or structures available to multiple residential units if a parking management program is in place to ensure that both spaces in a given tandem parking space are reserved exclusively for use by a single residential unit.
(Ord. No. 503, § 1(Exh. A), 1-25-2018; Ord. No. 505, § 3(Exh. A), 7-12-2018) Chapter 17.46 DEFINITIONS
(Proposed Additions to Chapter 17.46 – Revisions in Redline) Newark, California, Code of Ordinances
Chapter 17.46 DEFINITIONS
Dwelling unit, primary. An existing or proposed residential structure to which an accessory dwelling unit is accessory.
Onsite amenities. Areas provided for use by building tenants that may include but are not limited to the following: community gardens, outdoor kitchens or barbeque (BBQ) areas, playgrounds, dog parks, swimming pools, exercise areas, and sport courts. Landscaping, turf or lawn areas, or open courtyard and patio seating areas.
Open space. Area that is not fully enclosed by walls or solid roof that allows for outdoor living, recreation, and/or the creation and maintenance of natural and planted areas.
Open space, common. Open space accessible to all dwelling units in the development.
Open space, private. Open space accessible to only one dwelling unit.
Residential development. One or more structures containing one or more dwelling units with no nonresidential uses other than incidental accessory uses.
Residential mixed-use development. One or more residential units located in the same building, parcel, or planning application as a commercial, office, or other non-residential use(s).
Wall plane. A continuous flat area of wall surface that is not broken by a change in depth or angle.
Chapter 17.34 DESIGN REVIEW
Newark, California, Code of Ordinances
Chapter 17.34 DESIGN REVIEW
17.34.010 Purpose.
This chapter establishes the design review procedure to ensure that new development and alterations to existing structures support the goals and objectives of the general plan and other adopted plans and comply with applicable guidelines, zoning, development and design standards, and applicable state law. The specific purposes of the design review process are to:
A. Promote excellence in site planning and design and the harmonious appearance of buildings and sites; B. Ensure that new and modified uses and development will be compatible with the existing and potential development of the surrounding area;
C. Supplement other city regulations and standards in order to ensure control of aspects of design that are not otherwise addressed; and
D. Establish design review procedures consistent with applicable state law, including procedures for both discretionary and ministerial review.
(Ord. No. 503, § 1(Exh. A), 1-25-2018)
17.34.020 Applicability.
A. Design review is required for all projects that require a permit for new construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, alteration, or other improvements to the exterior of a structure, site, or a parking area, except for:
1. Additions, construction, reconstruction, alterations, improvements, and landscaping for a project developed in compliance with a previous design review approval; and
2. Replacement of exterior materials, including openings, with the same materials.
B. Design review shall be processed in accordance with the following review processes based upon the project type:
1. Discretionary Design Review. Applies to all projects requiring discretionary review under this title as follows:
a. Standard Design Review. Applies to all projects as prescribed in Section 17.34.020(A) except for:
i. Single-unit residential development projects; and
ii. Projects eligible for ministerial review as prescribed in this chapter or applicable state law.
b. Single-Unit Design Review. Applies to projects consisting of one single-unit dwelling (single-unit residential development) including, but not limited to new single-unit residential development; second-story additions and exterior modifications to existing single-unit residential development; and additions and exterior modifications located at the front (including street-side yards for corner lots) of existing single-unit residential development, that meet any of the following criteria:
EXHIBIT E
Chapter 17.34 DESIGN REVIEW
Newark, California, Code of Ordinances
i. Single-unit residential development projects that exceed the maximum number of waivers permitted pursuant to Chapter 17.37 Waivers; or ii. Single-unit residential development projects for which the applicant elects Single-Unit Design Review in lieu of Ministerial Streamlined Design Review. c. Discretionary Streamlined Design Review. Applies to projects for which local review remains discretionary, but review is limited to objective standards as required by applicable state law.
2. Ministerial Streamlined Design Review. Applies to projects that are eligible for ministerial review under this chapter or applicable state law and that comply with the general plan and other adopted plans, zoning, and objective development and design standards and do not exceed the maximum number of waivers permitted pursuant to Chapter 17.37 Waivers. Projects that receive a density bonus, incentives or concessions, development standard waivers, or parking reductions pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915 and Chapter 17.19, or as amended, shall not be considered inconsistent with the General Plan, zoning, or applicable development and design standards as a result of receiving such modifications. Eligible projects include:
a. Single-unit residential development including:
i. New single-unit residential development;
ii. Second-story additions and exterior modifications to existing single-unit residential development; and
iii. Additions and exterior modifications at the front (including street-side yards for corner lots) of existing single-unit residential development. b. Qualifying residential projects within the planning area designated with the By-Right Housing Overlay Zone District (Chapter 17.15);
c. Residential and mixed-use residential development projects eligible for ministerial review under applicable state law; and
d. All other types of projects eligible for ministerial review under applicable state law, including, but not limited to, emergency shelters and low-barrier navigation centers. e. Residential and mixed-use residential development projects consisting of at least two but not more than 200 dwelling units that comply with all the following:
i. The project is consistent with the general plan and other adopted plans; ii. The project is consistent with, and does not deviate from, all applicable objective development and design standards;
iii. The project does not require a conditional use permit, variance, legislative change, or any other discretionary entitlement or request under this title, except for waivers permitted pursuant to Chapter 17.37 Waivers. Projects that obtain a density bonus, incentives or concessions, development standard waivers, or parking reductions pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915 and Chapter 17.19, shall not be considered a waiver, variance, legislative change, or other discretionary entitlement or request for purposes of this subsection; iv. The project is not located:
1. Within a planned unit development;
Chapter 17.34 DESIGN REVIEW
Newark, California, Code of Ordinances
2. Within a historic district listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or within a locally designated historic district;
3. On or within 1,000 feet of an existing or former landfill;
4. On a site of more than 20 acres and does not satisfy any of the criteria specified in Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(a)(3);
5. On a site known to contain archaeological resources, paleontological resources, tribal cultural resources, or human remains;
6. On a site in which any of the features, characteristics, or conditions specified in Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6) are present. v. The project does not involve:
1. The demolition of a historic or cultural resource that is listed on a national, state, tribal, or local historic register;
2. The demolition of a dwelling unit occupied by one or more tenants in a multi-unit development within one year prior to the time an application is submitted under this chapter;
3. The demolition of a dwelling unit subject to an affordable housing regulatory agreement;
4. A net reduction in the total number of dwelling units on the site; or
5. A net reduction in the total number of lodging rooms on the site.
C. Exceptions for Existing Development. Ground floor additions and exterior modifications to existing development that do not face a public street and comprise less than fifty percent of the proposed total floor area may be exempt from design review subject to approval by the Community Development Director.
(Ord. No. 503, § 1(Exh. A), 1-25-2018)
17.34.030 Assignment of design review responsibilities.
A. Discretionary Design Review. The planning commission or community development director (Director) shall review all Discretionary Design Review applications, including Standard Design Review, Single-Unit Design Review, and Discretionary Streamlined Design Review, for compliance with the general plan and other adopted plans, applicable guidelines, zoning, development and design standards, and applicable state law.
1. Planning Commission. The planning commission shall have design review authority for all projects that are processed concurrently with other applications under this title requiring planning commission approval (such as conditional use permits and variances).
2. Director.
a. The Director shall have design review authority for all projects that do not meet the criteria listed in Subsection A(1).
Chapter 17.34 DESIGN REVIEW
Newark, California, Code of Ordinances
b. The Director may refer items directly to the planning commission for review when in the Director’s opinion the public interest would be better served by having the planning commission conduct design review.
B. Ministerial Streamlined Design Review. The director shall review Ministerial Streamlined Design Review applications for compliance with the general plan and other adopted plans, zoning, objective development and design standards, and applicable state law. Where permitted by applicable state law, the Director may refer applications to the planning commission for review, provided that such review remains objective and ministerial as prescribed in Section 17.34.060(D). (Ord. No. 503, § 1(Exh. A), 1-25-2018)
17.34.040 Procedures, design guidelines and standards.
A. Forms and Fees. Written applications for design review applications shall be submitted to the planning division in compliance with the application procedures in Chapter 17.31, Common Procedures.
B. Public Notice.
1. Notice shall be provided as follows:
a. Single-Unit Residential Development. First-class mail delivery to all property owners within a minimum two-hundred-foot radius of the subject property, as shown on the latest available assessment roll.
b. Development Other Than Single-Unit Residential Development. First Class mail delivery to all property owners within a minimum four-hundred-foot radius of the subject property, as shown on the latest available assessment roll.
2. Ministerial Streamlined Design Review. Public Notice is not required.
C. Standard Design Review and Single-Unit Design Review. Standard Design Review and Single-Unit Design Review applications shall be consistent with the general plan and other adopted plans, applicable guidelines, zoning, development and design standards, and applicable state law. Design guidelines provide standards to be used in the design review process. They are intended to promote high-quality design, well-crafted and maintained buildings and landscaping, the use of high-quality building materials, and attention to the design and execution of building details and amenities in both public and private projects.
D. Discretionary Streamlined Design Review and Ministerial Streamlined Design Review. Discretionary Streamlined Design Review and Ministerial Streamlined Design Review applications shall be consistent with the general plan and other adopted plans, zoning, objective development and design standards, and applicable state law.
E. Concurrent Processing. When a design review application is processed concurrently with another application under this title, the design review application shall be submitted to the planning division as part of the underlying application.
F. Reviewing Authority. When a design review application is processed concurrently with another application under this title, the reviewing authority shall be determined in accordance with Section
17.30.060.
(Ord. No. 503, § 1(Exh. A), 1-25-2018)
Chapter 17.34 DESIGN REVIEW
Newark, California, Code of Ordinances
17.34.050 Scope of design review.
A. Design Review Considerations. Design review shall be based on consideration of the requirements of this chapter as they apply to the design of the site plan, structures, landscaping, and other physical features of a proposed project, including:
1. Building proportions, massing, and architectural details;
2. Site design, orientation, location, and architectural design of buildings relative to existing structures on or adjacent to the property, topography, and other physical features of the natural and built environment;
3. Size, location, design, development, and arrangement of on-site parking and other paved areas;
4. Exterior materials and, except in the case of design review of a single-family residence, color as they relate to each other, to the overall appearance of the project, and to surrounding development;
5. Height, materials, design, fences, walls, and screen plantings;
6. Location and type of landscaping including selection and size of plant materials, and design of hardscape; and
7. Size, location, design, color, lighting, and materials of all signs.
17.34.060 Design review criteria and findings.
A. Discretionary Design Review. When conducting Standard Design Review and Single-Unit Design Review, the review authority shall evaluate applications to ensure that they satisfy the following findings, conform to the policies of the general plan and any applicable specific plan, any adopted design guidelines, and are consistent with any other adopted policies or for this purpose. To obtain design review approval, projects must satisfy the following findings to the extent they apply.
1. The overall design of the project including its scale, massing, site plan, exterior design, and landscaping will enhance the appearance and features of the project site and surrounding natural and built environment.
2. The project design is appropriate to the function of the project and will provide an attractive and comfortable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community.
3. Project details, materials, signage and landscaping, are internally consistent, fully integrated with one another, and used in a manner that is visually consistent with the proposed architectural design.
4. The design of streetscapes, including street trees, lighting, and pedestrian furniture, is consistent with the intended character of the area.
5. Parking areas are designed and developed to buffer surrounding land uses; compliment pedestrian-oriented development; enhance the environmental quality of the site, including minimizing stormwater run-off and the heat-island effect; and achieve a safe, efficient, and harmonious development.
6. Lighting and lighting fixtures are designed to complement buildings, be of appropriate scale, provide adequate light over walkways and parking areas to create a sense of pedestrian safety, and avoid creating glare.
Chapter 17.34 DESIGN REVIEW
Newark, California, Code of Ordinances
7. Landscaping is designed to be compatible with and enhance the architectural character and features of the buildings on site, and help relate the building to the surrounding landscape.
B. Single-Unit Design Review. In addition to the findings set forth under Subsection A, single-unit development projects processed under Single-Unit Design Review shall be consistent with the Single Family Residential Design Review Guidelines as adopted by the Planning Commission on April 24, 2007, or as amended. Single-unit development projects processed under Single-Unit Design Review shall not be subject to the design standards in Chapter 17.28 Residential and Residential Mixed-Use Design Standards.
C. Discretionary Streamlined Design Review. To obtain approval, projects must satisfy all of the following criteria. For projects processed pursuant to applicable state law, consistency shall be determined based on the objective standards and requirements applicable to the project under such law.
1. The project is consistent with applicable general plan and other adopted plans, zoning, design, and development standards.
2. The project is eligible for streamlined discretionary review pursuant to applicable state law.
D. Ministerial Streamlined Design Review. To obtain approval, projects must satisfy all of the following criteria. For projects processed pursuant to applicable state law, consistency shall be determined based on the objective standards and requirements applicable to the project under such law.
1. The project is consistent with applicable objective general plan and other adopted plans, zoning, design, and development standards.
2. The project is eligible for streamlined ministerial review pursuant to applicable state law or Section
17.34.020(B)(2).
(Ord. No. 503, § 1(Exh. A), 1-25-2018)
17.34.070 Timing and notice of action
A. Date of Action. The responsible authority shall decide to approve, conditionally approve, or deny any discretionary or ministerial application within the timeframes required by applicable state law, including the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65920 et seq.). For discretionary applications requiring a public hearing, action shall be taken following the closure of the public hearing.
B. Notice of Action.
1. Discretionary Design Review . For all Discretionary Design Review applications, including Standard Design Review, Single-Unit Design Review, and Discretionary Streamlined Design Review, notice of action shall be provided pursuant to Subsection 17.31.080.B, Notice of Action. In addition to the recipients identified in Subsection 17.31.080(B), Notice of Action, notice shall also be provided pursuant to Section 17.34.040(B).
2. Ministerial Streamlined Design Review. Notwithstanding Subsection 17.31.080.B, notice of action for Ministerial Streamlined Design Review applications shall be provided as follows:
a. The notice shall describe the action taken, including any applicable conditions, and shall list the criteria for approval. The Director shall file the notice with the city clerk, mail the notice to the applicant, to the members of the city council and the planning commission, Chapter 17.34 DESIGN REVIEW
Newark, California, Code of Ordinances
and to any other person or entity that has filed a written request for such notification with the planning division, and post the notice on the City's website.
17.34.080 Calls for review.
A. Discretionary Design Review. For all Discretionary Design Review actions, including Standard Design Review, Single-Unit Design Review, and Discretionary Streamlined Design Review, notice of decision by the director shall be communicated to the members of the city council and planning commission in accordance with Section 17.31.100.
B. Ministerial Streamlined Design Review. For Ministerial Streamlined Design Review actions, notice of decision by the director shall be communicated to the members of the planning commission and city council after approval. Notwithstanding Section 17.31.100, such actions are not subject to calls for review.
17.34.090 Appeals, expiration, extensions, and modifications.
A. Appeals.
1. Decisions on all Discretionary Design Review applications, including Standard Design Review, Single -Unit Design Review, and Discretionary Streamlined Design Review, shall be subject to the appeal provisions under Section 17.31.110, Appeals.
2. Decisions on Ministerial Streamlined Design Review applications shall not be subject to the appeal provisions under Section 17.31.110; however, a decision on such an application may be subject to one reconsideration by the Director.
B. Effective Dates. Design Review approvals shall become effective in accordance with Section 17.31.120, Effective dates.
C. Expiration and Extension.
1. Discretionary Design Review approvals shall be subject to the expiration and extension provisions of Section 17.31.130, Expiration and extension.
2. Ministerial Streamlined Design Review approvals shall be subject to expiration and extension only as permitted by applicable state law. Section 17.31.130 shall apply to the extent consistent with such law.
D. Modification of Approved Plans. Approved Design Review plans may be modified in accordance with Section 17.31.140, Modifications.
(Ord. No. 503, § 1(Exh. A), 1-25-2018)
Chapter 17.34 DESIGN REVIEW
(Revisions in Redline)
Newark, California, Code of Ordinances
Chapter 17.34 DESIGN REVIEW
17.34.010 Purpose.
This chapter establishes the design review procedure to ensure that new development and alterations to existing structures supports the goals and objectives of the general plan and other adopted plans and comply with applicable guidelines, zoning, development and design standards, and applicable state lawguidelines. The specific purposes of the design review process are to:
A. Promote excellence in site planning and design and the harmonious appearance of buildings and sites; B. Ensure that new and modified uses and development will be compatible with the existing and potential development of the surrounding area; and
C. Supplement other city regulations and standards in order to ensure control of aspects of design that are not otherwise addressed; and.
D. Establish design review procedures consistent with applicable state law, including procedures for both discretionary and ministerial review.
(Ord. No. 503, § 1(Exh. A), 1-25-2018)
17.34.020 Applicability.
A. Design review is required for all projects that require a permit for new construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, alteration, or other improvements to the exterior of a structure, site, or a parking area, except for:
1. Additions, construction, reconstruction, alterations, improvements, and landscaping for a project developed in compliance with a previous design review approval; and
2.1. 3.2. Replacement of exterior materials, including openings, with the same materials.
B. Design review shall be processed in accordance with the following review processes based upon the project type:
1. Discretionary Design Review. Applies to all projects requiring discretionary review under this title as follows:
1. a. Standard Design Review. Applies to all projects as prescribed in Section 17.34.020(A) except for:
a.
i. Single-unit residential development projects; and
ii.i.
ii. Projects eligible for ministerial review as prescribed in this chapter or applicable state law.
EXHIBIT F
Chapter 17.34 DESIGN REVIEW
(Revisions in Redline)
Newark, California, Code of Ordinances
b. Single-Unit Design Review. Applies to projects consisting of one single-unit dwelling (single-unit residential development) including, but not limited to new single-unit residential development; second-story additions and exterior modifications to existing single-unit residential development; and additions and exterior modifications located at the front (including street-side yards for corner lots) of existing single-unit residential development, that meet any of the following criteria:
i. Single-unit residential development projects that exceed the maximum number of waivers permitted pursuant to Chapter 17.37 Waivers; or ii. Single-unit residential development projects for which the applicant elects Single-Unit Design Review in lieu of Ministerial Streamlined Design Review. c. Discretionary Streamlined Design Review. Applies to projects for which local review remains discretionary, but review is limited to objective standards as required by applicable state law.
2. Ministerial Streamlined Design Review. Applies to projects that are eligible for ministerial review under this chapter or applicable state law and that comply with the general plan and other adopted plans, zoning, and objective development and design standards and do not exceed the maximum number of waivers permitted pursuant to Chapter 17.37 Waivers. Projects that receive a density bonus, incentives or concessions, development standard waivers, or parking reductions pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915 and Chapter 17.19, or as amended, shall not be considered inconsistent with the General Plan, zoning, or applicable development and design standards as a result of receiving such modifications. Eligible projects include:
a. Single-unit residential development including:
i. New single-unit residential development;
ii. Second-story additions and exterior modifications to existing single-unit residential development; and
iii. Additions and exterior modifications at the front (including street-side yards for corner lots) of existing single-unit residential development. b. Qualifying residential projects within the planning area designated with the By-Right Housing Overlay Zone District (Chapter 17.15);
c. Residential and mixed-use residential development projects eligible for ministerial review under applicable state law; and
d. All other types of projects eligible for ministerial review under applicable state law, including, but not limited to, emergency shelters and low-barrier navigation centers. e. Residential and mixed-use residential development projects consisting of at least two but not more than 200 dwelling units that comply with all the following:
i. The project is consistent with the general plan and other adopted plans; ii. The project is consistent with, and does not deviate from, all applicable objective development and design standards;
iii. The project does not require a conditional use permit, variance, legislative change, or any other discretionary entitlement or request under this title, except for waivers permitted pursuant to Chapter 17.37 Waivers. Projects that obtain a Chapter 17.34 DESIGN REVIEW
(Revisions in Redline)
Newark, California, Code of Ordinances
density bonus, incentives or concessions, development standard waivers, or parking reductions pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915 and Chapter 17.19, shall not be considered a waiver, variance, legislative change, or other discretionary entitlement or request for purposes of this subsection; iv. The project is not located:
1. Within a planned unit development;
2. Within a historic district listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or within a locally designated historic district;
3. On or within 1,000 feet of an existing or former landfill;
4. On a site of more than 20 acres and does not satisfy any of the criteria specified in Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(a)(3);
5. On a site known to contain archaeological resources, paleontological resources, tribal cultural resources, or human remains;
6. On a site in which any of the features, characteristics, or conditions specified in Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6) are present. v. The project does not involve:
1. The demolition of a historic or cultural resource that is listed on a national, state, tribal, or local historic register;
2. The demolition of a dwelling unit occupied by one or more tenants in a multi-unit development within one year prior to the time an application is submitted under this chapter;
3. The demolition of a dwelling unit subject to an affordable housing regulatory agreement;
4. A net reduction in the total number of dwelling units on the site; or
5. A net reduction in the total number of lodging rooms on the site.
C. Exceptions for Existing Development. Ground floor additions and exterior modifications to existing development that do not face a public street and comprise less than fifty percent of the proposed total floor area may be exempt from design review subject to approval by the Community Development Director.
(Ord. No. 503, § 1(Exh. A), 1-25-2018)
17.34.030 Assignment of design review responsibilities.
A. Discretionary Design Review. The planning commission or community development director (Director) shall review all Discretionary Design Review applications, including Standard Design Review, Single-Unit Design Review, and Discretionary Streamlined Design Review, for compliance with the general plan and other adopted plans, applicable guidelines, zoning, development and design standards, and applicable state law.
Chapter 17.34 DESIGN REVIEW
(Revisions in Redline)
Newark, California, Code of Ordinances
1. 1A. Planning Commission. The planning commission shall have design review authority for all projects that are processed concurrently with other applications under this title requiring planning commission approval (such as conditional use permits and variances).
2. Director.
a. The Director shall have design review authority for all projects that do not meet the criteria listed in Subsection A(1).
b. The Director may refer items directly to the planning commission for review when in the Director’s opinion the public interest would be better served by having the planning commission conduct design review.
B. Ministerial Streamlined Design Review. The director shall review Ministerial Streamlined Design Review applications for compliance with the general plan and other adopted plans, zoning, objective development and design standards, and applicable state law. Where permitted by applicable state law, the Director may refer applications to the planning commission for review, provided that such review remains objective and ministerial as prescribed in Section 17.34.060(D). (Ord. No. 503, § 1(Exh. A), 1-25-2018)
17.34.040 Procedures,; design guidelines and standards.
A. A. Forms and Fees. Written applications for design review applications shall be submitted to the planning division in compliance with the application procedures in Chapter 17.31, Common Procedures.
B. Public Notice.
1. Notice shall be provided as follows:
a. Single-Unit Residential Development. First-class mail delivery to all property owners within a minimum two-hundred-foot radius of the subject property, as shown on the latest available assessment roll.
b. Development Other Than Single-Unit Residential Development. First Class mail delivery to all property owners within a minimum four-hundred-foot radius of the subject property, as shown on the latest available assessment roll.
2. Ministerial Streamlined Design Review. Public Notice is not required.
A.C. Design Guidelines. All projects shall be consistent with applicable design guidelines. Standard Design Review and Single-Unit Design Review. Standard Design Review and Single-Unit Design Review applications shall be consistent with the general plan and other adopted plans, applicable guidelines, zoning, development and design standards, and applicable state law. Design guidelines provide recommendations standards to be used in the design review process. They are intended to promote high-quality design, well-crafted and maintained buildings and landscaping, the use of high-quality building materials, and attention to the design and execution of building details and amenities in both public and private projects.
D. Discretionary Streamlined Design Review and Ministerial Streamlined Design Review. Discretionary Streamlined Design Review and Ministerial Streamlined Design Review applications shall be consistent with the general plan and other adopted plans, zoning, objective development and design standards, and applicable state law.
Chapter 17.34 DESIGN REVIEW
(Revisions in Redline)
Newark, California, Code of Ordinances
E. Concurrent Processing. When a development project requires a use permit, variance, or any other discretionary approval, the design review application design review application is processed concurrently with another application under this title, the design review application shall be submitted to the planning division as part of the underlying permit, use permit, or variance. application.
F. Reviewing Authority. When a design review application is processed concurrently with another application under this title, the reviewing authority shall be determined in accordance with Section
17.30.060.
(Ord. No. 503, § 1(Exh. A), 1-25-2018)
17.34.050 Scope of design review.
A. A. Design Review Considerations. Design review shall be based on consideration of the requirements of this chapter as they apply to the design of the site plan, structures, landscaping, and other physical features of a proposed project, including:
1. Building proportions, massing, and architectural details;
2. Site design, orientation, location, and architectural design of buildings relative to existing structures on or adjacent to the property, topography, and other physical features of the natural and built environment;
3. Size, location, design, development, and arrangement of on-site parking and other paved areas;
4. Exterior materials and, except in the case of design review of a single-family residence, color as they relate to each other, to the overall appearance of the project, and to surrounding development;
5. Height, materials, design, fences, walls, and screen plantings;
6. Location and type of landscaping including selection and size of plant materials, and design of hardscape; and
7. Size, location, design, color, lighting, and materials of all signs.
B. Reduction in Density or Floor Area Ratio Prohibited. Design review shall not result in a reduction in the residential density or the allowable square footage of a proposed project. (Ord. No. 503, § 1(Exh. A), 1-25-2018)
17.34.060 Design review criteria and findings.
A. A. Discretionary Design Review. When conducting Standard Design Review and Single-Unit Design Reviewdesign review, the review authority shall evaluate applications to ensure that they satisfy the following findingscriteria, conform to the policies of the general plan and any applicable specific plan, any adopted design guidelines, and are consistent with any other adopted policies or guidelines the city council may adopt for this purpose. To obtain design review approval, projects must satisfy the following findingscriteria to the extent they apply.
1. The overall design of the project including its scale, massing, site plan, exterior design, and landscaping will enhance the appearance and features of the project site and surrounding natural and built environment.
Chapter 17.34 DESIGN REVIEW
(Revisions in Redline)
Newark, California, Code of Ordinances
2. The project design is appropriate to the function of the project and will provide an attractive and comfortable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community.
3. Project details, materials, signage and landscaping, are internally consistent, fully integrated with one another, and used in a manner that is visually consistent with the proposed architectural design.
4. The design of streetscapes, including street trees, lighting, and pedestrian furniture, is consistent with the intended character of the area.
5. Parking areas are designed and developed to buffer surrounding land uses; compliment pedestrian-oriented development; enhance the environmental quality of the site, including minimizing stormwater run-off and the heat-island effect; and achieve a safe, efficient, and harmonious development.
6. Lighting and lighting fixtures are designed to complement buildings, be of appropriate scale, provide adequate light over walkways and parking areas to create a sense of pedestrian safety, and avoid creating glare.
7. Landscaping is designed to be compatible with and enhance the architectural character and features of the buildings on site, and help relate the building to the surrounding landscape.
B. Single-Unit Design Review. In addition to the findings set forth under Subsection A, single-unit development projects processed under Single-Unit Design Review shall be consistent with the Single Family Residential Design Review Guidelines as adopted by the Planning Commission on April 24, 2007, or as amended. Single-unit development projects processed under Single-Unit Design Review shall not be subject to the design standards in Chapter 17.28 Residential and Residential Mixed-Use Design Standards.
C. Discretionary Streamlined Design Review. To obtain approval, projects must satisfy all of the following criteria. For projects processed pursuant to applicable state law, consistency shall be determined based on the objective standards and requirements applicable to the project under such law.
1. The project is consistent with applicable general plan and other adopted plans, zoning, design, and development standards.
2. The project is eligible for streamlined discretionary review pursuant to applicable state law.
D. Ministerial Streamlined Design Review. To obtain approval, projects must satisfy all of the following criteria. For projects processed pursuant to applicable state law, consistency shall be determined based on the objective standards and requirements applicable to the project under such law.
1. The project is consistent with applicable objective general plan and other adopted plans, zoning, design, and development standards.
2. The project is eligible for streamlined ministerial review pursuant to applicable state law or Section
17.34.020(B)(2).
(Ord. No. 503, § 1(Exh. A), 1-25-2018)
17.34.070 Timing and nNotice of action ; expiration, extensions, and modifications.
Chapter 17.34 DESIGN REVIEW
(Revisions in Redline)
Newark, California, Code of Ordinances
A. A. Date of Action. The responsible authority shall decide to approve, conditionally approve, or deny any discretionary or ministerial application within the timeframes required by applicable state law, including the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65920 et seq.). For discretionary applications requiring a public hearing, action shall be taken following the closure of the public hearing.
B. BA. Notice of Action.
1. Discretionary Design Review by the Director. For all Discretionary Design Review applications, including Standard Design Review, Single-Unit Design Review, and Discretionary Streamlined Design Review, notice of action shall be provided pursuant to Subsection 17.31.080.B, Notice of Action. In addition to the recipients identified in Subsection 17.31.080(B), Notice of Action, notice shall also be provided pursuant to Section 17.34.040(B). a. Single-Unit Residential Development. First class mail delivery to all property owners within a minimum two hundred-foot radius of the subject property as shown on the latest available assessment role.
b. Development Other Than Single-Unit Residential Development. First Class mail delivery to all property owners within a minimum four hundred-foot radius of the subject property as shown on the latest available assessment role.
2. Design Review by the Planning Commission. Where design review is conducted by the planning commission, notice of action of design review shall be provided concurrently with the associated project approval (such as the conditional use permit or variance).
2. Ministerial Streamlined Design Review. Notwithstanding Subsection 17.31.080.B, notice of action for Ministerial Streamlined Design Review applications shall be provided as follows:
a. The notice shall describe the action taken, including any applicable conditions, and shall list the criteria for approval. The Director shall file the notice with the city clerk, mail the notice to the applicant, to the members of the city council and the planning commission, and to any other person or entity that has filed a written request for such notification with the planning division, and post the notice on the City's website.
17.34.080 Calls for review.
A. A. Discretionary Design Review. For all Discretionary Design Review actions, including Standard Design Review, Single-Unit Design Review, and Discretionary Streamlined Design Review, notice of decision by the director shall be communicated to the members of the city council and planning commission in accordance with Section 17.31.100.
B. Ministerial Streamlined Design Review. For Ministerial Streamlined Design Review actions, notice of decision by the director shall be communicated to the members of the planning commission and city council after approval. Notwithstanding Section 17.31.100, such actions are not subject to calls for review.
17.34.090 Aappeals, expiration, extensions, and modifications.
A. Appeals.
Chapter 17.34 DESIGN REVIEW
(Revisions in Redline)
Newark, California, Code of Ordinances
1. Design review dDecisions on all Discretionary Design Review applications, including Standard Design Review, Single -Unit Design Review, and Discretionary Streamlined Design Review, shall be subject to the appeal provisions under Section 17.31.110, Appeals.
2. Decisions on Ministerial Streamlined Design Review applications shall not be subject to the appeal provisions under Section 17.31.110; however, a decision on such an application may be subject to one reconsideration by the Director.
B. Effective Dates. Design Review approvals shall become effective in accordance with Section 17.31.120, Effective dates.
C. Expiration and Extension.
1. Discretionary Design Review approvals shall be subject to the expiration and extension provisions of Section 17.31.130, Expiration and extension.
2. Ministerial Streamlined Design Review approvals shall be subject to expiration and extension only as permitted by applicable state law. Section 17.31.130 shall apply to the extent consistent with such law.
D. Modification of Approved Plans. Approved Design Review plans may be modified in accordance with Section 17.31.140, Modifications.
C. Expiration, Extensions and Modifications. Design review approval is effective and may only be extended or modified as provided for in Chapter 17.31, Common Procedures. (Ord. No. 503, § 1(Exh. A), 1-25-2018)
Chapter 17.37 WAIVERS
Newark, California, Code of Ordinances
Chapter 17.37 WAIVERS
17.37.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to establish an alternate means of granting relief from the requirements of this title when so doing would be consistent with the purposes of the title and it is not possible or practical to approve a variance. The granting of waivers is not intended to replace or supplant standards of this title, but to provide a mechanism for limited flexibility.
(Ord. No. 503, § 1(Exh. A), 1-25-2018)
17.37.020 Applicability.
Waivers may be granted as follows:
A. Dimensional Requirements. Relief from dimensional requirements of property development standards specified in this title, not to exceed ten percent of the requirement, may be granted in accordance with the requirements of this chapter.
B. Design and Development Standards. Relief from the following standards may be granted when the number of standards requested for waivers does not exceed three (3) standards per development project and is listed under Subsection 17.37.02(B) of this Section. Certain standards may include specific requirements or criteria for the granting of such waivers; such requirements or criteria shall be satisfied for a waiver to be granted. Any request to waive more than three (3) standards per development project shall not be processed under this section and must instead be considered through a variance or other applicable process.
1. 17.08.030(B) – Development standards. Required Building Location, CMU District.
2. 17.08.040(F)(1) – Supplemental regulations. Additional Supplemental Regulations, NC, CMU, CC, and RC Districts.
3. 17.08.040(F)(5) – Supplemental regulations. Limitations on Location of Parking.
4. 17.28.040(A)(3) – Building Element Standards. Garages and Parking Structures.
5. 17.28.050 – Materials and Colors.
6. 17.28.060(A)(5)(b) – Site Design Standards. Landscaping
7. 17.28.060(A)(6) – Site Design Standards. Fences and Walls
8. 17.28.060(A)(7) – Site Design Standards. Exterior Lighting
9. 17.28.070(A)(7) – Supplemental Standards for Residential Mixed Use. Design of Required Openings.
10. 17.28.080(C)(2) – Open Space. Five Unit and Above Development. Required Amenities.
C. Exclusions. Waivers cannot be granted for any of the following standards:
1. Lot area, width, or depth.
2. Residential density.
(Ord. No. 503, § 1(Exh. A), 1-25-2018)
D. Projects qualifying for a density bonus pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915 and Chapter 17.19, or as amended, may be entitled under those provisions to additional units, incentives or
EXHIBIT G
Chapter 17.37 WAIVERS
Newark, California, Code of Ordinances
concessions, development standard waivers, or parking reductions. A density bonus, incentives or concessions, development standard waivers, or parking reductions granted pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915 and Chapter 17.19, or as amended, shall not be considered a waiver for purposes of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 503, § 1(Exh. A), 1-25-2018)
17.37.30 Procedures.
A. Review Authority.
1. The reviewing authority shall be the Zoning Administrator.
2. The reviewing authority shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny applications for waivers based on consideration of the requirements of this chapter.
B. Application Requirements.
1. An application for a waiver shall be filed with the planning division in accordance with Section
17.31.020, Application Forms and Fees.
2. In addition to the application form and materials required under Subsection 17.31.020(B), the supporting materials of the application shall include:
a. A written statement identifying the specific standard(s) for which a waiver is requested; the constraints to meeting the specific standard(s); and an explanation of how the findings required by this chapter can be met;
b. For waivers as prescribed in Subsection 17.37.020(B), in addition to the requirements in Section 17.37.030(2)(a), a description of how the proposed alternative solution to the standard(s) complies with the design intent of the applicable standard(s) and plans or diagrams that delineate:
i. The location and extent of the proposed deviation from the applicable standard(s);
ii. The required standard and the proposed alternative, including dimensions, measurements, percentages, or other quantitative criteria necessary to demonstrate the difference; and
iii. Any physical constraints of the property that support the waiver request, such as topography, easements, utilities, fire access, environmental features, or irregular lot configuration.
3. Public Notice and Hearing. Applications for waivers shall not require public notice or public hearing.
17.37.040 Required findings.
The reviewing authority must make all of the following findings to grant the waiver, except as otherwise stated in Subsection 17.37.040(D).
A. The waiver is necessary due to the physical characteristics of the property and the proposed use or structure or other circumstances, including, but not limited to, topography, noise exposure, irregular property boundaries, easements, utility access, fire/life safety, environmental conditions, or other unusual circumstances.
B. The granting of the waiver will be consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan.
Chapter 17.37 WAIVERS
Newark, California, Code of Ordinances
C. The granting of the requested waiver would not be detrimental to the health or safety of the public or the occupants of the property or result in a change in land use or density that would be inconsistent with the requirements of this title.
D. For waivers as prescribed in Subsection 17.37.020(B), in addition to the findings in Subsections
17.37.040(A)–(C), the proposed alternative solution to the standard(s) meets the design intent of the applicable standard(s) or the applicant demonstrates that the proposed alternative solution to the standard(s) is not feasible due to the physical characteristics of the property or unusual circumstance. (Ord. No. 503, § 1(Exh. A), 1-25-2018)
17.37.050 Conditions of approval.
A. In approving a waiver, the decision-maker may impose any conditions deemed necessary to:
1. Ensure that the project conforms in all significant respects with the general plan and any other applicable plans or policies adopted by the city council;
2. Achieve the general purposes of this title or the specific purposes of the zoning district in which the project is located;
3. Achieve the findings for a waiver granted; or
4. Mitigate any potentially significant impacts identified as a result of review conducted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. (Ord. No. 503, § 1(Exh. A), 1-25-2018)
17.37.60 Notice of action; appeals; expiration, extensions, and revisions.
A. Notice of Action. After the zoning administrator takes any action to approve or deny an application under the terms of this Chapter, the director shall issue a notice of action. The notice shall describe the action taken, including any applicable conditions, and shall list the findings that were the basis for the decision. The director shall file the notice with the city clerk and mail the notice to the applicant, to the members of the city council and the planning commission, and to any other person or entity that has filed a written request for such notification with the planning division.
B. Appeals. The applicant or any other aggrieved party may appeal a decision on waiver pursuant to the provisions of Section 17.31.110, Appeals.
C. Expiration, Extensions, and Revisions. Waivers granted under this chapter shall be effective upon approval and shall expire, be extended, or be revised concurrently with the underlying development approval or permit with which the waiver is associated. To the extent not addressed by the underlying approval, the provisions of Chapter 17.31 Common Procedures shall apply. (Ord. No. 503, § 1(Exh. A), 1-25-2018)
Chapter 17.37 WAIVERS
(Revisions in Redline)
Newark, California, Code of Ordinances
Chapter 17.37 WAIVERS
17.37.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to establish an alternate means of granting relief from the requirements of this title when so doing would be consistent with the purposes of the title and it is not possible or practical to approve a variance. The granting of waivers is not intended to replace or supplant standards of this title, but It also allows the director to grant waivers when necessary to comply with the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act to provide a mechanism for limited flexibility.reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities seeking fair access to housing through a waiver of the application of the city's zoning regulations.
(Ord. No. 503, § 1(Exh. A), 1-25-2018)
17.37.020 Applicability.
Waivers may be granted as follows:
A. Dimensional Requirements. Relief from dimensional requirements of property development standards specified in this title, not to exceed ten percent of the requirement, may be granted in accordance with the requirements of this chapter.
B. Design and Development Standards. Relief from the following standards may be granted when the number of standards requested for waivers does not exceed three (3) standards per development project and is listed under Subsection 17.37.02(B) of this Section. Certain standards may include specific requirements or criteria for the granting of such waivers; such requirements or criteria shall be satisfied for a waiver to be granted. Any request to waive more than three (3) standards per development project shall not be processed under this section and must instead be considered through a variance or other applicable process.
1. 17.08.030(B) – Development standards. Required Building Location, CMU District.
2. 17.08.040(F)(1) – Supplemental regulations. Additional Supplemental Regulations, NC, CMU, CC, and RC Districts.
3. 17.08.040(F)(5) – Supplemental regulations. Limitations on Location of Parking.
4. 17.28.040(A)(3) – Building Element Standards. Garages and Parking Structures.
5. 17.28.050 – Materials and Colors.
6. 17.28.060(A)(5)(b) – Site Design Standards. Landscaping
7. 17.28.060(A)(6) – Site Design Standards. Fences and Walls
8. 17.28.060(A)(7) – Site Design Standards. Exterior Lighting
9. 17.28.070(A)(7) – Supplemental Standards for Residential Mixed Use. Design of Required Openings.
10. 17.28.080(C)(2) – Open Space. Five Unit and Above Development. Required Amenities.
B.C. B. Accommodation of Disabilities. A waiver of any zoning regulation where the waiver is necessary to allow improvements to an existing building in order to provide reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities. This waiver is not available in the case of new buildings, demolitions and rebuilds, or additions where the proposed construction precludes a reasonable accommodation that would not require a waiver.Exclusions. Waivers cannot be granted for any of the following standards:
EXHIBIT H
Chapter 17.37 WAIVERS
(Revisions in Redline)
Newark, California, Code of Ordinances
1. Lot area, width, or depth.
2. Residential density.
(Ord. No. 503, § 1(Exh. A), 1-25-2018)
D. Projects qualifying for a density bonus pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915 and Chapter 17.19, or as amended, may be entitled under those provisions to additional units, incentives or concessions, development standard waivers, or parking reductions. A density bonus, incentives or concessions, development standard waivers, or parking reductions granted pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915 and Chapter 17.19, or as amended, shall not be considered a waiver for purposes of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 503, § 1(Exh. A), 1-25-2018)
A. Review Authority. The director shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny applications for waivers based on consideration of the requirements of this chapter.
B. Concurrent Processing. If a request for a waiver is being submitted in conjunction with an application for another approval, permit, or entitlement under this title, it shall be heard and acted upon at the same time and in the same manner as that application.
C. Application Requirements. An application for a waiver shall be filed to the director in accordance with Section 17.31.020, Application Forms and Fees. The application shall state in writing the nature of the waiver requested and explain why the findings necessary to grant the waiver are satisfied. The applicant shall also submit plans delineating the requested waiver.
D. Review of Requests for Reasonable Accommodation to Ensure Access to Housing. The director shall issue a written decision within forty-five days of the date of the application and may grant the reasonable accommodation request, grant with waivers, or deny the request. All written decisions shall give notice of the right to appeal and to request reasonable accommodation in the appeals process. (Ord. No. 503, § 1(Exh. A), 1-25-2018)
17.37.30 Procedures.
A. Review Authority.
1. The reviewing authority shall be the Zoning Administrator.
2. The reviewing authority shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny applications for waivers based on consideration of the requirements of this chapter.
B. Application Requirements.
1. An application for a waiver shall be filed with the planning division in accordance with Section
17.31.020, Application Forms and Fees.
2. In addition to the application form and materials required under Subsection 17.31.020(B), the supporting materials of the application shall include:
a. A written statement identifying the specific standard(s) for which a waiver is requested; the constraints to meeting the specific standard(s); and an explanation of how the findings required by this chapter can be met;
b. For waivers as prescribed in Subsection 17.37.020(B), in addition to the requirements in Section 17.37.030(2)(a), a description of how the proposed Chapter 17.37 WAIVERS
(Revisions in Redline)
Newark, California, Code of Ordinances
alternative solution to the standard(s) complies with the design intent of the applicable standard(s) and plans or diagrams that delineate:
i. The location and extent of the proposed deviation from the applicable standard(s);
ii. The required standard and the proposed alternative, including dimensions, measurements, percentages, or other quantitative criteria necessary to demonstrate the difference; and
iii. Any physical constraints of the property that support the waiver request, such as topography, easements, utilities, fire access, environmental features, or irregular lot configuration.
1.3. Public Notice and Hearing. Applications for waivers shall not require public notice or public hearing.
17.37.040 Required findings.
The reviewing authority must make all of the following findings to grant the waiver, except as otherwise stated in Subsection 17.37.040(D).
A. The waiver is necessary due to the physical characteristics of the property and the proposed use or structure or other circumstances, including, but not limited to, topography, noise exposure, irregular property boundaries, easements, utility access, fire/life safety, environmental conditions, or other unusual circumstances.
B. The granting of the waiver will be consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan.
C. The granting of the requested waiver would not be detrimental to the health or safety of the public or the occupants of the property or result in a change in land use or density that would be inconsistent with the requirements of this title.
D. For waivers as prescribed in Subsection 17.37.020(B), in addition to the findings in Subsections
17.37.040(A)–(C), the proposed alternative solution to the standard(s) meets the design intent of the applicable standard(s) or the applicant demonstrates that the proposed alternative solution to the standard(s) is not feasible due to the physical characteristics of the property or unusual circumstance. (Ord. No. 503, § 1(Exh. A), 1-25-2018)
17.37.050 Conditions of approval.
A. In approving a waiver, the decision-maker may impose any conditions deemed necessary to:
1. Ensure that the project conforms in all significant respects with the general plan and any other applicable plans or policies adopted by the city council;
2. Achieve the general purposes of this title or the specific purposes of the zoning district in which the project is located;
3. Achieve the findings for a waiver granted; or
4. Mitigate any potentially significant impacts identified as a result of review conducted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
B. Waivers approved based on state or federal requirements for reasonable accommodation may be conditioned to provide for rescission or automatic expiration based on a change of occupancy or other relevant change in circumstance.
Chapter 17.37 WAIVERS
(Revisions in Redline)
Newark, California, Code of Ordinances
(Ord. No. 503, § 1(Exh. A), 1-25-2018)
17.37.60 Notice of action; appeals; expiration, extensions, and revisions.
A. Notice of Action. After the zoning administrator takes any action to approve or deny an application under the terms of this Chapter, the director shall issue a notice of action. The notice shall describe the action taken, including any applicable conditions, and shall list the findings that were the basis for the decision. The director shall file the notice with the city clerk and mail the notice to the applicant, to the members of the city council and the planning commission, and to any other person or entity that has filed a written request for such notification with the planning division.
B. Appeals. The applicant or any other aggrieved party may appeal a decision on waiver pursuant to the provisions of Section 17.31.110, Appeals.
C. Expiration, Extensions, and Revisions. Waivers granted under this chapter shall be effective upon approval and shall expire, be extended, or be revised concurrently with the underlying development approval or permit with which the waiver is associated. To the extent not addressed by the underlying approval, the provisions of Chapter 17.31 Common Procedures shall apply.
Expiration, Extensions, and Revisions. Waivers granted under this chapter are effectiveand may only be extended or revised as provided for in Chapter 17.31, Common Procedures.
A. A. Notice of Action. Notice of action shall be provided pursuant to Subsection 17.31.080.B, Notice of Action.B. (Ord. No. 503, § 1(Exh. A), 1-25-2018)
Chapter 17.42 REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
(New Chapter – All Proposed Text)
Newark, California, Code of Ordinances
Chapter 17.42 REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
17.42.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide individuals with disabilities with reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices, and procedures to ensure equal access to housing pursuant to the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and to facilitate the development of housing for individuals with disabilities. This Chapter establishes a procedure for making requests for reasonable accommodation in the application of land use, zoning, policies, and procedures.
17.42.020 Applicability.
A. This Chapter applies to requests for reasonable accommodation and may include a modification or exception to the land use or zoning regulations, policies, practices or procedures for the siting, development, and use of housing or housing-related facilities that would eliminate regulatory barriers to housing opportunities for a person with a disability.
B. A request for reasonable accommodation may be made any individual with a disability, his or her representative, or a developer or provider of housing for individuals with disabilities, when the application of a land use, zoning regulation, policy, practice or procedure acts as a barrier to fair housing opportunities. An individual with a disability is a person who has a physical or mental impairment that limits one or more major life activities; a person who is regarded as having such impairment; or a person with a record of such impairment.
17.42.030 Notice of Availability.
Notice of the availability of reasonable accommodation shall be prominently displayed at public information counters in the planning division, advising the public of the availability of the procedure for eligible individuals. Forms for requesting reasonable accommodation shall be available to the public in the planning division.
EXHIBIT I
Chapter 17.42 REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
(New Chapter – All Proposed Text)
Newark, California, Code of Ordinances
17.42.040 Request Procedure.
A. Requests must be submitted in writing by any eligible person as defined in Section
17.42.020(B) to the planning division, on a City-provided form. The request shall include:
1. Name and address of the individual(s) requesting reasonable accommodation;
2. Name and address of the property owner(s);
3. Address of the property for which the accommodation is requested;
4. Description of the requested accommodation and the regulation(s), policy or procedure for which the accommodation is sought; and
5. Reason that the requested accommodation may be necessary for the individual(s) with the disability to use and enjoy the dwelling.
B. Any information identified by an applicant as confidential shall be retained in a manner so as to respect the privacy rights of the applicant and shall not be made available for public inspection (except as may otherwise be required by the California Public Records Act or other applicable law).
C. A request for reasonable accommodation in regulations, policies, practices, and procedures may be filed at any time that the accommodation may be necessary to ensure equal access to housing. A reasonable accommodation does not affect an individual’s obligations to comply with other applicable regulations not at issue in the requested accommodation.
D. If an individual needs assistance in making the request for reasonable accommodation, the City will provide assistance to ensure that the process is accessible.
17.42.050 Reviewing Authority.
A. The Community Development Director or their designee shall review and decide requests for reasonable accommodation.
B. The Community Development Director or their designee shall issue a written decision on a request for reasonable accommodation within thirty (30) days of the date of the application and may either grant, grant with modifications, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation in accordance with the required findings set forth in Section
17.42.60 Required Findings.
Chapter 17.42 REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
(New Chapter – All Proposed Text)
Newark, California, Code of Ordinances
C. If necessary to reach a determination on the request for reasonable accommodation, the Community Development Director or their designee may request further information from the applicant consistent with fair housing laws, specifying in detail the information that is required. In the event that a request for additional information is made, the thirty (30) day period to issue a decision is stayed until the applicant responds to the request.
17.42.060 Required Findings.
A. The written decision to grant, grant with modifications, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation shall be consistent with fair housing laws and based on the following factors:
1. Whether the housing, which is the subject of the request for reasonable accommodation, will be used by an individual with disabilities protected under fair housing laws;
2. Whether the requested accommodation is necessary to make housing available to an individual with disabilities protected under the fair housing laws;
3. Whether the requested accommodation would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City and;
4. Whether the requested accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City’sland use and zoning regulations.
17.42.070 Written Decision.
A. The written decision on the request for reasonable accommodation shall explain in detail the basis of the decision, including the findingsset forth in Section 17.42.60 Required Findings. All written decisions shall be transmitted to the applicant and give notice of the applicant’s right to appeal and to request reasonable accommodation in the appeals process as set forth below.
B. The written decision shall be final unless an applicant appealsit to the planning commission.
C. If the Community Development Director or their designee fails to render a written decision on the request for reasonable accommodation within the thirty (30) day time Chapter 17.42 REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
(New Chapter – All Proposed Text)
Newark, California, Code of Ordinances
period allotted by Section 17.42.050 Reviewing Authority, the request shall be deemed granted.
D. While a request for reasonable accommodation is pending, all laws and regulations otherwise applicable to the property that is the subject of the request shall remain in full force and effect.
17.42.080 Appeals.
A. Within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date of the reviewing authority’s written decision, an applicant may file an appeal subject to the appeal provisions of Section 17.31.110, Appeals.
B. If an individual needs assistance in filing an appeal on an adverse decision, the City will provide assistance to ensure that the appeals process is accessible.
C. All appeals shall contain a statement of the grounds for the appeal. Any information identified by an applicant as confidential shall be retained in a manner so as to respect the privacy rights of the applicant and shall not be made available for public inspection (except as may otherwise be required by the California Public Records Act or other applicable law).
D. Nothing in this procedure shall preclude an aggrieved individual from seeking any other state or federal remedy available.
Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 2026
City of Newark PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO
E.1 Hearing to consider Z2025-004, a Zoning Text Amendment to Title 17 (Zoning) of the Newark Municipal Code to add Chapter 17.28 (Residential and Residential Mixed-Use Design Standards) and Chapter 17.42 (Reasonable Accommodation) and amend Division II (Base and Overlay Districts) Chapter 17.17 (General Site Regulations) Chapter 17.21 (Landscaping), Chapter 17.23 (Parking and Loading), Chapter 17.34 (Design Review), Chapter 17.37 (Waivers), and Chapter 17.46 (Definitions), generally affecting development and design standards for residential and residential mixed-use development – from Senior Planner Carmelisa Lopez and Housing Policy and Programs Manager Michael Coulom
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed Zoning Text Amendment (Z2025-002) to Title 17 (Zoning) of the Newark Municipal Code (Zoning Code) includes adding Chapter 17.28 (Residential and Residential Mixed-Use Design Standards) and Chapter 17.42 (Reasonable Accommodation) and amending Division II (Base and Overlay Districts), Chapter 17.17 (General Site Regulations), Chapter 17.21 (Landscaping), Chapter 17.23 (Parking and Loading), Chapter 17.34 (Design Review), Chapter
17.37 (Waivers), and Chapter 17.46 (Definitions). The proposed Zoning Text Amendment would generally affect development and design standards for residential and residential mixed-use development. The draft Resolution including the proposed Zoning Text Amendment is included in Attachment 1.
Since the Objective Design Standards (ODS) Project was initiated in Fall 2024, the project team has completed a comprehensive planning process that includes evaluation of the City's existing regulations, community and stakeholder engagement, preparation of draft standards, a public review period from March 27 through April 17, 2026, and a Planning Commission study session on April 14, 2026. In response to feedback, the draft ODS and zoning code amendments were refined to improve clarity, flexibility, and implementation.
The proposed Zoning Text Amendment responds to state housing law requirements and implements Housing Element programs intended to reduce uncertainty in project review, streamline approvals, and support housing production. The proposed ODS in the new Chapter
17.28 implements Program H3.2 by replacing subjective design standards with objective standards and Program H3.4 by establishing objective standards for residential mixed-use development.
Amendments to several additional chapters of the Zoning Code are also proposed to ensure consistency with Chapter 17.28 and fully or partially implement related Housing Element programs including Program H2.8: Zoning for Missing Middle Housing Types, Program H2.12:
Ensure Maximum Residential Densities are Achievable, Program H3.4: Adjust Zoning to Allow Mixed Use in Current Commercial Zones, and Program H5.3: Public Lands for Dedicated Affordable Housing.
Additionally, the proposed Zoning Text Amendment includes amendments to Chapter 17.34 ATTACHMENT 2
Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 2026
(Design Review) to establish and refine processes for discretionary and ministerial design review in accordance with Housing Element Program H3.1 to streamline ministerial permit procedures.
A Ministerial Streamlined Design Review pathway would be established for qualifying residential projects that meet specific criteria and applicable objective standards.
Staff is also presenting a proposed local ministerial alternative pathway for qualifying residential and residential mixed-use projects for the Planning Commission’s consideration. The Commission may decide to approve the pathway as recommended by staff, to request revisions such as to the eligibility criteria or unit thresholds, or to direct that the pathway be removed and the City rely exclusively on state-mandated ministerial processes.
Lastly, amendments to Chapter 17.37 (Waivers) are proposed to allow the granting of up to three waivers for certain ODS and a new chapter, Chapter 17.42 (Reasonable Accommodation) is proposed to relocate existing reasonable accommodation standards from Chapter 17.37 into a new standalone chapter.
Overall, the proposed Zoning Text Amendment would align the City’s Zoning Code with state law, streamline residential and mixed-use residential project review, and support efficient housing production while preserving the City’s design expectations.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the following action:
1. Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending that City Council approve Z2025- 004, an Ordinance which includes a Zoning Text Amendment to Title 17 (Zoning) of the Newark Municipal Code adding Chapter 17.28 (Residential and Residential Mixed-Use Design Standards) and Chapter 17.42 (Reasonable Accommodation) and amending Division II (Base and Overlay Districts), Chapter 17.17 (General Site Regulations), Chapter 17.21 (Landscaping), Chapter 17.23 (Parking and Loading), Chapter 17.34 (Design Review), Chapter 17.37 (Waivers), and Chapter 17.46 (Definitions), generally affecting development and design standards for residential and residential mixed-use development.
BACKGROUND
Housing Element and Affordable Housing Work Plan
City Council approved the 2021-2023 Affordable Housing Work Plan (Work Plan) on May 13, 2021 (Resolution No. 11,201) to direct housing impact fees and policies to meet very low-, low-, and moderate-income targets for the 5th Cycle Housing Element (2015-2023). The Work Plan also identified priority housing types for which the City should encourage development, namely rental apartments of medium to high density in select areas, condominiums and townhomes (including for first-time homebuyers), and missing middle housing types such as duplexes and four-plexes.
On October 26, 2023, the City Council adopted the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element (Housing Element). Subsequently, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) certified the Housing Element on December 21, 2023, finding it in compliance with state law. The Housing Element includes 45 unique programs and 35 policies designed to achieve communitydriven goals and meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) target of permitting 1,874 new homes by 2031.
Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 2026
The City has committed to developing ODS for single-unit, multi-unit, and mixed-use residential development. The ODS project would implement Housing Element Programs H3.2 and H3.4, among others, to support the development of priority housing types as identified in the Work Plan.
The intended outcome of ODS is that residential and mixed-use developments are designed in ways that reflect the needs of the community, are responsive to local ecological conditions and climate change, reduce development costs where applicable, and facilitate the redevelopment of commercial sites to mixed-use. See Attachment 2 for an expanded discussion of Work Plan and Housing Element applicability.
Objective Design Standards
The State has enacted laws that require approval for multi-unit and mixed-use development to be based on uniformly verifiable criteria (i.e. objective standards). State 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 knowable by both the development applicant and public official before submittal.” (Government Code Section 65913.4.)
Subjective standards rely on personal interpretation rather than clearly defined, measurable criteria. For example, the City’s existing design review guidelines require that “new residences and additions should be compatible in scale and height with surrounding houses so as to blend in with them, versus overwhelming them with disproportionate size.” This standard is subjective and can be interpreted differently depending on the reviewer. In contrast, objective standards might require new houses and additions to not exceed a certain height limit, to be built a certain distance from the street, and to provide specified landscaped area.
The City’s current Zoning Code regulates development through a mix of subjective and objective standards. The ODS project would replace subjective guidelines with clear, measurable criteria for each zoning district. While the base development standards establish what is allowed, the ODS provide objective direction on how those projects should be designed. Together, the two sets of standards (design and development) will provide applicants and developers with a clear understanding of the City’s expectations for project design, resulting in a more streamlined, objective, and efficient project review process and supporting both housing production and highquality design outcomes. By bringing City processes further into conformance with state law, the ODS also maximize the City’s discretion over development moving forward.
Objective Design Standards Project
In Fall 2024, the City engaged Good City Company to assist with drafting the City’s ODS. Since project initiation, the project team has completed a comprehensive planning process that includes evaluation of the City's existing regulations, community and stakeholder engagement, preparation of draft standards, a public review period, and a Planning Commission study session. A detailed summary of the project timeline and key milestones is provided in Attachment 3.
The major project milestones are highlighted below:
1. Analysis of Existing Standards: Good City Company evaluated the City's existing zoning Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 2026
regulations, design guidelines, applicable state requirements, and best practices to identify opportunities for objective standards and related zoning code amendments. An Existing Conditions Report was prepared and is included in Attachment 4.
2. Community Engagement: The project team conducted a range of outreach efforts that included a builders roundtable, Planning Commissioner interviews, community open house, pop-up events, and ongoing project communications to gather feedback that informed the draft standards. These efforts are discussed in detail in the Community Engagement Summary in Attachment 5.
3. Drafting Standards: Using the City's existing regulations, feedback received, and best practices from other jurisdictions, Good City Company prepared draft ODS and associated zoning code amendments.
4. Public Review: The draft ODS and associated zoning code amendments were available for public review from March 27 through April 17, 2026. Comments received generally focused on improving clarity, providing additional flexibility, and expanding compliance options for certain standards.
5. Planning Commission Study Session: On April 14, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a study session to receive an overview of the draft standards and provide feedback prior to formal consideration. The Commission's discussion primarily focused on the potential for the proposed code amendments to facilitate 100 percent residential projects in commercial areas, compatibility between larger-scale residential development and adjacent single-unit neighborhoods, and the importance of maintaining flexibility through the proposed exceptions and waivers process.
In response to the feedback received, the project team refined the draft ODS and associated zoning code amendments to include:
1. Suggestions for additional options for satisfying articulation requirements on street facing facades and ground floor active use requirements for mixed-use buildings were incorporated.
2. Standards that were identified as difficult to implement or too restrictive, such as window reflectivity requirements, were revised.
3. In sections where the draft standards already provide the flexibility suggested by commenters, the language was revised to more clearly describe the available compliance options.
Updates to chapters in the Zoning Code related to waivers and design review processes as well as relocation of existing reasonable accommodation standards to a new standalone chapter are also proposed and are further discussed in the Discussion/Analysis section of this report.
ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION
Purpose of ODS
ODS are one component of state policymakers’ response to California’s housing crisis, which is driven in part by rising construction costs and lengthy, unpredictable approval processes. State legislation has increasingly emphasized streamlined, ministerial review processes and limits on subjective design standards that can delay or constrain housing development.
Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 2026
A 2025 report by the Rand Institute found that longer housing production timelines are strongly associated with higher development costs. The Bay Area has the highest development costs in the nation, and it takes an average of 22 months longer to complete a residential development in California than it does in Texas (see Figure 1 below). Of this difference, 15 months is just predevelopment (the period between application submittal and construction commencement). This finding is not inconsistent with the City’s average design review processing times, which can take four to seven months longer to approve under a discretionary process than a ministerial process.
Actual approval times may take longer based on a variety of factors (see Attachment 2: Relevant Housing Plans and Policies). Rand estimates that California could reduce total development costs by eight percent if it could produce housing on timelines similar to Texas.
Figure 1. Average Production Times by State for Market-Rate Apartments Source: Figure 3.4, The High Cost of Producing Multifamily Housing in California, RAND Center on Housing and Homelessness (2025)
The Rand report further finds that architectural and engineering fees are significantly more expensive for both market rate and affordable housing in the Bay Area. While accounting for differences in cost of living, the report suggests that the greatest cost driver is likely discretionary design requirements with potential to significantly reduce development costs with consistent and predictable design requirements. This is consistent with stakeholder feedback that design professionals in the Bay Area “cushion” their contract rates to account for multiple rounds of review and revisions against unclear standards and discretionary processes.
Benefits and Potential Outcomes
State law is increasingly limiting the discretion of planning commissions and city councils for residential projects that are consistent with a jurisdiction’s General Plan, Zoning Code, and applicable objective standards. In many cases, qualifying projects must be approved if they meet these standards and do not present unmitigable health or safety risks. An increasing number of jurisdictions are also updating their processes to allow such projects to be processed ministerially, reserving public hearings for projects that require a legislative change such as a General Plan amendment or rezoning.
As a result, 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 Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 2026
proposed ODS are expected to improve predictability, consistency, and efficiency in the development review process by establishing clear, measurable design criteria. Projects that comply with objective standards may qualify for ministerial approval, reducing review timelines, minimizing redesigns and iterative review, and providing greater certainty earlier in the development process. The standards also promote high-quality development by addressing key design considerations, including building orientation, neighborhood compatibility, privacy, site responsiveness, and durable materials.
The proposed ODS would not remove the City or community’s role in in shaping development outcomes. Rather, they establish the standards by which projects are evaluated at the beginning of the review process. The proposed ODS have been developed through community and stakeholder engagement and reflect local priorities while providing a transparent and predictable framework for project review.
As with any design standards, the proposed ODS must balance objective requirements with flexibility to accommodate different building types, design approaches, and site conditions. The standards are set by the community and may be refined over time as community priorities, development patterns, and state law evolve.
Proposed Zoning Text Amendment
The proposed Zoning Text Amendment (see Attachment 1) includes a new chapter, Chapter 17.28 (Residential and Residential Mixed-Use Design Standards), in the Zoning Code establishing ODS for residential and residential mixed-use development that would replace most design standards in Chapter 17.07 (Residential Districts). Amendments to Division II (Base and Overlay Districts), Chapter 17.17 (General Site Regulations), Chapter 17.21 (Landscaping), Chapter 17.23 (Parking and Loading), and Chapter 17.46 (Definitions) are proposed to ensure consistency with the new Chapter 17.28:
Amendments are also proposed to Chapter 17.34 (Design Review) to establish and refine processes for discretionary and ministerial design review and to Chapter 17.37 (Waivers) to allow the granting of waivers for certain ODS. Additionally, existing reasonable accommodation standards from Chapter 17.37 would also be relocated to a new standalone chapter, Chapter 17.42 (Reasonable Accommodation).
The proposed additions and revisions to the Zoning Code are described in further detail in the following sections.
Chapter 17.28 Residential and Residential Mixed-Use Design Standards ODS for residential and mixed-use development where residential is the primary use is proposed within a new chapter, Chapter 17.28 (Residential and Residential Mixed-Use Design Standards) (see Attachment 1, Exhibit B). These standards are intended to work alongside all other applicable zoning code requirements, including development standards within the base zoning districts, Planned Development standards, overlay district standards, site regulations, landscaping, and parking. The chapter also includes Table 17.28.020 to clarify when ODS apply in addition to, or take precedence over, other standards. Table 1 below summarizes the applicability of this chapter by project type.
Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 2026
Table 1: Applicability of Chapter 17.28 by Project Type Project Type Chapter 17.28 Applicability
Residential projects in
residential districts Subject to Chapter 17.28
Residential projects in other
districts subject to design
review
Subject to Chapter 17.28
Residential mixed-use
projects
If residential uses comprise two-thirds or more of the
building's floor area, the entire building is subject to the ODS.
If residential uses comprise less than two-thirds, the ODS apply only to the residential portion, while the non-residential portion is subject to the underlying zoning district standards.
State-mandated ministerial
projects
(e.g. SB 423, SB 9, AB
2011)
Subject to Chapter 17.28
Additions and exterior
modifications to existing
residential or residential
mixed-use projects
Subject to Chapter 17.28, except non-street-facing groundfloor additions comprising less than 50 percent of the proposed total floor area may be exempt from certain
standards.
Other development projects
(e.g. non-residential
projects)
Not subject to Chapter 17.28
The standards in Chapter 17.28 are organized into three categories: standards applicable to all residential development, standards specific to one- to four-unit developments, and standards specific to developments with five or more units. Within these categories, the chapter establishes objective standards for key design elements and is organized as shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Overview of Proposed Chapter 17.28
Section Title Summary
17.28.010 Purpose Purpose and intent of the standards
17.28.020 Applicability Identifies the development projects subject to Chapter 17.28
17.28.030 Building Massing and
Articulation
Standards for building massing and articulation to promote visual interest and variation in building design
17.28.040 Building Element
Standards
Standards for building elements, including windows,
entrances, garages, balconies, and other architectural
features
17.28.050 Materials and Colors Standards for and limits on particular building materials and colors
17.28.060 Site Design Standards
Standards for site design elements, including driveways, walkways, landscaping, fencing, lighting, and other site improvements
17.28.070 Supplemental Standards for
Residential Mixed-Use
Additional standards for residential mixed-use
developments. Applicable projects are identified in Section
17.28.020 (Applicability)
17.28.080 Open Space Establishes standards for the design of required private and common open space
The proposed ODS include updated approaches to design for residential projects, primarily related to building massing and articulation and building element standards. Existing standards, for example, provide some objective measures for required articulation and building variation to break up building massing. These have been expanded upon to create objective standards that Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 2026
allow multiple ways to achieve sufficient variation in building façades such as horizontal and vertical variation, wall plane breaks, projecting elements, and diversity in materials and openings.
This approach is intended to avoid creating new constraints on housing development, such as requiring approaches that may be prohibitively costly, while also preventing unpreferred design outcomes.
The proposed ODS also include several standards to promote high quality design tailored to specific conditions such as standards for:
1. Windows and balconies adjoining lower density residential districts promote quality transitions between neighboring development and preserve privacy;
2. Ground floor commercial uses in residential mixed-use development, including glazing and entrance requirements;
3. Open space to ensure active and passive open space is provided; and
4. Onsite amenities are established for development with five units and above.
Another key change introduced by this chapter is the application of ODS to single-unit development, in addition to multi-unit and mixed-use projects. Under the existing Zoning Code, design standards have primarily focused on multi-unit and larger-scale development. Expanding ODS to include single-unit development establishes consistent, objective expectations across all residential project types.
Lastly, exceptions to certain standards are incorporated directly into this chapter that identify circumstances where specific standards may not apply or may be modified. Exceptions would be granted so long as the project or site meets the conditions specified. Certain ODS would also be eligible for a waiver pursuant to Chapter 17.37 which is further discussed in the Chapter 17.37 Waivers section in this report.
The proposed ODS are intended to work in conjunction with existing development standards, such as height and setbacks, to provide a comprehensive framework for project design. Overall, this chapter provides a clear and predictable framework for applying ODS, ensuring consistency across projects while maintaining flexibility to accommodate different building types, unit counts, and site conditions.
Associated Zoning Code Amendments
The Project includes amendments to multiple chapters of the Zoning Code to ensure consistency with the proposed ODS, implement adopted Housing Element programs, and maintain consistency with applicable state law (see Attachment 1, Exhibits C and D). The proposed amendments are summarized in Table 3 below.
Table 3. Summary of Proposed Zoning Code Amendments
Chapter/Section Key Changes
Division II –
Base and Overlay Districts
(Chapters 17.07 through
17.16)
Updated permitted use tables to clarify where residential and residential mixed-use development is allowed to better support housing production and align with Housing Element programs.
Added provisions recognizing state laws that permit qualifying residential development in commercial and industrial districts.
Updated development standards tables to refine height limits, setbacks, Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 2026
open space requirements, and other site development standards to improve feasibility and eliminate conflicts with the proposed ODS and align with Housing Element programs.
Chapter 17.17
(General Site Regulations) Revised Section 17.21.010 for consistency with Chapter 17.28 Chapter 17.21
(Landscaping) Revised Section 17.21.020 for consistency with Chapter 17.28 Chapter 17.23
(Parking)
Revised Section 17.23.090 for consistency with Chapter 17.28 and allow tandem residential parking in specified circumstances to provide greater flexibility in site design and support residential development while continuing to satisfy parking requirements
Chapter 17.46
(Definitions)
Added definitions for new terms introduced in Chapter 17.28 to support consistent interpretation and application of the proposed ODS The proposed amendments include updated permitted use tables to clarify where residential and residential mixed-use development is permitted. Program H3.4 is implemented by allowing residential and residential mixed-use development in commercial districts. Attached single-unit development, multi-unit development, and live-work units would be permitted in most commercial districts, provided residential uses are not located on the ground floor of a building façade facing a public right-of-way, with the exception of live-work units. The amendments also implement Program H5.3 by allowing 100 percent affordable housing by right in the Public Facilities (PF) zoning district.
The amendments also recognize state laws that permit qualifying residential development in commercial and industrial districts. These revisions improve consistency between the Zoning Code and state law while providing greater clarity regarding how qualifying projects will be reviewed.
Additionally, the proposed amendments update the development standards tables to ensure consistency with the proposed ODS, improve development feasibility, and implement Program H2.12 by introducing flexibility to help projects achieve maximum allowable densities. Notable changes include removing the Minor Use Permit (MUP) requirement for buildings exceeding 35 feet in height in the Residential Medium Density (RM) and Residential High Density (RH) zoning districts and allowing tandem residential parking in specified circumstances to provide greater flexibility in site design while continuing to satisfy parking requirements.
Additional amendments include updating housing terminology throughout the Zoning Code by replacing "single-family" and "multi-family" with "single-unit" and "multi-unit." This terminology more accurately describes the physical characteristics of residential development and aligns with current planning practices and state housing policy and improves clarity and consistency in how regulations are applied. Definitions for terms introduced in Chapter 17.28 as well as various technical revisions to provide clarity and improve usability of the Zoning Code.
Overall, the proposed amendments ensure the Zoning Code works cohesively with the proposed ODS and evolving state law, implements adopted Housing Element programs, and provides clarity and improves usability of the Zoning Code.
State-Mandated Ministerial Review
Currently, most residential projects are subject to discretionary design review, which typically Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 2026
includes a public hearing before the Planning Commission or City Council for multi-unit residential and mixed-use projects, or a decision by the Community Development Director for single-unit residential projects. However, over the past several years, the State has adopted housing laws that require qualifying residential developments to be reviewed through a ministerial review process when they comply with applicable objective standards. The State’s rationale for many of these laws is that projects that are consistent with a city's adopted General Plan, zoning regulations, objective design standards, and other applicable requirements should not require discretionary review or public hearings. Some examples include:
• Senate Bill (SB) 423 (formerly SB 35): Establishes a streamlined, ministerial approval process for qualifying multifamily housing developments • SB 9: Requires ministerial approval for qualifying two-unit developments and urban lot splits in single-unit residential zones
• Assembly Bill (AB) 2011: Requires a ministerial approval process for qualifying affordable and mixed-income housing on eligible commercial sites • SB 1123: Requires ministerial approval for qualifying subdivisions of up to 10 parcels, or for specified residential developments containing 10 or fewer units Projects eligible for ministerial review typically include residential developments that comply with applicable development and objective standards, including requirements for height, setbacks, lot coverage, and design. Projects on sites with notable environmental features or that require legislative changes such as a rezone or General Plan land use designation amendments are typically not eligible for ministerial review. These laws are intended to reduce approval timelines and increase housing production by limiting discretionary review for qualifying projects.
In response to this, many jurisdictions have established local ministerial review processes to provide applicants with an alternative to state streamlining laws while maintaining locally adopted standards and mitigating risk. These typically apply only to projects that are consistent with the General Plan and meet all applicable zoning, development and design standards, and building requirements.
The City has already established a local ministerial review pathway through Chapter 17.15 ByRight Housing (-BRH) Overlay District. Adopted by the City Council on January 11, 2024, the - BRH Overlay District implements Housing Element Program H3.6 to rezone “reused” sites to allow ministerial approval of residential development if they meet all applicable objective standards, achieve a minimum density of 20 units per acre, and provide at least 20 percent of units as affordable to lower-income households.
Chapter 17.34 Design Review
The Project includes revisions to Chapter 17.34 (Design Review) to establish streamlined, ministerial review procedures for qualifying residential and mixed-use residential projects while retaining discretionary design review when permitted by state law (see Attachment 1, Exhibit E and F). All development requiring design review would remain subject to Chapter 17.34. Certain exterior work would remain exempt, including work consistent with prior design review approvals and replacement of like materials. Additional exemptions are proposed for exterior additions or modifications that do not face a public street and are less than 50 percent of existing floor area, subject to Community Development Director approval.
Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 2026
The City’s existing process would be retitled “Discretionary Design Review” and would include Standard Design Review, Single-Unit Design Review (formerly Single-Family Design Review), and Discretionary Streamlined Design Review. These pathways would continue to apply to projects not eligible for ministerial processing.
A new Ministerial Streamlined Design Review process would be established for qualifying projects that meet applicable objective standards and eligibility criteria, including qualifying single-unit, multi-unit, and mixed-use residential developments. For single-unit residential projects, staff acknowledges that some applicants may prefer the City's existing discretionary review process (currently known as Single-Family Design Review). The proposed revisions include an option for applicants to opt into the Single-Unit Design Review instead.
Table 4 below summarizes the proposed review pathways, including eligibility, review authority, noticing, and appeal rights.
Table 4: Proposed Design Review Pathways in Chapter 17.34 Design Review Standard Design
Review
Single-Unit
Design Review
Discretionary
Streamlined
Design Review
Ministerial Streamlined
Design Review
Review Type Discretionary Ministerial
Eligible
Projects
All projects
requiring design
review that are
not eligible for
the other design
review pathways
Single-unit
residential
projects that: (1)
exceed waiver
limits or (2) opt
into discretionary
review
Qualifying projects
requiring
discretionary
approval but
review is limited to
compliance with
objective standards
Qualifying projects,
including: (1) single-unit
residential projects; (2)
residential and mixed-use
projects with 2 to 200
units; (3) projects on sites
with a By-Right Housing
Overlay; and (4) projects
eligible for ministerial
approval under state law
Review
Authority
Community Development Director (Director), or Planning
Commission (PC) if processed concurrently with applications requiring their review or if referred by the Director
Director, with authority to
refer to PC if permitted by
State law and applicable
statutory timelines
Public
Hearing
Required if processed concurrently with applications
requiring PC review or if referred by the Director
Not required unless
referred to PC
Public
Noticing Required Not Required
Appeals Appealable to PC if reviewed by Director, or City Council if reviewed by PC
Not appealable but eligible
for one reconsideration by
Director
Proposed Local Ministerial Alternative
The City is making slower progress on its 6th Cycle RHNA goals as compared to the previous cycle and is not on target to meet RHNA targets for any income band, including above moderateincome permits (see Attachment 2: Relevant Housing Plans and Policies). Figure 2 below illustrates the number of units permitted and the number of units that the City would have to Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 2026
permit by the end of 2026 to avoid the full applicability of SB 423. The City would need to permit at least 139 above moderate-income units by December 31, 2026.
Figure 2. Newark RHNA Progress – Mid Cycle Review
Projects in Newark that meet labor standards and objective standards are currently eligible for SB 423 ministerial review if they restrict 50 percent of units to low-income households. If current trends hold, staff anticipates Newark may be subject to an expanded version of SB 423 beginning in 2027. Under the expanded version, applicants would be eligible to opt in to ministerial review for projects that restrict 10 percent of units to low-income households, or 20 percent to moderateincome households until at least 2031. SB 423 would also require the City to approve or deny eligible projects within 90 days of receiving an application, which could strain staff resources and present risk to the City.
In response, the proposed Ministerial Streamlined Design Review pathway includes a local ministerial alternative to state ministerial processes such as SB 423 (Section 17.34.020(B)(2)(e) in Attachment 1, Exhibits E and F). Modeled in part on approaches adopted by other jurisdictions, the proposed pathway establishes a local ministerial review process for qualifying residential and mixed-use residential developments containing between two and 200 dwelling units.
To be eligible for the local ministerial pathway, projects must be consistent with the General Plan, applicable zoning regulations, and all objective development and design standards, and may not require discretionary approvals other than waivers authorized under Chapter 17.37. Eligible projects must provide affordable housing consistent with Chapter 17.27, but would not be required to employ the same labor standards as SB 423.
The pathway is limited to projects on sites that are appropriate for ministerial processing, excluding properties with significant environmental, historic, cultural, or archaeological constraints, planned unit developments, and other locations where ministerial review would not be appropriate. In addition, projects involving the demolition of historic resources, recently occupied housing, deed-restricted affordable housing, or resulting in a net loss of housing or lodging units would not be eligible.
The proposed eligibility criteria is intended to align with state ministerial processing requirements while ensuring qualifying projects remain eligible for ministerial review (and therefore exempt Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 2026
from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review). At the same time, the criteria preserves the City's adopted standards by requiring compliance with the City's inclusionary housing requirements, underlying zoning standards such as density and parking, and relief from the 90-day approval requirement. The general differences between the proposed local ministerial pathway and equivalent state law are highlighted in Table 5.
Table 5: Key Differences Between State-Mandated & Proposed Local Ministerial Review State-Mandated Ministerial Review Proposed Local Ministerial Review Density State law may allow projects to exceed
local density limits
Must comply with density requirements
of underlying zoning district
Affordable Housing Must satisfy state affordability thresholds to qualify
Must satisfy the City's inclusionary
housing requirements
Local Standards Certain local development standards may be preempted by state law
Retains all applicable City adopted
objective development and design
standards
Labor Requirements Prevailing wage and, where applicable, skilled and trained workforce requirements Not subject to state labor requirements CEQA Projects eligible for ministerial approval
are not subject to CEQA review
Projects eligible for ministerial approval
are not subject to CEQA review
Review Timeline
≤ 150 Units: 60 days
> 150 Units: 90 days
Deemed approved if deadline is not met
90 day target
Not deemed approved if deadline is not
met
The proposed local ministerial pathway is intended to provide applicants with an alternative to state ministerial processes while preserving the City's adopted standards. By providing a CEQAexempt ministerial approval process that is not subject to the labor requirements imposed under state streamlining laws, the pathway may offer a more attractive option for qualifying projects while maintaining consistency with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code. The alternative review timeline also allows the City and applicants greater flexibility to work collaboratively through iterative design refinements to achieve conformance with City standards and expectations than state ministerial pathways.
Staff is presenting the proposed local ministerial pathway for the Planning Commission’s consideration with the option to approve the local ministerial approval pathway as recommended by staff, to request revisions such as to the eligibility criteria or unit thresholds, or to direct that the local ministerial pathway be removed and the City rely exclusively on state-mandated ministerial processes without establishing this local alternative.
Overall, the proposed amendments are intended to modernize the City’s design review framework by clearly distinguishing between discretionary and ministerial pathways and providing both state-compliant streamlined processing options and locally tailored alternatives. These changes support Housing Element Program H3.1 and would improve procedural clarity, predictability, and efficiency for qualifying residential and mixed-use development.
Chapter 17.37 Waivers
Staff recognizes that, while the proposed ODS are intended to establish clear and objective requirements for residential and mixed-use development, certain project-specific or site conditions may warrant limited flexibility in the application of specific standards. Revisions are proposed to Chapter 17.37 (Waivers) (see Attachment 1, Exhibits G and H) to ensure consistency with the adoption of the proposed ODS in Chapter 17.28 and to clarify the procedures for granting Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 2026
waivers for specified ODS. Under the revised Chapter 17.37, relief from specified ODS may be granted for up to three standards per development project, as identified in Section 17.37.020(B) (see Attachment 1, Exhibits G and H). Waiver requests exceeding this threshold would not be processed under this section and would instead be subject to a variance or other applicable entitlement process.
Applicants must demonstrate that the proposed alternative solution meets the design intent of the applicable standard, or that compliance is not feasible due to the physical characteristics of the property or other unusual site constraints. Certain ODS may also include specific requirements or criteria that must be satisfied in order for a waiver to be granted.
Projects qualifying for a density bonus pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915 and Chapter 17.19 may also be eligible for additional development incentives, including waivers, concessions, or parking reductions. Consistent with State law and Chapter 17.19, these incentives are processed separately and are not considered waivers for purposes of Chapter 17.37.
These revisions provide a structured and limited flexibility mechanism within an otherwise objective standards framework, while ensuring that waivers remain narrowly applied and consistent with the intent of the ODS. The proposed amendments also 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.
Chapter 17.42 Reasonable Accommodation
A new Chapter 17.42, Reasonable Accommodation, (see Attachment 1, Exhibit I) is proposed to relocate the City's existing reasonable accommodation provisions from Chapter 17.37 (Waivers) into a standalone chapter. The proposed chapter does not substantially change the City's existing reasonable accommodation procedures but reorganizes the Zoning Code to more clearly distinguish reasonable accommodations from waivers.
The new chapter establishes procedures for requesting, reviewing, and acting on reasonable accommodation requests consistent with the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. It includes provisions addressing applicability, application procedures, review authority, required findings, written decisions, and appeals.
Creating a standalone chapter improves the organization and usability of the Zoning Code by separating reasonable accommodation procedures from waiver provisions. The proposed chapter is generally consistent with the model reasonable accommodation ordinance published by HCD.
This organizational approach is also used by many California jurisdictions.
General Plan & Housing Element Alignment
The proposed Zoning Text Amendment implements and advances several programs from the Housing Element by establishing objective, measurable design standards and streamlining review processes for residential and mixed-use residential development. The project directly implements Program H3.2 by replacing subjective design guidelines with clear, uniformly applicable standards that support consistent and efficient project review and Program H3.4 by expanding Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 2026
opportunities for residential and mixed-use development in commercial zones. The Project also advances Program H2.8, H2.12, H3.1, and H5.3 as discussed in the previous sections of this report. A summary of Housing Element programs addressed by the ODS project is included in Attachment 2.
The proposed Zoning Text Amendment also supports implementation of the City's broader planning framework. As discussed in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) section of this report, SB 130 allows jurisdictions to adopt zoning amendments that implement Housing Element programs without requiring concurrent amendments to the General Plan. However, the recently adopted 2026–2031 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes a comprehensive update to the General Plan, last updated in 2013, anticipated to begin in 2028. Staff expects that process will provide the opportunity to comprehensively evaluate and update the General Plan, as appropriate, to maintain consistency with the proposed Zoning Text Amendment and other changes to state law.
Collectively, the proposed Zoning Text Amendment supports the City’s Housing Element by ensuring that zoning and design standards are structured to facilitate housing production, improve predictability in the development review process, and align local regulations with state housing law requirements.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
The proposed Zoning Text Amendment is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) as it can be seen with certainty that it will have no significant effect on the environment. The proposed Zoning Text Amendment is also exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 21080.085 as it is a rezoning that implements the schedule of actions contained in the City’s Housing Element pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(c).
REQUIRED NOTICING
Pursuant to Section 17.31.060, on June 23, 2026, a public hearing notice was published in The Tri City Voice. In addition, stakeholders and interested parties on the project’s distribution list were notified. Any communications received prior to the public hearing will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and made available to the public.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Staff requests the Planning Commission to consider the following action:
1. Adopt the Draft Resolution recommending that City Council approve Z2025-004, an Ordinance which includes a Zoning Text Amendment to Title 17 (Zoning) of the Newark Municipal Code adding Chapter 17.28 (Residential and Residential Mixed-Use Design Standards) and Chapter 17.42 (Reasonable Accommodation) and amending Division II (Base and Overlay Districts) Chapter 17.17 (General Site Regulations) Chapter 17.21 (Landscaping), Chapter 17.23 (Parking and Loading), Chapter 17.34 (Design Review), Chapter 17.37 (Waivers), and Chapter 17.46 (Definitions), generally affecting development and design standards for residential and residential mixed-use development.
Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 2026
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Draft Resolution
Attachment 1 - Draft Ordinance
Exhibit A – Findings of Fact
Exhibit B – Proposed Chapter 17.28 Residential and Residential Mixed-Use Design Standards
Exhibit C – Associated Zoning Code Amendments – Clean Version Exhibit D – Associated Zoning Code Amendments – Redline Version Exhibit E – Revised Chapter 17.34 Design Review – Clean Version Exhibit F – Revised Chapter 17.34 Design Review – Redline Version Exhibit G – Revised Chapter 17.37 Waivers – Clean Version Exhibit H – Revised Chapter 17.37 Waivers – Redline Version Exhibit I – Proposed Chapter 17.42 Reasonable Accommodation
2. Relevant Housing Plans and Policies
3. ODS Project Timeline & Milestones
4. Existing Conditions Report
5. Community Engagement Summary
ATTACHMENTS EXCLUDED.
ATTACHMENTS CAN BE VIEWED ON THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S WEBSITE:
https://www.newarkca.gov/departments/commissionscommittees/planning-commission#!/ RESOLUTION NO. 2036
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE Z2025-004, A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO
TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE NEW ARK MUNICIPAL CODE TO
TO ADD CHAPTER 17.28, RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
MIXED-USE DESIGN STANDARDS, AND CHAPTER 17.42,
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION AND AMEND DIVISION
II, BASE AND OVERLAY DISTRICTS, CHAPTER 17.17,
GENERAL SITE REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 17.21,
LANDSCAPING, CHAPTER 17.23, PARKING AND LOADING,
CHAPTER 17.34, DESIGN REVIEW, CHAPTER 17.37,
WAIVERS, AND CHAPTER 17.46, DEFINITIONS,
GENERALLY AFFECTING DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
Z2025-004
WHEREAS, the City of Newark (the "City") occasionally initiates amendments to the Newark Municipal Code ("NMC") to clarify, add, or amend certain provisions to ensure that it remains current with federal and state law, internally consistent, simple to understand and implement, and relevant to changes occurring in the community; and WHEREAS, on October 26, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11,575, adopting a general plan amendment to repeal the Fifth Cycle Housing Element for the period of 2015-2023 and adopt the Housing Element of the General Plan for the Period of 2023-2031 and adopt the Safety Element of the General Plan, in compliance with State Housing Element Law; and
WHEREAS, the State has enacted laws that require approval of multi-unit and mixed-use development to be based on uniformly verifiable criteria (i.e., objective standards), and 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 knowable by both the development applicant and public official before submittal" (Government Code Section 65913.4.); and
WHEREAS, state legislation has increasingly emphasized streamlined, ministerial review processes and has limited the use of subjective design standards that may delay or constrain housing development; and
WHEREAS, NMC Title 17 ("Zoning Code") contains a mix of subjective and objective standards; and
WHEREAS, the Sixth Cycle Housing Element commits the City to developing objective Resolution No. 2036 1 of 4
ATTACHMENT 3
design standards ("ODS") for single-unit and multi-unit residential development through Program H3.2 and mixed-use development through Program H3.4; and WHEREAS, the City desires to add Chapter 17.28, Residential and Residential Mixed-Use Design Standards, to establish ODS for residential and residential mixed-use development, and amend Division II, Base and Overlay Districts, Chapter 17.17, General Site Regulations, Chapter 17 .21, Landscaping, Chapter 17 .23, Parking and Loading, and Chapter 17.46, Definitions, to ensure consistency with Chapter 17.28; and
WHEREAS, the City also desires to amend Chapter 17.34, Design Review, to establish and refine processes for discretionary and ministerial design review and Chapter 17.37, Waivers, to allow the granting of waivers for certain ODS, and to relocate existing reasonable accommodation standards from Chapter 17.37 to a new standalone chapter, Chapter 17.42, Reasonable Accommodation; and
WHEREAS, the additions and amendments to the Zoning Code are collectively referred to as the "Zoning Text Amendment"; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Text Amendment directly implements Program H3.2 by replacing subjective design guidelines with clear, uniformly applicable standards that support consistent and efficient project review, and Program H3 .4 by expanding opportunities for residential and mixeduse development in commercial zones; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Text Amendment also advances several Housing Element programs, including Program H2.8 by clarifying design expectations for a range of residential types and by providing objective open space standards scaled to different project types and sizes; Program H2. l 2 by refining development standards to reduce procedural and regulatory constraints without compromising design quality and by providing objective pathways to meet required design and development criteria without unnecessary barriers; Program H3 .1 by supporting streamlined ministerial approval processes for qualifying residential development consistent with state law; and Program H5.3 by allowing 100 percent affordable housing by right in the Public Facilities zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Text Amendment is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines §15061(b)(3), as it can be seen with certainty that it will not have a significant effect on the environment, and pursuant to §21080.085, as it is a rezoning that implements the schedule of actions contained in the City's Housing Element pursuant to Government Code §65583(c); and WHEREAS, pursuant to NMC § 17.31.060, notice of the public hearing was published in the Tri-City Voice on June 23, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 14, 2026, and considered the Zoning Text Amendment, staff report, public comments, and all other testimony and evidence presented; and
Resolution No. 2036 2 of4
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the staff report and CEQA exemptions reflect the City's independent judgment and analysis of the proposed Zoning Text Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Zoning Text Amendment meets the requisite findings of fact necessary for approval and the recommended findings of fact and determinations set forth in Exhibit A, attached to this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the City's General Plan and Zoning Code are incorporated herein by reference and are available for review at City Hall during normal business hours and on the City's website.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Newark as follows:
Section 1. That the foregoing recitals are true and correct and hereby made part of this Resolution.
Section 2. The Zoning Text Amendment is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3) and §21080.085.
Section 3. Pursuant to NMC Sections 17.39.060 and 17.39.080, the Planning Commission of the City of Newark does hereby make the findings of fact and determinations required by the NMC as set forth in "Exhibit A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 4. Based on the findings of fact and determinations, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve 22025-004, a Zoning Text Amendment to NMC Title 17 (Zoning) to add Chapter 17.28, Residential and Residential Mixed-Use Design Standards, and Chapter 17.42, Reasonable Accommodation and amend Division II, Base and Overlay Districts, Chapter 17.17, General Site Regulations, Chapter 17.21, Landscaping, Chapter 17.23, Parking and Loading, Chapter 17.34, Design Review, Chapter 17.37, Waivers, and Chapter 17.46, Definitions, generally affecting development and design standards for residential and residential mixed-use development, and adopt an ordinance for such amendments to NMC Title 17 as set forth in "Exhibit B".
Section 4. That a copy of the minutes from this Planning Commission meeting of July 14, 2026 be forwarded to the City Council as a summary of the hearing.
Resolution No. 2036 3 of 4
This Resolution was introduced at the City of Newark Planning Commission's July 14, 2026 regular meeting by Commissioner Dhillon, seconded by Commissioner Aguilar, and passed as follows:
AYES: Fitts, Aguilar, Dhillon
NOES:
ABSENT: Becker, Bogisich
�------
STEVEN TURNER, Secretary
Attachments
1. Draft Ordinance
Exhibit A - Findings of Fact
Exhibit B - Proposed Chapter 17.28 Residential and Residential Mixed-Use Design Standards
Exhibit C - Associated Zoning Code Amendments - Clean Version Exhibit D - Associated Zoning Code Amendments - Redline Version Exhibit E- Revised Chapter 17.34 Design Review- Clean Version Exhibit F - Revised Chapter 17.34 Design Review- Redline Version Exhibit G- Revised Chapter 17.37 Waivers - Clean Version Exhibit H- Revised Chapter 17.37 Waivers - Redline Version Exhibit I - Proposed Chapter 17.42 Reasonable Accommodation Resolution No. 2036 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT 4
Relevant Housing Plans and Policies
Housing Element: Overview
Since 1969, state law has required cities and counties in California to adequately plan to meet the housing needs of all members of their communities, at all income levels, by adopting housing plans, now called Housing Elements, into their general plan. The Bay Area region is now in its sixth Housing Element cycle, which encompasses years 2023 through 2031 (the “6th Cycle”).
Newark has a 6th Cycle regional housing need assessment (RHNA) of 1,874 new homes.
On October 26, 2023, the City Council adopted the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element (Housing Element). Subsequently, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) certified the Housing Element on December 21, 2023, finding it in compliance with state law.
The Housing Element includes 45 unique programs and 35 policies designed to achieve community-driven goals and meet the City’s RHNA. These programs and policies also respond to state legislative priorities intended to speed up land use approvals and permitting to build more housing faster, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve project feasibility, and reduce displacement and homelessness. Additionally, these programs and policies further the “Three Ps” of housing– production, preservation, and protection. Staff meaningfully considers these layered policy objectives to craft implementable and appropriate recommendations for addressing housing affordability in Newark.
6th Cycle Implementation Progress
Calendar year 2027 marks the middle of the 6th Cycle. While the City submits an Annual Progress Report (APR) to the state by April 1 of each year, the state’s 2027 mid-cycle APR review (MidCycle Review) has specific import. During the Mid-Cycle Review, the state will compare the City’s APR against the quantified objectives that the City committed to achieving in its Housing Element programs, as well as progress in issuing building permits against the City’s RHNA targets.
As of July, 2026, Newark has completed approximately 29 percent of Housing Element programs, with 65 percent in progress or ongoing throughout the duration of the 6th Cycle. Only six percent of programs have not yet started. Staff plans to recommend approval of at least five additional programs for the City Council’s consideration later this year, including ODS. If fully adopted, these programs would bring the City to a completion rate of at or around 50 percent before the Mid-Cycle Review.
While the City is also making progress toward its RHNA goals, it is doing so at a slower pace at this stage of the 6th Cycle compared to the previous cycle. By the end of 2025, Newark had issued building permits for approximately 22 percent of the RHNA. Unlike in previous years, the City is Attachment 4: Relevant Housing Plans and Policies
2 not on target to meet RHNA targets for any income band (see Table 1). This is common among Bay Area jurisdictions, where high construction costs, high interest rates, and softening rents, among other factors, have tempered the market for new development.
Table 1: Progress towards Regional Housing Needs Allocation As a result, it is likely the City will be subject to the full applicability of state law SB 423. This law allows residential developments to opt in to a streamlined ministerial approval process if they restrict at least 10 percent of units to low-income households, or 20 percent to moderate-income households. The City would need to permit at least 139 more above moderate-income units by December 31, 2026 to avoid the complete SB 423 applicability.
Even if the City meets its above moderate-income target, the City will still be subject to a lesser version of SB 423 for failure to achieve its very low- and low-income housing permits. The City is currently subject to this lesser version of SB 423, which allows developments that restrict 50 percent of units to low-income households to opt in to streamlined ministerial review. Figure 1 illustrates the number of building permits the City has already issued and the number of permits the City would have aimed to issue by the Mid-Cycle Review.
Figure 1. Newark RHNA Progress – Mid Cycle Review
Attachment 4: Relevant Housing Plans and Policies
3 Housing Element Programs Addressed by the ODS Project The Objective Design Standards project implements several Housing Element programs in whole or in part. Each program includes one or more quantified objectives. Quantified objectives are the specific, measurable actions and outcomes that the City has committed to achieving during the 6th Cycle. Excerpts of these programs are included below, although the Housing Element may include more expanded descriptions.
Programs Fully Implemented by the ODS Project
• H3.2: Develop objective design standards for single family and multi family developments and infill housing
Quantified Objective: Develop new objective design standards that result in designs that reflect the needs of the community while supporting new developments that are responsive to local ecological conditions and climate change while reducing development costs where applicable.
Housing Element page 225-226
• H3.4: Adjust zoning to allow mixed use in current Commercial zones Quantified Objective: Amend the City's Neighborhood Commercial and Community Commercial zones and land use code to create objective standards for mixed-uses and facilitate the redevelopment of commercial sites to mixed-use. Housing Element page 226-227 Programs Partially Implemented by the ODS Project
• H2.8: Zoning for Missing Middle Housing Types
Quantified Objective: To remove constraints and better encourage small multi-family developments in the RS, RL, and RM zoning districts, particularly in the northeast area of the city, including Lake-Rosemont, Mirabeau, and Mayhews Landing neighborhoods, zoning text amendments will be implemented. Housing Element page 219-221 o ODS partially implements program H2.8 by drafting ODS to be applicable to small multi-unit (1-4) developments, including incentives for developments that provide more than one unit, and providing a development waiver system for instances where an objective standard may preclude development.
o The City is undertaking a separate Missing Middle Housing Study that will further address program H2.8 implementation. A Planning Commission study session on missing middle housing is scheduled for June 28, 2026.
• H2.12: Ensure maximum residential densities are achievable Quantified Objective: Review, and amend as necessary, city requirements and development standards in all zones that allow residential development to ensure that maximum densities are achievable. This includes those standards and requirements related to maximum units per building, maximum building coverage, required open space per unit, minimum lot area, Attachment 4: Relevant Housing Plans and Policies
4 setbacks, height limits, parking (also see Program H3.5) and limits on allowable densities.
Specifically, remove the MUP requirement for buildings over 35 feet in the RM and RH zones and review whether the 60-foot height limit in the CMU zone (outside of the Old Town Specific Plan area) is a constraint on development and make needed changes, or allowing for flexibility to achieve maximum allowable densities. Housing Element page 224-225 o ODS partially implements this program by reviewing and revising several of the aforementioned standards, including removing the MUP requirement for buildings over 35 feet in the RM and RH zones and replacing it with height transition standards between zones.
o The City is undertaking a separate Missing Middle Housing Study and a Parking Study that will respectively review and consider allowable densities and parking requirements in different zones.
• H3.1: Streamline Ministerial Approval Permit Procedures Quantified Objective: Prepare and publish administrative procedures by 2024 for the processing of housing developments eligible for streamlined review pursuant to SB 35. Assign a staff member to support the streamlined development review process. This staff person will be a point of contact for affordable housing developers that will work to create a clear and streamlined process. Housing Element page 225
o ODS partially implements this program by adopting a ministerial process into Newark Municipal Code that complies with SB 35, now more commonly referred to as SB 423. o Subsequent to adoption by City Council, staff will prepare and publish administrative documents to implement the adopted procedure, including assign a staff point of contact for affordable housing developers.
• H5.3: Public Lands for dedicated affordable housing
Quantified Objective: The city, in compliance with the Surplus Land Act will develop and implement programs and policies to further Increase the utilization of public land for affordable housing with particular emphasis in high resource and gentrifying areas to support housing mobility and anti displacement efforts. Housing Element page 236-237 o ODS partially implements this program by rezoning PF (Public-Facility) zoned land to allow mid-rise affordable housing as a permitted use, by-right. o The City will separately consider a public land framework / policy that enables a coordinated interagency approach to public land reuse, including working with the school district to reuse excess and underutilized school sites and meet the needs of the local education workforce.
Policy Intent of ODS
The requirement to review residential projects against ODS is a response to broader state and local efforts to address California’s housing crisis, which has been driven in part by rising construction Attachment 4: Relevant Housing Plans and Policies
5 costs and lengthy, unpredictable approval processes. State legislation has increasingly emphasized streamlined, ministerial review processes and limits on subjective design standards that can delay or constrain housing development.
The intent of Newark’s ODS project is to enable a streamlined review process for residential and mixed-use development where residential is the primary use. This process is intended to remove constraints to housing development by reducing uncertainty and delays that can result from imposing subjective design guidelines or standards. Overall, ODS aim to balance the need for certainty and clarity for applicants with the City’s longstanding priorities of promoting highquality design and facilitating housing development. This advances the City’s goals of meeting its RHNA targets and producing housing that is affordable to all members of the community.
A 2025 report by the Rand Institute found that longer housing production timelines are strongly associated with higher development costs. It takes, on average, 22 months longer to complete a residential development in California than it does in Texas. Of this difference, 15 months is just predevelopment (the period between application submittal and construction commencement) and the remainder is construction. Overall, the average housing production time for California is 49 months, compared to 27 months in Texas and 37 months in Colorado (see Figure 3 below). This means it takes nearly two years longer to produce a market rate apartment in California than in Texas, and one year longer than in Colorado.
The report estimates that California could reduce total development costs by eight percent if it could produce housing on timelines similar to Texas, with additional accrued benefits by allowing construction workers, design officials, and equipment to be redeployed to other projects and produce more housing.
Figure 2. Average Production Times by State for Market-Rate Apartments Attachment 4: Relevant Housing Plans and Policies
6 Source: Figure 3.4, The High Cost of Producing Multifamily Housing in California, RAND Center on Housing and Homelessness (2025)
The Rand report further finds that architectural and engineering fees are significantly more expensive for both market rate and affordable housing in the Bay Area. While accounting for differences in cost of living, the report suggests that the greatest cost driver is likely discretionary design requirements with potential to significantly reduce per unit total development costs with consistent and predictable design requirements. This is consistent with stakeholder feedback that design professionals in the Bay Area “cushion” their contract rates to account for multiple rounds of review and revisions against unclear standards and discretionary processes.
The City reported in its 6th Cycle Housing Element that design review applications approved against existing subjective design standards can take four to seven months longer to approve under a discretionary process than a ministerial process. In practice, approval times can take longer based on a variety of factors (see Table 2).
Table 2: Average Permit Processing Time, Newark, 2022 (6th Cycle Housing Element) ATTACHMENT 5
Objective Design Standards Project Timeline & Milestones The City engaged Good City Company to assist with drafting the City’s objective design standards (ODS). Since the project was initiated in Fall 2024, the project team has completed a comprehensive planning, outreach, and drafting process that has culminated in the proposed ODS and associated zoning code amendments. The major project milestones are summarized below and illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Objective Design Standards Project Timeline
1. Analysis of Standards
Good City Company evaluated the City’s existing zoning regulations and design guidelines to inform the development of ODS as summarized in the Existing Conditions Report in Attachment
6. This effort included a review of State requirements and best practices from other jurisdictions and identified opportunities to improve clarity, consistency, and alignment with State laws. The analysis informed recommendations on the draft ODS, related Zoning Code amendments, and updates to design review and waivers processes.
2. Community Engagement
Staff and Good City Company conducted a range of outreach efforts to gather community and stakeholder input as summarized in the Community Engagement Summary in Attachment 7). The feedback helped establish community priorities for the project, including balancing design quality with flexibility and feasibility, emphasizing human-scale, attractive, and functional design, and preserving Newark's existing character and identity. Engagement included the following:
• Builders Roundtable – A virtual “Builders Roundtable” held on January 22, 2025, convened 16 stakeholders, including developers, architects, and designers, to provide professional insights on existing regulations and potential improvements.
Attachment 5: Objective Design Standards Project Timeline & Milestones 2 • Planning Commissioner Interviews – Interviews with three Planning Commissioners were held on March 6 and 13, 2025 to understand the Commissioners’ perspectives regarding what has worked well under existing processes, guidelines, and standards, and identify areas for improvement.
• Community Open House – A community open house held on February 26, 2025 at the Newark Library included interactive stations and a presentation, but experienced lowerthan-anticipated attendance, prompting additional outreach. • Pop-Up Events – A pop-up event at Newark Family Day in the Park was held on April 12, 2025 and attracted approximately 35–50 participants and generated strong engagement, particularly among families. A second pop-up event at Newark Family Day in the Park was held on March 28, 2026 and attracted approximately 20 participants and generated strong engagement, particularly among families.
• Project Communications – Ongoing project communications have been supported through the City’s websites (www.newarkca.gov/ods and housing.newarkca.gov), newsletters, email distribution lists, and physical flyers to ensure continued public awareness and participation.
3. Drafting Standards
Good City Company prepared the draft ODS and associated zoning code amendments by drawing upon existing objective development and design standards in the Zoning Code and Single Family Residential Design Guidelines, translating existing standards and guidelines with subjective language into objective terms, and then supplementing with additional design standards to support the development of housing and encourage specific design characteristics.
The supplemental standards were developed through a comprehensive review of established ODS in other jurisdictions and observed best practices. By starting with the community engagement process and a detailed review of the City’s existing standards, the draft ODS have been tailored to the design priorities and goals of the City without being overly prescriptive or encouraging homogenous approaches to building design. Staff and Good City Company also reviewed opportunities to address other Housing Element programs that align with the intent of ODS.
4. Public Review of Draft Standards
The draft ODS and associated zoning code amendments were made available for public review from March 27, 2026 through April 17, 2026 on the project’s website (www.newarkca.gov/ODS).
The public was notified through the City’s websites, newsletters, and email distribution lists, and physical flyers were made available at the Newark Family Day in the Park event on March 28, 2026 and Development Counter at City Hall.
The feedback included suggestions for specific areas where the draft language could be improved for clarity; additional flexibility for certain standards; expanded options for satisfying articulation Attachment 5: Objective Design Standards Project Timeline & Milestones 3 requirements; and considerations for particular building types that may be incongruous with the standards.
5. Planning Commission Study Session
On April 14, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a study session to receive an update on the project and an overview of the draft standards. The staff report and presentation are available on the project’s website (www.newarkca.gov/ods). The Planning Commission asked clarifying questions and provided feedback. The discussion primarily focused on the following topics:
• The potential for the proposed code updates to facilitate 100% residential projects in commercial areas.
• How the draft standards address compatibility between larger scale residential development and adjacent single-unit residential neighborhoods; • The importance of maintaining flexibility through exceptions and waivers when deviations from the standards may result in a better design outcome.
Staff highlighted that the draft standards include approaches to reduce impacts on adjacent lower density residential neighborhoods, such as landscaping requirements and standards governing the location and orientation of windows and balconies in side yards, as well as transition standards to mitigate changes in height and setbacks between properties of different zoning districts and uses.
Staff also described the proposed exceptions and waivers process, which provides flexibility where appropriate.
6. Revised Standards and Updated Processes
In response to comments received during the Public Review Period and Planning Commission Study Session, the draft ODS and associated zoning text amendments were refined to include the following:
• Suggestions for additional options for satisfying articulation requirements on street facing facades and ground floor active use requirements for mixed-use buildings were incorporated.
• Standards that were identified as difficult to implement or too restrictive, such as window reflectivity requirements, were revised.
• In sections where the draft standards already provide the flexibility suggested by commenters, the language was revised to more clearly describe the available compliance options.
Staff also revised the following chapters in the Zoning Code:
• Chapter 17.34 (Design Review) establishes and refines processes for discretionary and ministerial design review in accordance with Housing Element Program H3.1 to streamline ministerial permit procedures. A streamlined ministerial design review pathway would be established for qualifying single-unit, multi-unit, and mixed-use residential projects that meet specific criteria and applicable objective standards.
Attachment 5: Objective Design Standards Project Timeline & Milestones 4 • Chapter 17.37 (Waivers) was revised to allow the granting of up to three waivers for certain ODS and clarify the procedures for granting such waivers. • Chapter 17.42 (Reasonable Accommodation) is proposed to relocate existing reasonable accommodation standards from Chapter 17.37 into a new standalone chapter. The proposed chapter does not substantially change the City's existing reasonable accommodation procedures but reorganizes the Zoning Code to more clearly distinguish reasonable accommodations from waivers.
City of Newark
Objective Design Standards
Existing Conditions Report
August 15, 2025
Prepared by:
ATTACHMENT 6
Acknowledgements
Community Development Department
Steven M. Turner, Director
Art Interiano, Deputy Director
Carmelisa Lopez, Senior Planner
Michael Coulom, Housing Policy and Programs Manager
Joseph Balatbat, Associate Planner
Monica Ly, Contract Planner
Good City Company
Nicholas Hamilton, AICP, Public Policy Lead, Project Manager Aaron Aknin, AICP, Principal
Ralph Robinson, AICP, Senior Planner
David Bafumi, AICP Candidate, Assistant Planner
Cover image credits: Nicholas Hamilton, Paul Chytla-Hinze
Contents
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 2 WHAT ARE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS? ............................................................................................................... 3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Analysis of Current Zoning Code and Design Guidelines ................................................... 4 SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES .............................................................................................................................. 4 FIGURE 1. CITY OF NEWARK ZONING MAP (2018) ..................................................................................................... 5 ZONING TOPICS ANALYZED ............................................................................................................................................ 5 DESIGN STANDARDS IN THE ZONING CODE ................................................................................................................. 7 TABLE 1: POTENTIAL SUBJECTIVE OR DISCRETIONARY ISSUES IN THE CURRENT ZONING CODE ............................. 8 Comparative Analysis and Best Practices .......................................................................... 11 Alignment with the General Plan .......................................................................................... 13 State Housing Law ................................................................................................................ 14 Other Materials Consulted .................................................................................................... 16 Examples of Objective Design Standards ........................................................................... 17
2 CITY OF NEWARK - OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AUGUST 15, 2025 City of Newark
Objective Design Standards
Existing Conditions Report
August 15, 2025
Introduction
Like many Bay Area communities, Newark has experienced sustained high demand for housing, reflecting its attractive location for individuals and households. Regionally, housing production has not kept pace with this high demand. Recent changes to State housing law, reflected in many of the programs of the 2023-2031 Housing Element, seek to increase housing unit production through various means. Establishing Objective Design Standards (ODS) is an important part of the Housing Element and provides the opportunity for community members to identify design priorities and is required under State law for certain projects eligible for streamlined review.
This report assesses existing guidelines and standards in the City of Newark in preparation for the development of ODS for residential and mixed-use projects with a residential component.
It also describes the background materials reviewed, relevant State housing laws, and the range of approaches other jurisdictions have taken to ODS.
The analysis identifies key regulatory structures, challenges, and opportunities for improvement to support the City’s growth and development. Findings indicate that while Newark’s zoning code (Title 17 Zoning) provides a strong framework for land use and design regulation, certain areas require refinement to enhance clarity, enforceability, and conform with State housing law.
The project aims to implement several actions included in the 2023 – 2031 Housing Element.
Program H3.2 requires the City to develop residential objective design standards and is a key program of the City’s plan to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 1,874 additional units by 2031.
Key recommendations include developing a set of objective standards for residential and residential mixed-use projects, revisions to design review processes for residential and residential mixed-use development, and associated zoning code updates regarding uses and applicability to ensure compliance with state law.
EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT 3
What are Objective Design Standards?
The State of California has enacted laws that require approval for mixed-use and multi-family development to be based on uniformly verifiable criteria. State law defines objective standards as “standards 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 knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal” (California Government Code, Section 65852.21(j)(2)).
Subjective standards require interpretation by City staff, City Council, or any other board, commission, or committees that could exercise discretion. For example, a requirement for a 40- square-foot front entryway is an objective standard, while a “welcoming front entry” requirement is subject to interpretation. An objective standard like “building exteriors shall utilize at least two different colors” could replace a subjective requirement such as “every building shall have complementary colors which demonstrate a harmonious relationship.” Cities across the state are revising their design standards and submittal review processes to ensure they are written in clear and, where possible, quantifiable language to ensure design is of high quality and to facilitate the production of housing and mixed-use developments.
In practice, this means cities' discretion over land use and design is shifted earlier in the process and incorporated into new objective design standards.
Methodology
The existing conditions analysis is based on:
• Review of existing zoning ordinances and design guidelines • Review of relevant State laws
• Benchmarking against comparable cities
• Interviews with planning staff
• Examining best practices in zoning reform and Objective Design Standards • Note: Discussion of community and stakeholder perspectives will be discussed in a separate document
4 CITY OF NEWARK - OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AUGUST 15, 2025 Analysis of Current Zoning Code and Design Guidelines
Zoning regulations in Newark serve as a foundation for managing land use, controlling development, and guiding urban growth. The City’s zoning code establishes rules for various land uses, densities, heights, and several aspects of site and building design. The City has also maintained design guidelines for single family structures. Changes in state law require most residential development to be reviewed against objective design and development standards rather than a subjective standards or discretionary process.
Single Family Design Guidelines
The City’s existing “Single-Family Residential Design Review Guidelines” were adopted by the Planning Commission in 2007. The document reflects design standards typical of planning documents at that time. It establishes guidance regarding neighborhood scale and compatibility, minimization of privacy impacts, and establishes applicability and relevant processes. Since 2007, significant revisions to State law (discussed in greater detail below) have shifted toward objective standards and ministerial review for projects that conform to objective standards.
The guidelines emphasize compatibility with neighboring structures. Many guidelines lend themselves to being translated into Objective Design Standards while other guidelines may be more difficult. Two examples of guidelines that could be translated:
“Larger houses and additions introduced into modest-sized neighborhoods should be divided into smaller "modules" of similar size to houses in the existing neighborhood, so as to appear smaller in scale and mass, and be more compatible with the neighborhood.”
“New residences and additions should be compatible in scale and height with surrounding houses so as to blend in with them, versus overwhelming them with disproportionate size.”
In the above examples, objective standards can be crafted that speak to the core ideas behind many of the aspects of the guidelines, such as massing breaks, façade articulation, setback, and step back standards.
EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT 5
Figure 1. City of Newark Zoning Map (2018)
6 CITY OF NEWARK - OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AUGUST 15, 2025 Zoning Topics Analyzed
The zoning code analysis focuses on design aspects of development regulations. The zoning code also provides controls and procedures for many other aspects of land use and development.
Key topics addressed in this assessment include:
• Site layout and design
• Building design
• Design guidelines and standards regarding:
o Massing
o Minimizing the apparent bulk of buildings
o Façade articulation
o Neighborhood compatibility
o Transitions between different development types and intensities o Parking area design
The following topics are addressed only in specific instances:
• Density
• Permitted, conditional, and prohibited uses
• Height limits
• Lot coverage
Applicable Uses:
• Single- and Two-Unit Development
• Multi-Unit Development
• Mixed Use Development (with a residential component)
Primary Applicable Zoning Districts:
• RS: Residential Single Family (Chapter 17.07)
• RL: Residential Low Density (Chapter 17.07)
• RM: Residential Medium Density (Chapter 17.07)
• RH: Residential High Density (Chapter 17.07)
• NC: Neighborhood Commercial (Chapter 17.08)
• CC: Community Commercial (Chapter 17.08)
• RC: Regional Commercial (Chapter 17.08)
EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT 7
• CMU: Commercial Mixed Use (Chapter 17.08)
• PO: Professional Office (Chapter 17.09)
• BTP: Business and Technology Park (Chapter 17.09)
• PF: Public Facilities (Chapter 17.10)
• TS: Transit Station (Chapter 17.10)
• RP: Resource Production (Chapter 17.11)
• -PD: Planned Development Overlay (Chapter 17.12)
• -FBC: Form Based Code Overlay (Chapter 17.13)
• -OT: Old Town Overlay (Chapter 17.14)
• -BRH: By-Right Housing Overlay (Chapter 17.15)
Districts assumed to receive limited updates where residential may be permitted by state law:
• CR: Retail Commercial (Chapter 17.08)
• LI: limited Industrial (Chapter 17.09)
• GI: General industrial (Chapter 17.09)
• PK: Park (Chapter 17.10)
• OS: Open Space (Chapter 17.10)
Other Applicable Municipal Code Sections:
• General Site Regulations (Chapter 17.17)
• Landscaping (Chapter 17.21)
• Parking Area Design and Development Standards (Section 17.23.090) • Use Classifications (Chapter 17.45) Definitions (Chapter 17.46) Design Standards in the Zoning Code
Newark’s zoning code delineates various districts, including residential, commercial, industrial, mixed-use, and a series of overlay districts. Each district has specific land use regulations and development standards. The City benefits from several recent modernizations to its zoning code, including a comprehensive update in 2018. Many design standards in the zoning code are already drafted in objective language.
However, many base districts, overlay zones, and other chapters in the zoning code also contain standards that are subjective in nature and/or establish certain discretionary processes currently applicable to residential development or mixed-use development with a residential
8 CITY OF NEWARK - OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AUGUST 15, 2025 component. Where this occurs, revisions to ensure objective standards apply to residential and residential mixed-use development will be important.
Each base zoning district chapter establishes use regulations and development standards.
Comments are listed below in Table 1.
Use regulations stipulate if a use is permitted, would require a minor use permit or conditional use permit, or is not allowed (prohibited). It also defines some additional regulations. Specific Housing Element programs include expanding where residential development is a permitted use. Such changes are related to the ODS initiative and coordination between those revisions and the ODS project would be appropriate if practical.
Development standards regulate density, minimum lot dimensions, height, setbacks, lot coverage, landscape, and open space standards. The development standards and subsequent associated sections of each base zoning district chapter are a core focus for the ODS project.
Note: A separate effort is being developed in parallel to the ODS project to update certain development standards to implement other programs of the Housing Element and other citywide initiatives. Coordination between these efforts and the ODS project would be appropriate if practical.
Table 1: Potential Subjective or Discretionary Issues in the Current Zoning Code Zoning District Potential Subjective or
Discretionary Issues
Notes
RS: Residential Single
Family
(Chapter 17.07)
17.07.030 Development standards:
Some criteria for additional density in
RL and RM Districts is subjective.
Heights over 35 feet in RM and RH
districts limited by minor use permit is
discretionary.
17.07.040 Supplemental regulations.
This section contains some design
standards that are subjective in nature
and relate to discretionary processes.
This section will be a core area of
revisions to establish objective
standards. These standards relate to:
attached unit standards, building
entrances, building design, roof line,
windows, façade articulation, building
materials, and window and balcony
placement.
17.07.030.D Open Space:
ODS project to be
coordinated with any
potential open space
standards update process.
Housing Element Program
H2.12 commits to
eliminating the MUP for
developments above 35’ in
RM and RH.
RL: Residential Low
Density
(Chapter 17.07)
RM: Residential Medium
Density
(Chapter 17.07)
RH: Residential High
Density
(Chapter 17.07)
EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT 9
Zoning District Potential Subjective or
Discretionary Issues
Notes
NC: Neighborhood
Commercial
(Chapter 17.08)
17.08.010 Revisions can clarify in
objective language where residential
is and is not allowed. Revisions to
uses in this chapter should conform
with state law and housing element
programs.
17.08.020 Some existing standards
applicable to residential should be
revised to ensure they are written in
objective language.
17.08.030 “Additional development
standards” includes some subjective
text and how residential and mixed
use projects are treated can be
clarified.
One possible approach could
establish one set of ODS that
are applicable to all relevant
chapters and zoning districts.
An alternative approach
could establish ODS on a
chapter-by-chapter basis.
CC: Community
Commercial
(Chapter 17.08)
RC: Regional
Commercial
(Chapter 17.08)
CMU: Commercial Mixed
Use
(Chapter 17.08)
CR: Commercial Retail
(Chapter 17.08)
Assume CR district to receive limited
updates regarding where residential
may allowed by state law.
PO: Professional Office
(Chapter 17.09)
Same comments as apply to
NC/CMU/CC/RC.
Same comments as apply to
NC/CMU/CC/RC.
BTP: Business and
Technology Park
(Chapter 17.09)
To conduct further research and
discuss with staff regarding if and in
what contexts residential uses may be
permitted in the BTP District.
Depending on the outcome,
comments regarding
NC/CMU/CC/RC may apply.
LI: limited Industrial
(Chapter 17.09)
GI: General industrial
(Chapter 17.09)
Assume LI and GI districts would
receive limited updates regarding
where residential may allowed by
state law.
PF: Public Facilities
(Chapter 17.10)
PF: Same comments as apply to
NC/CMU/CC/RC.
Same comments as apply to
NC/CMU/CC/RC.
HE Program H5 commits to
amending Public Facilities to
allow affordable housing by
right at minimum heights
and densities. This change
may be made through ODS
10 CITY OF NEWARK - OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AUGUST 15, 2025 Zoning District Potential Subjective or
Discretionary Issues
Notes
or through a separate
project.
TS: Transit Station
(Chapter 17.10)
To conduct further research and
confirm with staff regarding if and in
what contexts residential uses may be
permitted in the TS District.
Depending on the outcome
of additional research,
comments regarding
NC/CMU/CC/RC may apply.
PK: Park
(Chapter 17.10)
OS: Open Space
(Chapter 17.10)
Assume PK and OS to receive limited
updates regarding where residential
may be allowed by state law or be left
as is.
RP: Resource Production
(Chapter 17.11)
Caretaker units should be permitted
but required to follow ODS.
- FBC: Form Based Code
Overlay
(Chapter 17.13)
Design standards in this section are
already significantly objective in their
construction. Some additional
standards can be added or existing
standards modified to clarify specific
areas and foster greater alignment
between the standards applicable in
this overlay district and base districts
where residential is permitted.
- OT: Old Town Overlay
(Chapter 17.14)
Many design standards in this section
are significantly objective in their
construction. Additional standards
can be added or existing standards
modified to clarify specific areas and
foster greater alignment between the
standards applicable in this overlay
district and base districts where
residential is permitted.
- BRH: By-Right Housing
Overlay
(Chapter 17.15)
Specific provisions regarding
applicability of ODS should be
clarified.
General Site Regulations
(Chapter 17.17)
Specific provisions regarding
applicability of ODS should be
clarified.
Landscaping
(Chapter 17.21)
Some standards should be replaced
or modified to ensure they are written
as objective standards for residential
projects. Specific provisions regarding
EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT 11
Zoning District Potential Subjective or
Discretionary Issues
Notes
the applicability of ODS should be
clarified.
Parking Area Design and
Development Standards
(Section 17.23.090)
Some subjective standards should be
replaced or modified to ensure they
are written as objective standards for
residential projects. Specific
provisions regarding the applicability
of ODS should be clarified.
Use Classifications
(Chapter 17.45)
Use classifications should be further
evaluated to determine if clarification
is needed to ensure ODS are applied
to residential developments as
intended.
Definitions
(Chapter 17.46)
Clarify a limited number of definitions
to ensure ODS are applied to
residential developments as intended,
especially regarding residential-mixed
use projects.
Comparative Analysis and Best Practices
Cities and other jurisdictions across the state are updating their design standards to objective language to streamline the design review process and provide clear and consistent requirements that promote high-quality design. Many additional cities have included commitments to establish objective design standards in their most recently adopted housing elements. While each community implements objective design standards tailored to their jurisdiction, the overall approaches may be grouped into three main categories: Extensive, Limited, and Hybrid. Potential benefits and drawbacks to each approach are described below. A discussion of best practices regarding review processes is also described.
Extensive ODS
An extensive approach to ODS is characterized by highly detailed standards controlling the development of a wide-range of site and building design features from depth of eaves associated with a large number of architectural styles to the specific types of open space amenities triggered by different project scales. Examples of ODS reflecting this approach include those of the City of Santa Barbara, and jurisdictions in Marin County such as San Anselmo (links to both are included at the end of this document). Benefits of this approach
12 CITY OF NEWARK - OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AUGUST 15, 2025 include providing property owners with clear and detailed expectations regarding design elements. This approach is generally associated with creating standalone ODS documents with extensive illustrations. Drawbacks to this approach include: difficulty in implementation due to the complexity of the standards, possibility of creating conflicting requirements, difficulty of establishing standards appropriate to a long list of possible architectural styles, and unintentionally making projects infeasible by creating standards that are very expensive or impossible to implement, and higher burden on public resources to develop and implement more highly complex standards. An additional drawback of the extensive approach is that while it can generate aesthetically pleasing buildings, it may also lead to a cookie cutter effect where a large number of buildings look the same.
Limited ODS
Limited approaches to ODS stick to the essentials and focus on design factors with the greatest impact such as building placement and massing. They can offer property owners and developers relatively more flexibility to develop creative solutions and can be developed and implemented more quickly and efficiently than more extensive approaches. This approach can work well when many areas of the city already have specific plans with extensive design standards. The standards themselves are often established by modifying the zoning code’s existing development and design standards to remove subjective language and introduce limited new or modified standards. Drawbacks to this approach are that communities can feel it allows too much discretion for property owners and developers and may not yield desirable designs. Many cities initially employ such an approach to establishing a minimum set of standards while they take additional time to develop a more robust set of standards.
Hybrid ODS
Many jurisdictions take a hybrid approach aiming to find the right level of flexibility for property owners and developers while fostering neighborhoods that are desirable to current and future residents. These approaches often intend to limit design features that have historically been the least supported by the community and encourage features that have been approved in the past. Hybrid approaches can be implemented through creating standalone ODS documents, revisions to the zoning code, or both. The benefits of a hybrid approach include allowing for more specificity regarding design elements most important to communities and ensuring that projects that meet the standards remain feasible. Examples of this approach include the Multifamily ODS of the City of San Mateo and the Single Family ODS of the City of San Carlos (links to both are included at the end of this document). Drawbacks of this approach include not providing specific enough standards to prevent undesired designs and allowing for a diverse range of architectural styles in contexts such as historic districts where there may be a desire to minimize the number of architectural styles.
EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT 13
Review Processes
Ministerial review for residential and mixed-use building design—where City staff approves project applications if they meet objective standards—is widely considered a best practice because it promotes predictability, efficiency, and fairness in the development process. It ensures that compliant projects receive approvals quickly, gives developers and communities clear expectations, and reduces uncertainty. By avoiding lengthy discretionary reviews, it shortens timelines and lowers costs, helping deliver housing more quickly and affordably. This approach supports broader housing production goals and aligns with state mandates, particularly in jurisdictions under pressure to meet affordable housing targets. It also streamlines local government operations by allowing staff to focus on compliance rather than public hearings. Objective standards also reduce subjectivity and potential bias in decisionmaking, which is especially important for projects serving lower-income or vulnerable populations. Finally, ministerial review offers greater legal clarity and reduces the likelihood of challenges based on discretionary decisions.
Alignment with the General Plan
The ODS project seeks to align policies in areas where design standards intersect with other goals, policies, and programs of the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element as well as other areas of the City’s December 12, 2013 General Plan. Several areas of the Housing Element and General Plan have themes or specific program commitments that align with the ODS project objectives.
In addition to Program H3.2 Develop objective design standards for single family and multifamily developments and infill housing, the following key programs and policies reviewed in the preparation of this report are indicated below.
Program H2.1 Develop new housing options in areas of the city close to services such as parks, schools and grocery stores, with existing infrastructure.
The program calls for implementing SB 9 and 10 and reviewing program commitments including providing additional opportunities for missing middle housing (duplexes, fourplexes, cottage courts, and backyard cottages/ADU). Additionally, Program H2.1 includes geographic targeting for a proportion of such units.
Program H2.8, Zoning for Missing Middle Housing Types
The program calls for reviewing and amending the Zoning Code and applicable design guidelines to encourage and promote missing middle housing types, such as courtyard housing, two-, three-, and four-plexes. Additionally, Program H2.8 includes geographic targeting for a proportion of such units. Program H2.8 also calls for removing constraints in RS, RL and RM zoning districts and amending development standards to facilitate maximum
14 CITY OF NEWARK - OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AUGUST 15, 2025 densities, such as eliminating minimum lot size requirements, reducing setbacks, and eliminating minimum unit size requirements. The program also calls for the establishment of a waiver system for cases where development standards may preclude the development of maximum allowable density.
H3.5: Parking standards update and study
Program commitments include provisions to encourage infill development and providing opportunities for alternatives to individual automobile use such as car sharing and bicycle parking.
Alignment with other Housing Element programs
The Housing Element of the General Plan calls for many additional updates to the zoning code.
Many of these changes can be made during the ODS project, though some may need additional study and will be addressed separately.
Alignment with the other areas of the General Plan
The other areas of the City’s 2013 General Plan include several themes, goals, and policies relevant to an Objective Design Standards project. These include fostering development that is more sustainable and promoting walkable, mixed-use, and transit-oriented communities.
State Housing Law
Several areas of State housing law have been established, expanded, or revised over the last several years with direct implications for design standards and design review processes. Key legislative changes are discussed below.
HAA Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5)
The HAA limits a local jurisdiction’s ability to deny or condition housing development projects that meet objective standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete. It prohibits denial based on inconsistencies with subjective policies (e.g., design guidelines) and requires written findings if a project is denied. It has been repeatedly strengthened to ensure cities cannot use vague or discretionary criteria to delay or reduce housing.
AB 2162 Supportive Housing Streamlined Approval
Requires supportive housing developments that meet specific criteria to be approved ministerially in zones that allow multifamily and mixed-use development. Projects must be reviewed against objective standards only and are exempt from CEQA and discretionary review.
EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT 15
SB 9 Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act Requires ministerial approval of up to two residential units on single-family parcels and allows urban lot splits that meet certain criteria. All standards applied must be objective and uniformly applicable to the underlying zone. Discretionary design review is not permitted.
SB 10
Provides cities with the option to rezone parcels for up to 10 residential units per lot in transitrich areas or urban infill sites without CEQA review. While SB 10 is voluntary, if a city adopts it, new zoning standards must be consistent with state housing goals and may incorporate objective design standards to guide implementation.
SB 35/423 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process
Requires cities that are behind on RHNA progress to provide ministerial, by-right approval for qualifying multifamily housing developments. Projects must comply with objective zoning, subdivision, and design review standards, and cannot be subject to subjective review or discretionary approval processes. Progress toward achieving RHNA requirements continues to result in these requirements applying in Newark.
SB 330 Housing Crisis Act
Prohibits the adoption of new subjective standards that would reduce housing development intensity, limit the number of units, or increase design discretion. Requires cities to provide a “replacement map” of objective standards for housing projects and prohibits downzoning and other actions that constrain development capacity.
SB 684/SB 1123 Small Sites Streamlining
Streamlines the subdivision of small sites (10 units or fewer) in urban areas for qualifying ownership housing projects. Eliminates environmental review (CEQA) and reduces procedural burdens and accelerates parcel map approvals. Local design standards must be objective and applied ministerially. SB 1123, effective July 1, 2025, extends the provisions of SB 684 to vacant parcels in single family zoning districts.
SB 6 Middle Class Housing Act
Allows housing development projects on sites zoned for office, retail, or parking if they meet prevailing wage and other labor requirements. Cities may choose to permit residential uses in
16 CITY OF NEWARK - OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AUGUST 15, 2025 such zones and regulate them using objective standards, however the act provides a pathway for housing on commercial sites and allows for residential projects meeting certain criteria to be permitted in cases where the city has not otherwise made residential a permitted use .
SB 450
Prohibits local agencies from applying non-uniform objective standards to SB 9 housing developments. Reinforces the requirement that standards must apply uniformly across the zoning district and cannot be tailored to discourage housing on a project-by-project basis.
AB 2011 Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act
Establishes a ministerial, CEQA-exempt approval process for qualifying multifamily housing developments on sites where office, retail, or parking are principally permitted uses. The law applies to two categories of projects: (1) 100% affordable housing developments and (2) mixed-income projects along designated commercial corridors. Eligible projects must comply with specific affordability, site, and labor requirements, including the payment of prevailing wages. Cities may only apply objective design and development standards to these projects, as discretionary review is prohibited. As such, AB 2011 underscores the importance of adopting clear, measurable, and legally defensible objective design standards to retain local influence over project form and site design.
Other Materials Consulted
Newpark Place Specific Plan
https://www.newarkca.gov/departments/community-development/specific-plans-masterplans/greater-newpark-master-plan/-fsiteid-1 Old Town Newark Specific Plan
https://www.newarkca.gov/departments/community-development/specific-plans-masterplans/old-town-newark-specific-plan Bayside Newark Specific Plan
https://www.newarkca.gov/departments/community-development/specific-plans-masterplans/dumbraton-transit-oriented-development
EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT 17
Examples of Objective Design Standards
City of San Mateo, Objective Design Standards for Multi-Family and Residential Mixed-Use Projects
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/4526/Objective-Design-Standards---Multi-Famil Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards
https://www.losgatosca.gov/2729/Objective-Design-Standards City of Pleasant Hill, Citywide Design Guidelines and Residential Objective Design Standards https://www.phillca.gov/138/Citywide-Design-Standards-Guidelines City of San Jose, Citywide Objective Design Standards
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/68485/637462218415900000 City of San Carlos, Single Family Objective Design Standards https://www.cityofsancarlos.org/city_hall/departments_and_divisions/community_development /planning/plans_and_standards/single-family_objective_design_standards.php City of San Carlos, Multifamily Objective Design Standards (in progress) https://www.cityofsancarlos.org/city_hall/departments_and_divisions/community_development /planning/plans_and_standards/mixed-use_and_multi-family_objective_design_standards.php City of Santa Barbara, Objective Design Standards
https://santabarbaraca.gov/services/construction-land-development/projectguidance/objective-design-standards City of San Anselmo, Objective Design and Development Standards https://www.townofsananselmo.org/1343/Objective-Design-and-Development-Standar 601 Allerton Street, Suite 110, Redwood City, CA 94063 | www.goodcityco.com 1
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY MEMO
City of Newark
April 22, 2026
Overview and Key Takeaways
This memo summarizes the key findings of Newark’s community engagement activities related to the development of the City’s Objective Design Standards (ODS). It also assesses the activities completed. These included a community open house, pop-up at the 2025 Newark Family Day in the Park, a “Builders Roundtable” focus group, project website, social media posts, and newsletter announcements. The activities also shared project information with many community members who were not familiar with ODS or related work to be completed per the City’s 2023- 2031 Housing Element. Draft ODS were made available for public review on March 27, 2026.
Public comments were requested to be submitted by April 17, 2026. The public draft was also advertised at the 2026 Newark Family Day in the Park. Broad themes and takeaways shared with the project team are summarized below.
1. Balance Design Quality with Flexibility and Feasibility o Builders and residents alike stressed the need to avoid overly rigid design mandates that stifle creativity or make affordable housing projects infeasible. o Cost-prohibitive elements identified by builders included balcony requirements, upper-level stepbacks, and overly specific material guidelines. o Street-facing commercial or active use requirements are desired, however, community members recognized they may not be financially viable or may conflict with infrastructure regulations.
o Common open space: Residents prefer sufficient common open space and resident amenities be provided.
2. Community Preference for Human-Scale, Attractive, and Functional Design o Public feedback emphasized: Tree-lined streets, articulated facades, balcony privacy, and thoughtful architectural features to avoid visual monotony. o Mixed-use design valued: Ground-floor commercial with housing above was seen as a benefit for families and daily convenience by residents and builders.
ATTACHMENT 7
601 Allerton Street, Suite 110, Redwood City, CA 94063 | www.goodcityco.com 2 o Interest in missing middle housing: The ability to add housing while "fitting in" with surrounding neighborhoods was valued by residents. o Desire to screen larger areas of parking from street.
3. Desire to Preserve Newark’s Identity and Character
o Small-town feel and local identity: Residents expressed a desire to protect Newark’s unique charm while accommodating growth.
o Old Town Newark as inspiration: Residents suggested using design features from this area as a model for future standards.
Community Engagement Goals
The purpose of the community engagement activities
related to this project was to provide inclusive,
transparent, and effective public participation in the
development of the City’s ODS. Engagement
activities were designed to build public trust,
incorporate diverse perspectives, and ensure the
standards reflect community preferences, while
complying with state mandates for housing
production and streamlining goals. The community
engagement goals of the project are to:
• Inform community members with accurate
information about the ODS project, including
state requirements
• Engage individually and in small groups with
community members to answer questions
and receive other input relevant to the project
• Solicit feedback regarding the relative
importance of design elements
The project also benefited from community engagement activities and insights generated through the recent Housing Element Update process. The engagement prioritized those activities where community members could interact directly with the project materials and the project team. This approach was taken to allow for direct conversations to clarify and identify community priorities.
Figure 1. Project Flyer
601 Allerton Street, Suite 110, Redwood City, CA 94063 | www.goodcityco.com 3 Stakeholder Identification
The City of Newark was incorporated in 1955 and is located 35 miles south of San Francisco in Alameda County. Newark has grown from its early days as a railroad, agricultural, and manufacturing city and today hosts many biotech and health sciences employers and is near to many other Bay Area job centers. The 1960s and 1970s saw high rates of population growth and real estate development, with a lower rate of population growth in the following decades. As of 2020 Newark Unified School District and Logitech are the two largest employers.
The 2020 Census indicated demographics generally consistent with Alameda County. Newark had an overall population of 47,529 that was 23% White, 3% African American, 1% Native American, 42% Asian, 18% from other races, and 12% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 30% of the population. Of the nearly 15,000 households, 39% included children under the age of 18 and 14% were households of one person. Twenty-one percent of residents were under the age of 18, 13% were sixty-five or older, and the remaining 66% between 18 and
65. The 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) estimated 43% of the population was foreign born.
The ACS also estimated 42% spoke English only at home. In addition to English, other languages spoken include 19% Spanish, 12% other Indo-European languages, and 26% Asian or Pacific Islander languages. Of those 25 or older, 90% were high school graduates and 47% had a bachelor’s degree. The median household income was $164,909 and about 4% of the population were below the poverty line.
Engagement efforts were intended to target a range of community members, including:
• A broad cross-section of residents and property owners • Neighborhood associations and homeowner groups
• Local architects and urban designers
• Affordable and market rate housing developers
• Youth and families with children
• Limited-English-speaking community members
City staff provided an initial list of known stakeholders. The project team added additional contacts and organized contacts in a stakeholder matrix to facilitate targeted outreach and follow-up.
601 Allerton Street, Suite 110, Redwood City, CA 94063 | www.goodcityco.com 4 Engagement Activities and Timeline
oRefine outreach plan
oDevelop initial outreach materials
oLaunch project webpage
oAnnounce project in City newsletter
oReview results from community outreach efforts for related projects in nearby cities.
oDevelop the initial stakeholder list
Project Initiation: Months 1-2
oHold a community open house
oFacilitate a stakeholder meeting with architects, property owners, and developers
oDistribute flyers
oOrganize community pop up event (added in response to community feedback) oEngage with the Design Review Committee (DRC) to receive feedback from multiple City departments
Listening and Education: Months 2-7
oIncorporate insights gained through public feedback into standards oPublish draft standards and solicit feedback
oPresent and receive feedback at a Planning Commission public meeting oRevise draft standards based on feedback received
Drafting and Feedback: Months 6-12
oRevise draft standards based on feedback received
oPresent revised draft to City Council for consideration at a public hearing Refinement and Adoption: Months 12-15
oDevelop public education materials
oTrain staff on implementation of standards
oCodification in Zoning Ordinance
oPublic announcements of new standards and processes
Implementation: Months 15 and beyond
601 Allerton Street, Suite 110, Redwood City, CA 94063 | www.goodcityco.com 5 Specific Activities Conducted
Open House
A community open house on the ODS project was
held on Wednesday, February 26, 2025, from 5:30 to
7:30 PM at the Newark Library. It was held in a visible location intended to attract community members
who may pass by, in addition to those who received
notice of the event. Most community members in
attendance joined the event while on a visit to the
library. The open house was advertised via email,
social media, and physical flyers. A sign was placed at the library doors to attract library patrons and other
pedestrians in the civic center plaza. Approximately
eight homeowners, renters, and visitors engaged in
conversations across five stations and members of
the public completed interactive exercises and left
specific comments at each station. Project
consultants from Good City Company provided a
brief overview presentation at the beginning of the
open house that introduced the topic of ODS,
described the project goals and timeline, and invited attendees to engage in the station exercises. Snacks and water were also provided. The project team deemed attendance to be below desired levels and explored options for further engagement. A pop-up event was subsequently added to the engagement plan.
Pop Up at Newark Family Day in the Park
On April 12, 2025, at Newark Family Day in the Park,
approximately 35-50 community members visited the
Community Development table to share their
thoughts on the City’s efforts to develop objective
design standards. This event was added to the
community engagement plan to expand the reach of
events, inform more members of the community, and
receive additional input from community members
regarding the ODS Project. The event sparked strong
engagement, with many attendees stopping by to
Figure 2. Open House Boards
Figure 3. Newark Family Day in the Park
Children’s Activity
601 Allerton Street, Suite 110, Redwood City, CA 94063 | www.goodcityco.com 6 participate in the interactive activities. Through these conversations with Planning staff and project team
members from Good City Company, community
members shared their input and gained a clearer
understanding of what objective design standards
are. As a result, more residents left the event more
informed about the initiative.
Two interactive project boards and a children’s
activity helped to educate members of the
community and collect feedback. Consistent with
best practices, the engagement activity was designed
with a particular focus on families with children, a
group that often more closely reflects many
segments of the broader community than those who
typically participate in other community open houses,
surveys, or public meetings. Several attendees
engaged in longer discussions with staff to provide
their insights and perspectives.
Staff also conducted outreach to the community at the 2026 Newark Family Day in the Park, where staff provided project updates and advertised the availability of the draft standards for public review and feedback.
“Builders Roundtable” Stakeholder Meeting
A “Builders Roundtable,” a meeting of stakeholders with recent experience in design and development in the City of Newark, was held on January 22, 2025, via teleconference.
Participants discussed experience with the current development requirements, guidelines, and processes, knowledge of the requirements of other jurisdictions, and recommendations for the future. Twelve external stakeholders were joined by one City of Newark planning staff member, and three project team members from Good City Company. Of the external participants, seven were developers, five were architects or designers, and all had experience working in Newark or nearby jurisdictions.
Figure 4. Project Webpage
601 Allerton Street, Suite 110, Redwood City, CA 94063 | www.goodcityco.com 7 Project Communications
Information about the project and events were communicated in advance through the following main channels:
1. The ODS project webpage of the City’s website presented overall project information, updates on the process, and indicated ways to get involved.
2. Public events were designed to raise awareness and engage a broad range of the community. These included an open house held at the Newark Library and tabling at Newark Family Day in the Park.
3. The City’s newsletter was identified by staff as one of the most effective ways of reaching residents and other interested community members. Project and event announcements were included in multiple newsletters throughout the project.
4. Emails were also sent utilizing the Housing Element interested parties list and additional contacts identified by Newark and Good City staff.
5. Flyers were available at City Hall and other areas of Newark.
Summary and Analysis of Feedback Received
Approximately 50-75 members of the community and other stakeholders provided input into the project prior to production of the first draft set of the Objective Design Standards.
Community Design Priorities (Public Events)
Community members at the public events identified certain design features as most benefiting residents and neighbors.
Of the design elements provided, most participants expressed support for key elements such as tree-lined streets and thoughtfully designed multi-unit housing through ornamentation, massing breaks, or colors to break up the bulk of the building. Adequate parking supply and separating parking access and pedestrians were also noted by several attendees as important considerations.
Specific building design elements that were prioritized by community members included:
balcony privacy, facade articulation (protrusions such as balconies and shades adding architectural interest), and ground floor glazing (minimum window areas for mixed-used developments).
601 Allerton Street, Suite 110, Redwood City, CA 94063 | www.goodcityco.com 8 There was also significant interest in missing middle housing that visually “fit in” with lower density neighborhoods as well as interest in mixed-use projects that have active ground floor businesses and housing on the floors above to minimize time spent driving and as a benefit to families.
Other participants noted the high level of opportunity for residents in Newark and expressed the desire not to make the standards overly constraining and to allow property owners a fair amount of latitude.
Another key theme that was identified from the event was the desire to maintain Newark’s small-town feel. While participants acknowledged the need for growth and change, several people emphasized the importance of preserving the city’s unique identity and sense of community. As a potential solution, community members highlighted the charm and character of Old Town Newark, recommending that its design features be used as inspiration for the City’s objective design standards. Although perspectives on specific design elements varied, the conversations reflected a shared interest in ensuring that future standards align with the needs of Newark’s diverse and growing community while preserving the city’s core identity.
Figure 5. Newark Family Day in the Park - Interactive Board Results 601 Allerton Street, Suite 110, Redwood City, CA 94063 | www.goodcityco.com 9 Feedback on Current Design Standards and Guidelines (“Builders Roundtable”) The “Builders Roundtable” provided significant input on the strengths of the existing Design Standards and Guidelines and areas for improvement. There was general agreement among the group that existing design standards and guidelines are an improvement from those of the past, and work well, however areas for improvement remain. Participants also acknowledged there can be competing policy objectives between those of land use and planning and those of public works, fire, and utilities. For example, having extensive active use requirements on street-facing facades can be very difficult given the requirements of PG&E, Fire, Public Works, etc. Participants encouraged the project team to balance what is desirable against what is practical. • Some participants felt there is currently too much emphasis on design features such as architecture types, types of roof materials, and colors. • One participant mentioned a specific issue from the past where there had been a preference for front doors to have glass in them, while homeowners preferred front doors without glass for safety and privacy reasons.
• Another participant shared that highly specific development standards can overly limit development. An example was given where a zone had a maximum building height standard of one hundred feet, but maximum density and floor area ratio (FAR) standards effectively restricted buildings to a much shorter height.
Recommendations Regarding New Objective Design Standards (“Builders Roundtable”) The “Builders Roundtable” revealed a general concern that future objective design standards could be too prescriptive and not allow for flexibility and creativity. Some participants warned against overly strict objective design standards that result in projects and neighborhoods all looking the same. Although they understand the utility of objective design standards that discourage poor design, they appreciate standards that give designers flexibility rather than forcing designs to fit in a box.
• One participant expressed an interest in objective design standards tailored to particular districts or areas of the city rather than all standards applying to the whole city. • One participant encouraged having standards for the different areas between the curb and front façade (e.g., frontage, pedestrian clear zone, and landscape/street furnishing zone).
• One participant recommended that design guidelines and standards have a clear introductory statement of community expectations.
• Some participants warned of creating standards that are cost prohibitive for some types of housing. For example, balcony requirements can make affordable housing projects 601 Allerton Street, Suite 110, Redwood City, CA 94063 | www.goodcityco.com 10 too expensive to be feasible and upper level stepbacks can be cost prohibitive to a wide range of projects.
• Some participants noted the difficulty of meeting objective standards that required particularly durable or quality materials. A participant pointed out that creatively using inexpensive materials, such as stucco and cement board, can still yield superior design. • One participant noted that requirements intended to foster commercial uses on the ground floor are desirable but can make the overall project infeasible. • Other participants noted that there is a lot of community resistance to a building type that is not traditional single-family. However, the participants noted that there are ways to design missing middle/multifamily housing to match the architectural style and massing of single-family houses and make them fit in. The use of form-based standards that minimize the importance of some other development standards, such as density maximums, can be helpful in facilitating this type of development. • Finally, a participant suggested that transitions between distinct types of materials and colors happen at inside corners, not outside corners to prevent visually abrupt transitions (inside corners means areas where two walls join at less than a 180-degree angle).
Other Feedback Received
AC Transit suggested design for bus stop area improvements be considered as part of the ODS (Attachment 1). Where a proposed development is adjacent to a bus route/bus stop AC Transit suggested standards could include accessibility improvements, sidewalk improvements, ADAcompliance improvements, relocating a bus stop from near-side of an intersection to the farside to improve pedestrian visibility and bus operations, tree proximity to bus stops, and passenger comfort improvements (e.g., adding a transit shelter and/or bench).
Both builders and other community members, including property owners, emphasized the importance of having straightforward review and approval processes. They wanted to ensure that the submittal, review, and approval processes were as streamlined and clear to understand as possible. They were also interested to learn what types of educational and informational materials the City might share following adoption of the objective design standards.
Public Review Draft and Planning Commission Study Session The draft ODS were made available for public review online on Friday, March 27, 2026. Public comments were requested to be submitted by April 17, 2026. Two comment letters were received (Attachments 2 and 3). Feedback from the public review comments included the following:
601 Allerton Street, Suite 110, Redwood City, CA 94063 | www.goodcityco.com 11 • Suggestions on specific areas where the draft language could be improved for clarity. • Additional options to consider for providing required articulation or satisfying requirements for materials.
• Areas where the standards could be further softened or simplified. • Specific exceptions to consider for particular building types.
A study session was held at the Planning Commission meeting of April 14, 2026. Staff provided an overview of the project background, reasons for developing ODS, and an overview of the draft standards to the Commissioners. The Planning Commission provided feedback on the following:
• Requested clarification on the likelihood of the updates to Title 17 (Zoning Code) to result in 100% residential projects within commercial areas. • Expressed interest in how the standards would address larger residential projects located adjacent to single-unit neighborhoods.
• Emphasized importance of the standards providing discretion and flexibility where possible for situations where deviations from the standards may lead to a better outcome for the project.
• Some commissioners also expressed support for the draft standards, particularly regarding articulation standards.
Measuring Success and Lessons Learned
It can be challenging to engage community members on a topic such as ODS that may at first seem relatively abstract. Adjusting the plan of engagement activities to maximize community participation can be helpful and was effective during this project.
The project webpage served as an effective
repository of project information and provided
information on ways community members could get
involved. It served as an effective foundation to build other outreach efforts on. Newsletter announcements
are considered by City staff to be an effective
mechanism to reach community members. While
social media was used to reach some community
members, the ODS project team suggests this avenue
be explored more extensively for future initiatives. Figure 6. Newark Family Day in the Park 601 Allerton Street, Suite 110, Redwood City, CA 94063 | www.goodcityco.com 12 The community open house saw significantly lower participation than anticipated. Despite announcements made via City newsletters, social media, and physical flyers and locating the event at the Civic Center with a goal of attracting those passing by with signage, only eight individuals attended. While attendance was low, the level of engagement and quality of feedback received from those who did attend was high. A lesson learned was the importance of going out into the community where people already were going to be and sharpening communications to show how the ODS project might impact community members or the broader community.
Following the low level of participation at the open house, the project team identified establishing a booth at the Newark Family Day event as a potential additional activity. The approach of “meeting people where they are at” saw a much higher level of participation than the open house. Relative to comparable community engagement activities in the Bay Area, the Newark Family Day in the Park activity saw a strong level of attendance. The makeup of participants was aligned with the goals and expectations established prior to conducting the events and the level of engagement and quality of feedback received was also high.
The “Builders Roundtable” also saw strong attendance and a high level of engagement among participants, all of whom actively contributed throughout the meeting. Some followed up afterward to clarify or expand upon a point made during the meeting. All modes of engagement provided helpful insight into community priorities and goals and helped shape the development of the draft standards throughout the project.
Additional community education activities are also under development. These may include educational materials to inform community members of the new ODS and associated processes, or publicizing “open office hours” or an open meeting where all would be welcome to attend and ask questions.
Attachments
1. AC Transit Comments on Objective Design Standards
2. Draft ODS Public Review Comments: Josie Morgan, David Baker Architects
3. Draft ODS Public Review Comments: Building Industry of the Bay Area (BIA) From: Crystal Wang
To: Carmelisa Lopez
Cc: Diann Castleberry; Robert Del Rosario
Subject: AC Transit Comments to City of Newark on the Objective Design Standards Date: Thursday, February 27, 2025 5:39:44 PM
ALERT: This email originated from outside of the City. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report to City of Newark IT Help Desk if found suspicious.
Hi Carmelisa,
Hope all is well! Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the City of Newark’s Objective Design Standards (ODS) for residential and mixed-use projects.
AC Transit would like to see that bus stop areas are considered as part of proposed developments. If the proposed development is adjacent to a bus route/bus stop, we hope that the developers can consider including improvements to the bus stop area as part of the development project. This could include:
Accessibility improvements - see examples:
a.
Sidewalk improvements or filling in planter strips so the bus stop area is fully paved.
ADA-compliance requires an 8' (perpendicular to the curb) x 5' (along the curb) paved area at the bus stop to allow for safe, accessible boarding/alighting.
Safety/operational improvements – see examples:
a.
Relocating a bus stop from near-side of an intersection to the far-side to improve pedestrian visibility and bus operations. This would involve coordination with AC Transit, and coordination with the City to get No Parking signage in place. b.Another important consideration for bus stop operations is the placement of trees near bus stops. Trees can sometimes obstruct the view of the bus stop or require regular tree trimming. AC Transit staff is happy to help review plans for this. ·Passenger comfort improvements (e.g., adding a transit shelter and/or bench) These types of improvements do not only benefit existing transit riders throughout the city, but also make transit a more attractive travel option for any residents/visitors of new mixed-use and multifamily developments. AC Transit staff is happy to review any proposed development plans and coordinate with City staff or developers on potential improvements that would be most appropriate for any given bus stop area.
Thanks!
Crystal Wang
Transportation Planner
AC Transit
510-332-6221
City of Newark
Objective Design Standards – DRAFT
New ODS Chapter (Proposed)
March 27, 2026 (Draft)
CHAPTER 17.28: Residential and Residential Mixed-Use Design Standards
17.28.010: Purpose
Purpose. The purposes of this chapter are to facilitate the production of quality housing for all members of the community and foster pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use areas as indicated in the City’s general plan, applicable sections of the Zoning Code, and applicable specific or area plans. The objective design standards included in this chapter are intended to serve as part of a predictable, objective, and streamlined entitlement process for applicable new housing development. These standards define a set of clear and measurable design review criteria, which are available to applicants and reviewers in advance of submitting a development application. These standards complement the standards specified in the City’s Zoning Code (Newark Municipal Code Division 17) and further the goals, policies, and actions of the City’s General Plan, including those in the Housing Element related to housing production, zoning reform, streamlining design review, and expediting permit approval.
Additional purposes of this chapter are as follows:
A. Establish or clarify objective design standards for residential and residential mixed-use developments consistent with recognized architectural and urban design best practices for building and site design; B. Preserve and enhance the character of the city's different neighborhoods and the quality of life of city residents;
C. Ensure adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling; and D. Ensure that the scale and design of new development and alterations to existing structures are appropriate to the physical characteristics of the site and the area where the project is proposed.
17.28.020: Applicability
A. This chapter prescribes design standards for projects subject to objective design standards. These standards shall be used in conjunction with all other applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance as described in Table
17.28.020.
B. Projects subject to the design standards of this chapter:
1. Residential development (as defined in Chapter 17.46) in any residential district and residential developments subject to design review in any other district.
DRAFT
2 CITY OF NEWARK - OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS - DRAFT MARCH 27, 2026
2. Residential mixed-use developments (as defined in Chapter 17.46) in any residential district and residential mixed-use developments subject to design review in any other district. This chapter shall be applied as follows:
i. If two-thirds or more of the floor area of an individual mixed-use building is dedicated to residential uses, the entire building shall be subject to the Residential and Residential MixedUse Design Standards. ii. If less than two-thirds of the floor area of an individual mixed-use building is dedicated to residential uses, the Residential and Residential Mixed-Use Design Standards shall only apply to the residential component. The non-residential component shall follow the applicable design standards for the underlying zoning district.
iii. If multiple buildings are proposed for a development, each building will be evaluated individually according to the criteria set in (i) and (ii) above.
3. Pursuant to State Law, regardless of the zoning district, the City will apply the design standards in this chapter to state-enacted ministerial projects, such as but not limited to streamlined “SB 35” ministerial approval under Government Code Section 65913.4; “SB 9” ministerial approval under Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7; and the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act “AB 2011” streamlining under Government Code Section 65912.100.
4. Additions and exterior modifications to existing residential and residential-mixed use developments. The new portion of any additions and exterior modifications to existing residential and residential mixed-use developments shall be subject to the design standards of this chapter. i. Exceptions. Ground floor additions that do not face a public street and comprise less than fifty percent of the proposed total floor area may be exempt from specific design standards of this chapter subject to approval by the Community Development Director.
C. Design standards based on the number of residential units:
1. Single- to four-unit design standards shall apply to residential and residential mixed-use developments (pursuant to 17.28.020 (A)) with one to four units on a single parcel, regardless of how multi-unit development is defined in Chapter 17.45 - Use Classifications.
2. Five or more-unit design standards shall apply to residential and residential mixed-use developments (pursuant to 17.28.020 (A)) with five or more units on a single parcel or five or more attached units on any number of parcels.
3. When design standards applicable to residential and residential mixed-use developments are not delineated as applying to only single- to four-unit developments or five or more units, those standards shall apply to all residential and residential mixed-use developments (in accordance with the
17.28.020(A)) regardless of the number of units.
D. Exceptions and Waivers:
1. Exceptions. Minor exceptions to eligible objective design standards contained and as prescribed in Chapter 17.28 may be approved ministerially by the Community Development Director.
DRAFT
DRAFT – NEW ODS CHAPTER (PROPOSED) 3
2. Waivers. Projects requesting a waiver of eligible objective design standards contained and as prescribed in Chapter 17.28 shall follow the waiver procedures prescribed in Chapter 17.37.
E. Table 17.28.020 Applicability of Standards prescribes when the design standards contained in this chapter are used in addition to or prevail over standards defined in Base Zoning District Standards (Chapters 17.07–17.11), Planned Development Standards (Chapter 17.12), and Overlay Zoning District Standards (Chapters 17.13–
17.15), General Site Regulations Standards (Chapter 17.17), Landscaping Standards (Chapter 17.21), and Parking Area Design and Development Standards (Section 17.23.090). The table also prescribes when any objective design standard included in this chapter prevails over the standards in an adopted specific plan.
Table 17.28.020: Applicability of Standards
Regulation Source Applicability
Base Zoning District
Standards (Ch. 17.07–17.11)
The standards in this chapter prevail over base zoning district standards when base zoning district standards applicable to residential or residential mixed-use development are subjective, silent, or in conflict with the standards in this chapter.
Planned Development
Standards (Ch. 17.12)
The standards in this chapter prevail over planned development standards applicable to residential or residential mixed-use development when planned development standards are subjective or silent.
Overlay Zoning District
Standards (Ch. 17.13–17.15)
The standards in this chapter prevail over overlay zoning district standards when overlay zoning district standards applicable to residential or residential mixed-use development are subjective or silent.
General Site Regulations
Standards (Ch. 17.17)
The standards in this chapter shall be required in addition to the standards in Chapter 17.17 except that a standard in Section 17.28.080 of this chapter shall prevail over a standard in Chapter 17.17 that is in conflict, is subjective, or silent.
Landscaping Standards (Ch.
17.21)
The standards in this chapter shall be required in addition to the standards of Chapter 17.21. Where there is a conflict between a standard of Chapter 17.28 and Chapter 17.21, the standard provided in Chapter 17.28 shall prevail.
Parking Area Design and
Development Standards
(Sec. 17.23.090)
The standards in this chapter shall be required in addition to the standards of Section 17.23.090.
Accessory Dwelling Units
Standards (Sec. 17.26.040)
The standards in this chapter shall be required as prescribed in Chapter
17.26.040.
Specific Plan Design
Standards
The standards in this chapter prevail over specific plan design standards when specific plan design standards are subjective or silent.
DRAFT
4 CITY OF NEWARK - OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS - DRAFT MARCH 27, 2026
17.28.030: Building Massing and Articulation Standards
A. Single- to Four-Unit Development.
1. Massing and Articulation. For all new development and additions above the ground floor, the following standards apply:
a. Primary Articulation. Street-facing building facades shall include at least one of the following treatments for every horizontal length of wall of at least thirty feet:
i. Change in building material for at least thirty percent of the surface area of that facade. ii. Change in wall plane depth of at least eighteen inches for at least thirty percent of the surface area of that façade.
iii. Incorporation of bays, decks, balconies, or similar protrusions with a minimum projection from the wall plane of one foot and comprising at least ten percent of the total wall plane of the base and upper floor(s). With respect to such protrusions, the street side setback and size limitations provided in Chapter 17.17 shall not apply.
FIGURE 17.28.030(A)(1): PRIMARY ARTICULATION – SINGLE- TO FOUR-UNITS b. Secondary Articulation. No street-facing building facade shall have a continuous length of wall plane of more than twenty feet without at least one of the following treatments per every twenty feet of wall plane:
i. Window.
ii. Entry door.
iii. Change in materials.
DRAFT
DRAFT – NEW ODS CHAPTER (PROPOSED) 5
iv. Change in wall plane of at least twelve inches.
v. Decorative shutters.
vi. Trellis.
2. Roof design. For all new development, the following standards shall apply:
a. Roof projections into setbacks as prescribed in Section 17.17.090 are permitted. b. Include at least one architectural feature, such as but not limited to, a cornice, parapet, fascia, or projection with a minimum height of six inches.
c. Articulate the roof along any street facing façade using at least one of the following techniques for every forty linear feet of street-facing roof:
i. Change in the topmost roof elevation of at least twelve inches. ii. Change in the angle of the roof slope of at least fifteen degrees. iii. Change in the eave depth of at least twelve inches. iv. Provide a roof dormer or gable with a minimum width equal to at least fifteen percent of the linear length of the roof line.
FIGURE 17.28.030(A)(2)-A: ROOF DESIGN – SINGLE- TO FOUR-UNITS DRAFT
6 CITY OF NEWARK - OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS - DRAFT MARCH 27, 2026 FIGURE 17.28.030(A)(2)-B: ROOF DESIGN (SHOWING MULTIPLE DORMERS) – SINGLE- TO FOUR-UNITS B. Five or More Unit Development.
1. Projections. Projections into required setbacks for balconies and other features as prescribed in 17.17.090 are permitted.
2. Massing and Articulation. Building articulation is required for facades facing any public street or public park through the use of either vertical building variation (a) or horizontal building variation (b) as described below:
a. Vertical building variation. The façade shall be designed with a base, upper floors, and top and shall include the following (i-iii):
i. The base and the upper floor(s) shall each have a minimum height of one story. ii. The base and the upper floor(s) shall be differentiated through the use of at least two of the following approaches (1-3):
1. Change in building material for at least thirty percent of the surface area of the base or upper floors.
2. Change in wall plane depth of at least eighteen inches for at least thirty percent of the surface area of that façade.
3. Projections and recesses. Incorporation of bays, decks, balconies, landings, permanent shading structures, or planter boxes, with a minimum projection or recess from the wall DRAFT
DRAFT – NEW ODS CHAPTER (PROPOSED) 7
plane of eighteen inches Incorporated projecting elements shall combine to comprise at least ten percent of the of the surface area of that façade. a. Juliet balconies and other ornamentation (columns, banding, fins, molding, artistic inlays or reliefs, sculptures, etc.) with a minimum projection from the wall plane of eight inches may satisfy up to fifty percent of the projection or recess requirement. iii. The top shall include an architectural feature, such as but not limited to a cornice, parapet, fascia, or projection with a minimum height of eighteen inches along the entire length of the street-facing façade. Alternatively, where two architectural features are proposed to distinguish the roof from the upper floors (e.g., an upper-level and mid-level cornice), the combined height of the two features shall be a minimum of eighteen inches.
FIGURE 17.28.030(B)(2)(a): VERTICAL BUILDING VATIATION – FIVE OF MORE UNIT DEVELOPMENT b. Horizontal building variation. Provide one of the following (i-iii). These features may be grouped rather than evenly spaced modules, however, there can be no length of the building to exceed seventy-five feet without at least one of the required treatments. i. Change in building material for at least thirty percent of the surface area of the façade.
DRAFT
8 CITY OF NEWARK - OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS - DRAFT MARCH 27, 2026 ii. Change in wall plane depth of at least eighteen inches for at least thirty percent of the surface area of the façade.
iii. Projections and Recesses. Incorporation of bays, decks, balconies, landings, permanent shading structures, or planter boxes with a minimum projection or recess from the wall plane of eighteen inches. Incorporated projecting elements shall combine to comprise at least ten percent of the surface area of that façade.
1. Juliet balconies and other ornamentation (columns, banding, fins, molding, artistic inlays or reliefs, sculptures, etc.) with a minimum projection from the wall plane of eight inches may satisfy up to fifty percent of the projection or recess requirement.
FIGURE 17.28.030(B)(2)(B): HORIZONTAL BUILDING VARIATION – FIVE OR MORE UNIT DEVELOPMENT
3. Roof design. The roof design must include all of the following:
a. Roof projections into setbacks as prescribed in Section 17.17.090 are permitted. b. Roof articulation utilizing at least one of the following techniques for every seventy-five linear feet of street-facing roof line. For buildings with a roof line exceeding 150 feet, required roof articulation only needs to be provided twice.:
DRAFT
DRAFT – NEW ODS CHAPTER (PROPOSED) 9
i. Change in the topmost roof elevation or parapet elevation of at least eighteen inches within a length of seventy-five linear feet of roof line.
ii. Change in the angle of the roof slope of at least fifteen degrees. iii. Change in the eave depth of at least eighteen inches. iv. Provide roof dormers or gables with a collective minimum width equal to at least fifteen percent of the linear length of the roof line.
FIGURE17.28.030(B)(3)(B): ROOF DESIGN – FIVE OF MORE UNIT DEVELOPMENT DRAFT
10 CITY OF NEWARK - OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS - DRAFT MARCH 27, 2026
17.28.040: Building Element Standards
A. All Residential Development.
1. Building Entrances.
a. Projection or Recess.
i Building entrances must have a roofed projection (such as a porch), or recess, or combination thereof, with a minimum depth of at least three feet and a minimum horizontal area of fifteen square feet. This requirement shall apply to a single entrance for those buildings with more than one building entrance.
ii Roofed projections into setbacks as prescribed in Section 17.17.090 are permitted. b. Dwelling Unit Access. Exterior entrances to units may be in the form of individual or shared entrances.
c. Entrance Orientation. Building entrances shall utilize one of the following approaches:
i The entrance of at least one unit or one shared entrance for multiple units shall be oriented to face the public right-of-way, or
ii An entry feature within five feet of the front setback line indicating where the building entrance may be accessed from the street via a walkway shall be provided. Entry features may be attached to or detached from the building and shall include a trellis, covered walkway, archway, or decorative posts of at least eight inches wide by eight inches deep by three feet tall. Detached entry features located within the front yard shall have a maximum height and width of eight feet and a maximum depth of five feet per the requirements of 17.17.040. d. Entrance Height.
i Structures with a single floor. Entrance structures must comply with all height limits and are further limited to one-and-one-half times the height of the adjoining primary structure. ii Structures with two or more floors. Entrance structures must comply with all height limits and are further limited to two times the floor height of the floor that entrance structure provides access to.
2. Window and Balcony Placement and Design.
a. Windows. Windows facing an adjoining RS or RL district: where the face of the window is within five feet of the property line and the sill is eight or more feet above grade, no portion of windows or transparent doors may overlap any existing windows or transparent doors serving floor area within five feet of the property line on an adjacent property. i. Alternatively, windows and doors may be etched, frosted, or in a clerestory configuration so that views into and from the window are obscured. Windows with clear glass are permitted if they are located five or more feet above any adjacent occupied floor space or face greater than fortyfive degrees from parallel to the property line.
DRAFT
DRAFT – NEW ODS CHAPTER (PROPOSED) 11
FIGURE 17.28.040(A)(2)(a)-A: Window and Balcony Placement and Design FIGURE 17.28.040(A)(2)(a)-B: Window and Balcony Placement and Design DRAFT
12 CITY OF NEWARK - OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS - DRAFT MARCH 27, 2026 b. Balconies. For property lines adjacent to RS and RL districts, balconies or decks may not be located within ten feet of the property line and shall be required to have a railing of not less than forty-two inches high that is at least fifty percent opaque.
c. Window Trim. All edges of all windows facing a public street must have trim or sills of at least onehalf inch in depth or be recessed at least two inches from the plane of the surrounding exterior wall.
FIGURE 17.28.040(A)(2)(c): Window Trim or Recess
3. Garages and Parking Structures.
a. All Residential Development:
i Garage façade materials, exclusive of the garage doors, shall be the same primary materials of the main building façade.
ii Garage lighting shall not be directed or glare onto adjacent properties. Bare light bulbs and LEDs shall be shielded from view from any adjacent public right of way, public park, or adjacent residential district.
iii Combined garage width for any street-facing building elevation shall not exceed the lesser of fifty percent of the linear street-facing elevation or fifty feet. For lots less than fifty feet in width, the combined garage width shall not exceed sixty percent of the linear street facing elevation. iv Where permitted, roof-top parking shall be screened. Screening shall be a minimum of three feet in height and shall be constructed from the same building materials and color palette as the residential building.
v A maximum of two curb cuts for vehicle access shall be provided per street facing elevation, except where additional access points are required for fire department access. vi An external pedestrian door or gate shall be provided for each parking structure serving five or more vehicles.
vii Any portion of a building used for parking five or more vehicles along a street-facing façade shall be screened from view or enclosed within the building in accordance with Section 17.23.090 (M). b. Single- to Four-Unit Development:
DRAFT
DRAFT – NEW ODS CHAPTER (PROPOSED) 13
i For projects that provide dedicated garages for each unit, any street-facing garage door shall be recessed a minimum of eighteen inches behind the building façade closest to the street-facing property line.
c. Waivers. In accordance with the waiver procedures prescribed in Chapter 17.37, the Zoning Administrator may review and approve any plan for garages or parking structures that deviates from the above garage and parking structures standards.
FIGURE 17.28.ABC: ATTACHED GARAGES
FIGURE 17.28.ABC: GARAGE FRONTAGE
DRAFT
14 CITY OF NEWARK - OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS - DRAFT MARCH 27, 2026
17.28.050: Materials and Colors
A. All Residential Development.
1. Exterior Materials and Colors.
a. Materials.
i. Roofs. Cool roof membranes are only permitted on flat roofs (not exceeding a slope of ten degrees).
a. Where cool roof membranes are used at or above twenty-five feet, such areas are to be located behind a raised roof parapet with a minimum height of eighteen inches.
ii. Prohibited Materials. The following materials shall be prohibited for all building exteriors:
a. T1-11 siding, except T1-11 siding is allowed on the façade of additions to one- to four-unit developments when such siding is already used on the same façade.
b. Foam trim and siding, except for use of durable foam coating for building and window trims with smooth stucco finish above the ground level c. Mirrored glass or glazing with a reflective index above twenty percent above the ground level.
b.Colors.
i. Building colors, excluding trim and accent colors, shall have a minimum light reflective value (LRV) of ten percent.
ii. Fluorescent, iridescent, or metallic paints are prohibited as primary building colors but may be used on trim, windows, doors, building lettering and numbering, and light fixtures.
iii. For all exteriors, metal seam or other metal materials shall be anodized, fluoropolymer-coated, or painted. Copper or zinc on building exteriors shall be natural or pre-oxidized.
B. Five or More Unit Development.
1. Exterior Materials and Colors.
a. The use of stucco shall be limited to a maximum of ninety percent of the non-glazed wall plane (the total wall plane less the total surface area of any windows and doors) of any street or public park facing façade.
b. Every building shall have a palette of at least two colors, inclusive of exterior walls and finishes. Roof and glazing material or color are excluded and do not count towards this requirement. For public street and public park facing facades, the primary exterior wall color shall not be used for more than eighty percent of the non-glazed wall plane (the total wall plane less the total surface area of any windows and doors).
DRAFT
DRAFT – NEW ODS CHAPTER (PROPOSED) 15
C. Exceptions.
1. Existing Materials. For additions and modifications that do not replace the existing materials along a street frontage, the addition or modification may utilize the same materials and colors of the existing structure regardless of whether those materials conform to the requirements of this section.
2. Artwork. Where murals or other public art consistent with the Chapter 12.36 Public Art in Public Places and Private Development are included on the building facade, the included public art is exempted from any conflicting requirements of this section.
3. Waivers. In accordance with the waiver procedures prescribed in Chapter 17.37, the Zoning Administrator may review and approve any plan that deviates from the above exterior materials and colors standards.
17.28.060: Site Design Standards
A. All Residential Development.
1. Paving.
a. The maximum amount of impervious paving in street-facing yards is fifty percent of the required yard.
2. Pedestrian Access.
a. An on-site walkway shall connect the primary entrance to a public sidewalk on each street frontage. Such walkway shall be the shortest practical distance between the main entry and sidewalk, no more than one hundred twenty-five percent of the straight line distance. b. A separate walkway shall be provided for pedestrian access. Driveways shall not satisfy this requirement.
c. Differentiated paving materials shall be used for driveway aprons, entries, and pedestrian walkways. This may include, but is not limited to, textures or colors, concrete pavers, brick, or stamped concrete.
d. Walkways shall be a minimum of three feet wide, unless required to be wider by the Building Code or some other objective standard required for safety and accessibility, and shall be paved with concrete, stone, tile, brick, or comparable material.
3. Parking and Driveways. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 17.23, the following shall apply. a. A minimum two-foot-wide buffer of pervious or landscaped surface shall be provided between any driveway and a side property line, except in cases where a shared driveway agreement has been established.
b. When more than one entrance/exit driveway is allowed, the number of such entrances is limited to a maximum of two per two hundred feet of street frontage. c. Single-purpose driveways shall not be created for rolling out solid waste bins or to access utility rooms. These facilities shall be accessed through internal driveway aisles or shared with the main driveway.
4. Mechanical and Electrical Equipment and Trash and Recycling Collection Areas DRAFT
16 CITY OF NEWARK - OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS - DRAFT MARCH 27, 2026 a. Location. No Mechanical and Electrical Equipment and Trash and Recycling Collection Areas shall be located within a front yard or street facing side yard. Where utility connections or equipment must be located in street facing yards, equipment shall be screened from public rights-of-way or public parks per the screening requirements of this subsection. b. Screening. All Mechanical and Electrical Equipment and Trash and Recycling Collection Areas shall be screened or incorporated into the design of buildings so as not to be visible from public rights-of-way or adjacent residential districts.
i. Screening color shall match other paint, finishes or trim colors of the building and colors and material of screening shall be consistent with all requirements of Section 17.28.050. ii. Equipment and areas to be screened include, but are not limited to, waste and recycling container storage, all roof-mounted equipment, air conditioners, heaters, utility meters, cable equipment, telephone entry boxes, backflow preventions, irrigation control valves, electrical transformers, pull boxes, and all ducting for air conditioning, heating, and blower systems.
iii. Exceptions may be granted for utilities where such screening is prohibited by the utility provider.
b. Enclosure of Trash and Recycling Collection Areas. A covered and enclosed area shall be provided for waste and recycling container storage areas.
5. Landscaping. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 17.21, the following shall apply. a. Visibility. Landscaping shall meet visibility requirements at street intersections and driveways pursuant to Chapter 10.36, Visibility Requirements, of the Newark Municipal Code. b. Interior Property Lines Abutting RS and RL Districts. For developments greater than thirty-five feet in height, the following shall apply.
i. The area within four feet of interior property lines and across the length of the building shall be landscaped with trees, shrubs and other plantings.
1. Pedestrian walkways within this area shall be comprised of permeable surface and located in a maximum of fifty percent of such areas.
2. At least one tree of at least fifteen-gallon size shall be planted per twenty-five linear feet of wall length.
3. Maximum linear feet of wall length between any shrub, tree or other planting shall be four feet.
i. Shrubs. Shrubs shall be a minimum size of one gallon. ii. Trees.
1. Tree trunks shall be placed at least five feet from utilities and fifteen feet from light poles.
2. Selected trees shall be a minimum 15-gallon or 24-inch box size at time of planting. iii. Waivers. In accordance with the waiver procedures prescribed in Chapter 17.37, the Zoning Administrator may review and approve a landscaping plan that deviates from the standards for interior property lines abutting RS and RL Districts in this subsection to allow for alternative landscape design approaches that provide a sufficient landscape buffer in cases where meeting the standards of this section may not be practicable.
DRAFT
DRAFT – NEW ODS CHAPTER (PROPOSED) 17
c. A minimum of fifty percent of the required front yard area and fifty percent of the required street side yard area shall be landscaped.
i. A maximum of fifty percent of the required landscape area may be turf or lawn. ii. Bare dirt areas may not be used toward the required landscaped areas. Unpaved and unplanted surfaces, such as mulch or gravel, may not exceed more than fifty percent of the required landscape area.
6. Fences and Walls. In addition to the requirements of Section 17.17.040, the following shall apply:
a. Only the finished side of a fence may face any public right-of-way or public park. b. Fences and individual retaining walls in the front yard or street-side yard may not exceed three feet in height, except for fences provided for required utility screening. c. Retaining walls exceeding fifteen feet in length shall be screened with a planting strip measuring a minimum of one foot in width. At time of planting, screening plants shall be a minimum of fifty percent of the height of the retaining wall.
d. Waivers. In accordance with the waiver procedures prescribed in Chapter 17.37, the Zoning Administrator may review and approve any plan for a fence or wall that deviates from the above fences and walls standards to allow for alternative fence or wall designs and dimensions that may be necessary for the security and safety of schools, day care centers, and other vulnerable populations, at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator.
7. Exterior Lighting. All exterior lighting shall be designed and installed so that light and glare are not directed onto adjoining properties or adjacent public rights-of-way, consistent with Chapter 17.24, Performance Standards.
a. All lighting fixtures shall be shielded so as not to produce obtrusive glare onto the public right-ofway or adjoining properties. “Shielded fixture” means outdoor light fixtures shielded or constructed so that all light is emitted below the lowest point on the fixture. No exposed light bulbs shall be permitted.
b. Use of uplighting is prohibited.
c. Fixtures shall not have the ability to swivel or adjust direction, except path lighting, which shall not swivel above a forty-five-degree angle from a vertical line down. d. Lighting Placement. With the exception of additional required lighting fixtures as described in the building code, the following shall apply:
i. Up to two fixtures shall be allowed at each exterior door. ii. Garage doors may have a maximum of two fixtures.
iii. Landscape lighting shall only be permitted for navigation purposes along pedestrian paths and within driveways and parking areas.
iv. Lighting for exterior patios and dining areas shall be recessed and shielded from off-site visibility.
e. Lighting Control. Lighting controls shall be included to limit use of outdoor lighting outside of daylight hours. Controls may include manual switches, photo-cells, timers, and motion sensors, or other methods, with the following limitations:
i. Motion-sensor lights shall be triggered only by motion within a property and shall not be activated by motion in adjacent property or public rights-of-way.
DRAFT
18 CITY OF NEWARK - OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS - DRAFT MARCH 27, 2026 f. Waivers. In accordance with the waiver procedures prescribed in Chapter 17.37, the Zoning Administrator may review and approve any lighting plan that deviates from the above exterior lighting standards.
B. Five or More Unit Development.
1. Interior Pedestrian Walkways.
i. A system of pedestrian walkways shall connect all buildings on a site to each other, to on-site automobile and bicycle parking areas, to all on-site open space areas and pedestrian amenities, and to the adjacent public rights-of-way.
ii. Where a required walkway crosses driveways, parking areas, or loading areas, it must be clearly identifiable through the use of a raised crosswalk, a different paving material, or similar method.
iii. Where a required walkway is parallel and adjacent to an auto travel lane, it must be raised or separated from the auto travel lane by a raised curb at least four inches high, bollards, or other physical barrier.
2. Additional Parking and Driveway Standards.
a. For corner lots, provide the vehicular and driveway access on the street with lesser pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation. Curb cuts shall be located at least twenty feet from an intersection curb return or pedestrian cross walk.
b. Uncovered parking areas shall not exceed twenty percent of the lot area. c. At grade and above ground parking that is not time restricted may not be located within the required setback of a street facing property line. Short-term parking such as for drop off or loading areas or timed parking for visitors are exempt from this requirement. Exceptions to locate above ground parking within the required setback may be provided when all of the following conditions are met.
i. The site does not conform to the minimum lot dimensions. ii. Surface parking areas shall be screened pursuant to the requirements of 17.23.090 (M).
3. Additional Landscaping Standards.
a. Areas along the front or street side property lines where landscaping is required per 17.21.030 may count Onsite Amenities as described in 17.28.080.C.2 (seating, outdoor dining areas, patios, or similar uses) toward the landscaping requirement.
DRAFT
DRAFT – NEW ODS CHAPTER (PROPOSED) 19
17.28.070: Supplemental Standards for Residential Mixed Use A. Ground Floor Requirements.
1. Locate the primary building entrance for commercial uses at the building edge that faces a primary street.
Commercial uses shall be located within those portions of the building closest to the street.
2. A minimum of fifty percent of the ground floor street frontage shall be dedicated to active uses as permitted for the Zoning District. Active uses include eating and drinking establishments, general personal services, retail sales, cultural institutions, day care centers, park and recreation facilities, hospital and clinics, instructional services, tutoring facilities, animal care, sales and services, artist’s studio, banks and financial institutions, banquet halls, and commercial entertainment and recreation uses. i. This requirement shall not apply to the street frontage along a freeway in NMC Chapter
17.46. 3. Entrances to residential units shall be provided separately from the entrance to non-residential uses.
4. Ground floor commercial entrances must have a roofed projection, recess, or combination thereof, with a minimum depth of at least three feet.
5. Ground floor commercial entrances shall be parallel or no more than fifteen degrees from parallel to the street except that entrances at building corners may be located at a forty-five-degree angle (plus or minus 5 degrees) from the front face of the building.
6. Building entrances for non-residential uses shall be connected to a public sidewalk by a walkway with a minimum width of three feet.
7. Building Transparency/Required Openings. Exterior walls for the ground-floor leasable area facing and within twenty feet of a front or street-side lot line shall include windows, doors, or other openings for at least fifty percent of the building wall area located between two and one-half and seven feet above the level of the sidewalk. Such walls may have a continuous length of wall plane for up to thirty feet without an opening.
i. Design of Required Openings. Openings shall have transparent glazing and provide views into the building or into window displays that are at least three feet deep. ii. Waivers. In accordance with the waiver procedures prescribed in Chapter 17.37, the Zoning Administrator may review and approve a waiver to utilize opaque exterior materials outside of primary entrances, lobbies and other non-sensitive areas.
B. Drive through lanes: Drive-through lanes for commercial purposes (such as bank or restaurant drive through lanes) shall not be located between the building and primary street.
DRAFT
20 CITY OF NEWARK - OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS - DRAFT MARCH 27, 2026 FIGURE 17.28.070(A)(7): BUILDING TRANSPARENCY/REQUIRED OPENINGS C. Site Design
1. Landscaping Requirements.
i. Areas along the front or street side property lines where landscaping is required per
17.21.030 may count Onsite Amenities as described in 17.28.080.C.2 (seating, outdoor dining areas, patios, or similar uses) toward the landscaping requirement.
D. Required ground floor commercial area exception.
1. For developments in the CMU district subject to the standards of this chapter, Subsection 17.08.040(F)(1) shall be replaced as follows: Required ground floor commercial area shall be no less than fifteen percent of the gross lot area of the site.
i. Exceptions. An exception to this provision will be granted where required parking, utilities, and setbacks make the fifteen percent minimum commercial area geometrically impossible as confirmed by the Director. Any such reductions will be prorated no more than is necessary to achieve a geometrically possible design, except that there shall be no required ground floor commercial area if that reduced area would be less than the greater of one thousand square feet or five percent of the gross lot area.
17.28.080: Open Space
A. All Residential Development.
1. Open Space. Open space shall be provided in accordance with the following standards:
a. Required open space may consist of a single area or several adjacent or separate areas. All occupants shall have access to and use of one or more such areas. b. Open space shall be enclosed on a maximum of three sides (e.g., a recessed balcony), or consist of uncovered or trellised areas that are at least 50% open to the sky above (e.g. an internal, trellised courtyard).
DRAFT
DRAFT – NEW ODS CHAPTER (PROPOSED) 21
c. No portion of the required open space shall be used for parking or for driveways for off-street parking and loading facilities.
d. Walkways required for internal circulation shall not be counted toward the open space requirement, however, landscaped areas of at least five feet in depth and at least five feet in width bordering a walkway may be included.
e. Open space may be located on the roof of buildings, podiums, or off-street parking facilities if accessible to all residents during daylight hours.
f. A surface shall be provided that allows convenient use for outdoor living and/or recreation. Such a surface may be any combination of lawn, landscaping, flagstone, wood planking, concrete, decking, or other dust-free surfacing. The slope shall not exceed ten percent. The horizontal surface area of a pool, fountain or similar feature may be counted toward the required open space area.
2. Minimum Dimensions.
a. Private Open Space. Private open space (e.g., yards, decks, patios, balconies) used to satisfy required open space shall have at least one dimension of no less than five feet. The minimum area of any single area of private open space shall be fifteen square feet. b. Common Open Space. Common open space used to satisfy required open space shall have one minimum dimension (width or length) of no less than fifteen feet. The other dimensions shall be a minimum of five feet. The minimum area of any single area of required common open space shall be one hundred square feet.
B. Single- to Four-Unit Development.
1. Required Ratio. Required open space may consist of any combination of Private and Common Open Space.
C. Five Unit and Above Development.
1. Required Ratio. A minimum of fifty percent of the required open space shall be provided as common open space.
2. Required Onsite Amenities.
a. A minimum of thirty percent of the required common open space is to be dedicated to onsite amenities, which may include but are not limited to the following permanently installed facilities:
community gardens, outdoor kitchens or BBQ areas, playgrounds, dog parks, swimming pools, exercise areas, and sports courts. Landscaping, turf or lawn areas, or open courtyard and patio seating areas that do not include onsite amenity features to encourage resident use shall not be counted toward this requirement.
b. Waivers. In accordance with the waiver procedures prescribed in Chapter 17.37, the Zoning Administrator may review and approve any plan for required amenities that deviates from the required onsite amenities standards above to allow for alternative approaches that provide required amenities in cases where meeting the specific standards of this section is not practicable.
DRAFT
22 CITY OF NEWARK - OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS - DRAFT MARCH 27, 2026
3. Open Space Screening.
a. Private open space shall be screened by a fence not less than six feet in height when located at ground level within ten feet of a rear or interior side lot line. If more than ten feet from a rear or interior side lot line, private open space shall be separated from adjoining spaces by a fence, wall or landscape screening measuring a minimum of three feet in height that is at least fifty percent opaque.
Building Industry of the Bay Area
1000 Burnett Ave Suite 340
Concord, CA 94520
(925) 951-6840
April 27, 2026
TRANSMITTED VIA EMAIL
Carmelisa Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Newark – Community Development Department
37101 Newark Boulevard
Newark, CA 94560
Subject: Comments on Draft Objective Design Standards (Chapter 17.28) and Related Zoning Amendments
Dear Ms. Lopez,
On behalf of the Building Industry Association of the Bay Area (BIA Bay Area), thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the City of Newark’s Draft Objective Design Standards (ODS) and related zoning amendments.
BIA Bay Area supports the City’s goal of creating a clear, objective, and predictable development review framework consistent with State housing law. However, as currently drafted, several provisions are overly prescriptive, cost-additive, and ultimately counterproductive to housing feasibility and affordability. We respectfully urge the City to refine the ODS to better balance design objectives with the urgent need to facilitate housing production.
Below are our primary concerns and recommendations:
1. ODS Extends Beyond “Objective” Standards into Architectural Micromanagement While intended to provide clarity, many provisions impose highly specific architectural mandates—such as façade articulation intervals, material percentage requirements, roof articulation formulas, balcony opacity thresholds, and trim dimensions. These requirements go well beyond objective standards and instead dictate design solutions.
This level of prescription:
• Limits design flexibility and innovation
• Restricts use of standardized and cost-efficient product types • Increases redesign cycles and entitlement risk
• May inadvertently preclude viable architectural styles (e.g., Early California) For example, the façade and massing requirements in Section 17.28.030, along with garage design constraints in Section 17.28.040(A)(3), would significantly constrain common and proven housing products. In some cases, existing models currently built in the region would not be approvable under these standards.
We recommend the City shift toward performance-based standards that establish clear minimum thresholds (e.g., modulation, material variation), while allowing flexibility in how those outcomes are achieved.
2. Redundant and Layered Standards Create Conflict and Delay Chapter 17.28 frequently applies requirements “in addition to” existing zoning, landscaping, parking, lighting, and site standards, often with “prevails over” clauses.
This approach:
• Creates overlapping and potentially conflicting requirements • Increases the risk of inconsistent interpretation
• Complicates plan check and prolongs approval timelines Objective Design Standards should replace subjective or duplicative provisions—not layer on top of them. We recommend consolidating and streamlining applicable standards into a single, internally consistent framework.
3. Mandatory Amenity Requirements Undermine Affordability The requirement that projects with five or more units dedicate 30% of common open space to specific programmed amenities (e.g., dog parks, BBQ areas, playgrounds, fitness spaces) raises significant concerns.
This mandate:
• Increases upfront construction costs
• Creates long-term HOA maintenance obligations
• Forces amenities regardless of project size, context, or market demand • Raises monthly HOA dues—an already significant barrier for first-time buyers • Reduces feasibility for smaller infill and attached housing developments Amenities should be market-driven, not mandated. Landscaped open space, seating areas, and passive recreation should fully satisfy open space requirements without requiring highmaintenance programmed features.
4. Material and Color Controls Are Overly Restrictive
Section 17.28.050 imposes detailed limitations on exterior materials and color composition, including minimum and maximum percentages and restrictions on specific materials.
These requirements:
• Limit the use of cost-effective, durable construction methods • Add cost without a clear nexus to health, safety, or performance • Reflect aesthetic preferences rather than objective standards We recommend focusing material standards on durability and building code compliance, while allowing greater flexibility in design expression and cost management.
5. Excessive Façade, Window, Balcony, and Privacy Controls The draft includes highly detailed rules governing window placement, balcony setbacks, opacity percentages, and trim dimensions.
These provisions:
• Are difficult to apply consistently
• Constrain natural light and livability
• Limit design flexibility without meaningfully improving outcomes Privacy concerns are more effectively addressed through objective standards such as setbacks, building separation, and height limits—not intricate architectural prescriptions.
6. Reliance on Waivers Undermines Predictability
Although the draft includes a waiver process, many standards are written so rigidly that otherwise reasonable and compliant projects will routinely require waivers.
This:
• Reintroduces subjectivity into the review process
• Reduces predictability for applicants
• Undermines the core purpose of objective standards
Standards should be calibrated so that typical, code-compliant projects can proceed without the need for frequent exceptions.
Overall Recommendation
To better align with State law and the City’s housing production goals, BIA Bay Area respectfully recommends that the City:
• Substantially simplify Chapter 17.28
• Remove prescriptive architectural formulas and percentage-based mandates • Eliminate mandatory amenity requirements that increase HOA costs • Reduce duplicative layering with existing code provisions • Emphasize clear, measurable, and performance-based standards • Ensure that compliant projects can proceed ministerially without reliance on waivers BIA Bay Area appreciates the City of Newark’s efforts to modernize its development standards and stands ready to work collaboratively with staff to refine the ODS into a framework that is clear, objective, and supportive of housing feasibility and affordability.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Dennis Martin
Building Industry Association of the Bay Area
City Council Meeting
September 10, 2026
Zoning Text Amendment:
Objective Design Standards
It is our mission to serve and partner with our community to continually enhance the quality of life of everyone in Newark Agenda
1. Introductions
2. What are Objective Design Standards?
3. Housing Element
4. Project Overview
5. Proposed Zoning Text Amendment
6. CEQA
7. Planning Commission Review
8. Staff Recommendation
2 Photo by Good City Company
Introductions
City of Newark
• Carmelisa Lopez, Senior Planner
• Michael Coulom, Housing Policy and
Programs Manager
• Steven Turner, Community
Development Director
• Art Interiano, Deputy Community
Development Director
Good City Company
• Aaron Aknin, Principal
• Nicholas Hamilton, Public Policy Lead
• Ralph Robinson, Senior Planner
3 Photo by City of Newark
What are Objective Design Standards?
4 State law defines objective standards as
standards 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
knowable by both the development applicant
and public official before submittal.”
(Government Code Section 65913.4.)
State Law Definition
Photo by Good City Company
What are Objective Design Standards?
5 Objective standards rely on clearly defined, measurable criteria whereas subjective standards rely on personal interpretation.
Objective Subjective
“All units located along public rights-of-way
must have the primary entrance facing this
right-of-way.”
NMC 17.07.040(D)(1)(a)
Buildings shall include adequate design
features to create visual variety and avoid a
large-scale and bulky appearance.”
NMC 17.07.040(D)(2)
Objective vs Subjective Standard
What are Objective Design Standards?
6 State law has enacted laws that require approval
of eligible multi-unit residential and mixed-use
development to be based on objective
standards.
Objective design standards (ODS) are design
guidelines written in objective terms.
ODS will provide applicants with a clear
understanding of the City’s design expectations
and streamline project review process to
support housing production.
Illustration from HCD
Housing Element and ODS
Goal H2:
Develop
More
Homes
for More
People
ODS and Newark’s Housing Element
8 Goal H3:
Reduce and
Remove
Developme
nt
Constraints
Photo by Kadyn Pierce on Unsplash Photo by Josh Olalde on Unsplash H3.2: Objective Design Standards for Single- and Multi-Unit Development Quantified Objective: Develop new ODS that result in designs reflective of community needs while supporting new developments responsive to local conditions while reducing development costs where applicable.
H3.4: Zoning for Mixed-Use Commercial Development
Quantified Objective: Amend NC and CC zones to create ODS for mixed-uses and facilitate mixed-use redevelopment of commercial sites.
Other Programs
H2.8: Zone for Missing Middle Housing
H2.12: Make Maximum Densities Achievable
H3.1: Prepare and Publish Procedures for Ministerial Approvals H5.3: Public Lands for Affordable Housing
ODS Will Implement Several HE Programs
9 ODS Aim to Facilitate Priority Housing Types
10 • Priority Populations: Young families, key workers, people at risk of homelessness, people with
disabilities and other special housing needs, and
low-income seniors.
• Priority Housing Types: Medium to high density
apartments, condos and townhomes, and housing
types such as duplexes and four-plexes.
Image by Opticos
11 Several (and counting) state laws limit local jurisdiction design review to consistency with objective standards. Without objective standards, we have very limited design review authority.
• Housing Accountability Act
• SB 35/423 Streamlined Ministerial Approvals Process (SMAP) • SB 330 Housing Crisis Act
• AB 2011, SB 9, SB 684/1123, and so on.
ODS go through a rigorous public engagement process prior to adoption and with each revision. This communicates the
community’s vision and expectations, and allows all members of the community to weigh in on Design Review, now just those able to attend a public hearing.
ODS Comply with State Law and
Communicate the City’s Vision
ODS Aim to Review Projects Faster
12 City of Newark Estimated Permit Processing Timeframes* ODS aim to get to
Yes (or No) faster
• Newark has Ministerial
and Discretionary
permit processes.
• Building permits are
ministerial.
• Planning permits are
typically discretionary.
• Newark’s discretionary
design review permits
take 4-7 months longer
than ministerial
permits. Source: 2023-2031 Housing Element *Actual timeframes may vary ODS Aim to Build Housing Faster, Cheaper
13 Source: Figure 3.4, The High Cost of Producing Multifamily Housing in California, RAND Center on Housing and
Homelessness (2025)
Discretionary approvals
take longer and are
correlated with higher
housing costs.
• California takes 22 months
longer than Texas to build
housing, and 1 year longer
than Colorado.
• The Bay Area has the longest
production times.
• Reducing timelines by 22
months could reduce total
development costs by over 8
percent, a savings of $28,248
per unit.
13.1 20.9
27.9 13.9
15.9 21
Texas
Colorado
California
Predevelopment Time Construction Time
Months
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Average Production Time for Market-Rate
Apartments
SB 423 (formerly SB 35)
14 ODS Project Overview
ODS Project
16 Project Timeline
ODS Project
17 1. Existing conditions analysis
2. Community engagement
Open House
Focus Group
Family Day at the Park
Community Priorities
3. Drafting of ODS
4. Public review and Planning
Commission study session
Milestones
Photo by Good City Company
Public Review and Study Session
18 Public Review Period
• Clarity
• Compliance Challenges
PC Study Session
• Impacts to commercial
areas and adjacent
single-family
• Flexibility and discretion
Feedback on Draft ODS
Example of public comments received
Proposed Zoning Text Amendment
19 • New Chapter 17.28 Residential and Residential Mixed-Use Design Standards
• Associated amendments to ensure consistency with Chapter 17.28 • Division II Base and Overlay Districts
• Chapter 17.17 General Site Regulations
• Chapter 17.21 Landscaping
• Chapter 17.23 Parking and Loading
• Chapter 17.46 Definitions
• Process updates
• Amendments to Chapter 17.34 Design Review
• Amendments to Chapter 17.37 Waivers
• New Chapter 17.42 Reasonable Accommodation
Overview
Proposed ODS &
Associated Amendments
New Chapter 17.28
21 Establishes a new chapter, Chapter 17.28 Residential and Residential Mixed-Use Design Standards (to replace most design standards in Chapter 17.07)
Amendments to Division II Base and Overlay Districts:
• Chapters 17.07 to 17.15
Amendments to Division III. Citywide Regulations:
• 17.17 General Site Regulations
• 17.21 Landscaping
• 17.23.090 Parking Area Design and Development Standards Amendments (additions) to Division V Terms and Definitions:
• 17.46 Definitions
Section Title Summary
17.28.010 Purpose Purpose and intent of the standards
17.28.020 Applicability Identifies the development projects subject to Chapter 17.28
17.28.030 Building Massing and
Articulation
Standards for building massing and articulation to promote visual interest and variation in building design
17.28.040 Building Element
Standards
Standards for building elements, including windows, entrances, garages, balconies, and other architectural features
17.28.050 Materials and Colors Standards for and limits on particular building materials and colors
17.28.060 Site Design Standards Standards for site design elements, including driveways, walkways, landscaping, fencing, lighting, and other site improvements
17.28.070
Supplemental Standards
for Residential MixedUse
Additional standards for residential mixed-use developments.
Applicable projects are identified in Section 17.28.020 (Applicability)
17.28.080 Open Space Establishes standards for the design of required private and common open space
New Chapter 17.28
22 The standards will apply to:
1. Residential projects (including
single-unit and multi-unit)
2. Residential mixed-use projects:
Entire building subject to ODS if 2/3 or
more of floor area is residential,
otherwise only applies to the
residential portion
3. State-mandated ministerial projects
(SB 35, SB 9, AB 2011)
4. Additions and exterior
modifications to existing residential
and mixed-use with some exceptions
Photo by Good City Company
New Chapter 17.28
23 The standards are organized into
three categories:
1. All residential development
2. 1-4 unit development
3. Developments of 5 units or
more
Specific standards for mixed use
development provided in Section
17.28.070
Photos by Good City Company
New Chapter 17.28
24 Translated standards from subjective to
objective:
“adequate design features to create visual
variety”
“avoid a large-scale and bulky appearance”
“incorporate details … in an integrated
composition”
“Window and balcony locations should be
directed away from high use areas of large
window areas of adjoining properties” (SFRDG
Adapting Standards
25 Existing Guideline (SFDG A.9):
Building style and materials, and roof form
should be consistent within an individual
residence and compliment the neighborhood.
Proposed Standard (17.28.030 (2)):
For all new development, the following standards
shall apply:
a. Roof projections into setbacks as prescribed in
Section 17.17.090 are permitted.
b. Articulate the roof along any street facing façade
using at least one of the following techniques for
every forty-five linear feet of street-facing roof…
Example: 1-4 Unit Roof Design
Example ODS: Articulation (5+ Units)
26 Provide articulation either through
vertical building segments (base, upper
floors, and top) or horizontal building
variation.
Segments or building variation
distinguished through …
• Change in wall plane
• Change in material
• Projecting or recessed features
Proposed Section 17.28.040(B)(2)
Example ODS: Window Standards
27 Windows within five feet of the property
line shall not overlap existing windows
on adjacent property unless …
• Windows are etched, frosted
• Located five or more feet above
adjacent floor space
• Greater than forty-five degrees from
parallel to the property line.
Proposed Code: 17.28.040(A)(2)(a)
Example ODS: Landscaping
28 Within four feet of interior property
lines, the length of the building shall be
landscaped with trees, shrubs and other
plantings, including …
• At least one tree per twenty-five
linear feet of wall length
• At least one planting (shrub, tree or
other) per four feet of wall length
Photo by Good City Company
Proposed Code: 17.28.060(A)(5)(b)(i)
ODS in Practice: 1-4 Unit
29 Covered, street-oriented entry
Gables for roof articulation
Variation in front wall plane depth
Varied front yard landscaping
with street-oriented trees
Articulation between stories
Photo by MTC-ABAG
ODS in Practice: 5+ Units
30 Changes in
material
Changes in wall
plane depth
Changes in
roofline depth
and height Defined top floor
Limited curb
cuts for vehicle
access
Photo by Good City Company
Landscaping
minimums
ODS in Practice: Mixed Use
31 Defined base,
upper floors
and top
Ground floor
active use
Changes in
wall plane
Building
transparency for
commercial area
Changes in
materials
Projecting
elements
Photo by Good City Company
Associated Amendments
32 Chapter/Section Key Changes
Division II –
Base and Overlay Districts
(Chapters 17.07 through
17.16)
To improve feasibility, eliminate conflicts with ODS, and align with Housing Element Programs:
• Updated permitted use tables to clarify where residential and residential mixed-use development is allowed.
• Added provisions recognizing state laws that permit qualifying residential development in commercial and industrial districts.
• Updated development standards tables to refine height limits, setbacks, open space requirements, and other site development.
Chapter 17.17
(General Site Regulations) Revised Section 17.21.010 for consistency with Chapter 17.28 Chapter 17.21
(Landscaping) Revised Section 17.21.020 for consistency with Chapter 17.28 Chapter 17.23
(Parking)
Revised Section 17.23.090 for consistency with Chapter 17.28 and allow tandem residential parking in specified circumstances to provide greater flexibility in site design and support residential development while continuing to satisfy parking requirements
Chapter 17.46
(Definitions)
Added definitions for new terms introduced in Chapter 17.28 to support consistent interpretation and application of the proposed ODS Associated Amendments
33 Development standards
tables updated to: Align with ODS Support housing
feasibility
Anticipate regulatory
changes
Respect existing
development through
objective standards
Key Changes
Associated Amendments
34 Terminology: Replace “single-family” and “multi-family” to “single-unit” and “multi-unit”
Expand Housing Opportunities:
• Allowing Attached Single-Unit Development permitted in RS • Allowing Attached Single-Unit and Multi-Unit Development in most commercial districts, as long as not on street-facing façade
• 100% affordable housing permitted in PF
Key Changes
Questions
Process Updates
Exceptions in Chapter 17.28
37 • Ground floor non-street facing
additions that comprise less
than 50% of proposed total floor
area
• Other exceptions incorporated
directly into proposed Chapter
17.28 • Project eligible so long as the
project or site meets the
conditions specified
EXEMPT
NOT EXEMPT
Image from Google Maps
Chapter 17.47 Waivers
38 • Revised to allow the granting of
up to 3 waivers from specified
ODS
• Proposed alternative solution
must meet design intent of the
applicable standard, or
determined not feasible due to
site constraints
• Certain ODS may also include
specific requirements or criteria
that must be satisfied for a waiver
Illustration by Zenamu
Chapter 17.42 Reasonable Accommodation
39 • Existing standards relocated from Chapter 17.37 Waivers to standalone chapter to distinguish reasonable
accommodations from waivers
• Establishes procedures for requesting, reviewing, and acting on reasonable accommodation requests
• Consistent with the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act Chapter 17.34 Design Review
40 The State has adopted housing
laws requiring ministerial review
for qualifying residential projects.
• Such projects are typically
consistent with the General Plan,
zoning regulations, and applicable
objective standards
State-Mandated Ministerial Review
• Projects on sites with notable environmental features or that require
legislative changes are typically not eligible
Illustration by JDJ Consulting
Common Ministerial Criteria
41 Project conforms to…
General Plan
Zoning Code
Objective Design Standards
Inclusionary Requirements
Infill Site
Not subject to CEQA
Labor Requirements
Tenant Protection
Requirements
Project does not impact…
Χ Historic district
Χ Prime farmland
Χ Hazardous waste sites
Χ Conservation areas
Χ Wetlands or floodplains
Χ Requests for variances,
CUPs, legislative changes,
etc.
List is not all-inclusive. Criteria may vary depending on state law.
Chapter 17.34 Design Review
42 • Many jurisdictions have established local ministerial review processes
• Typically apply only to projects that are consistent with the General Plan and meet all applicable zoning, development and design standards, and building requirements
• Newark has an existing local ministerial review pathway • Chapter 17.15 By-Right Housing Overlay District
Local Response to State-Mandated Ministerial Review
Chapter 17.34 Design Review
43 Proposed Pathways
Standard Design
Review
Single-Unit Design
Review
Discretionary
Streamlined Design
Review
Ministerial Streamlined
Design Review
Review
Type Discretionary Discretionary Discretionary Ministerial Eligible
Projects
All projects requiring
design review not
eligible for other
pathways
Single-unit projects that:
(1) exceed waiver limit
(2) opt into
discretionary review
Qualifying projects
requiring discretionary
review but limited to
compliance with
applicable objective
standards
(1) single-unit projects
(2) residential and mixeduse projects with 2 to 200
unit
(3) projects on sites with
BRH Overlay
(4) eligible projects per
state law
Example
Projects New office building
New single-unit dwelling
that doesn’t comply with
4 or more ODS
Residential project
requiring a rezone from
LI to RH
Multi-unit development
meeting all eligibility
criteria and objective
standards
Chapter 17.34 Design Review
44 Proposed Pathways
Chapter 17.34 Design Review
45 Proposed Pathways
Discretionary Design Review Ministerial Streamlined
Design Review
Review
Authority
Director
PC if processed with other PC review
applications
or referred by Director
Director
PC review in limited cases
Public
Hearing
No, unless processed with other PC
review applications or referred to PC by
Director
No, unless referred to PC
Public
Noticing Yes No
Appeals Yes No, but eligible for
one reconsideration
Chapter 17.34 Design Review
46 Discretionary Design Review Process
Chapter 17.34 Design Review
47 Ministerial Streamlined Design Review Process
Proposed Local Ministerial Alternative
48 • Qualifying projects include residential or residential mixeduse projects containing 2 to 200 dwelling units • Project must be consistent with the General Plan, applicable zoning regulations, and all objective development and
design standards
• Project may not require discretionary approvals other than waivers authorized under Chapter 17.37
• Limited to projects on sites that are appropriate for ministerial processing
Proposed Local Ministerial Alternative
49 Proposed Local Ministerial Alternative
50 Eligibility Criteria Review
Analysis &
Recommendations
General Plan & Housing Element Alignment
52 • Directly implements Housing Element
Programs H3.2 and H3.4 as well as supports
Programs H2.8, H2.12, H3.1, and H5.3
• SB 130 allows jurisdictions to adopt zoning
amendments that implement Housing
Element programs without requiring
concurrent amendments to the General
Plan
• Comprehensive General Plan update
anticipated in 2028
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
53 • Exempt from further environmental review
pursuant to:
• CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) as it can
be seen with certainty that it will have no
significant effect on the environment
• CEQA Guidelines Section 21080.085 as it is a
rezoning that implements the schedule of
actions contained in the City’s Housing
Element pursuant to Government Code
Section 65583(c)
Planning Commission Review
54 • Public hearing conducted on July 14, 2026 to consider the proposed Zoning Text Amendment
• Planning Commission voted 3 – 0, with two Commissioners absent, to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Zoning Text Amendment and adopt the draft Ordinance
Staff Recommendation
55 Approve Z2025-004, an Ordinance amending Title 17 (Zoning) of the Newark Municipal Code adding Chapter 17.28 (Residential and Residential Mixed-Use Design Standards) and Chapter 17.42 (Reasonable Accommodation) and amending Division II (Base and Overlay Districts) Chapter 17.17 (General Site Regulations) Chapter 17.21 (Landscaping), Chapter 17.23 (Parking and Loading), Chapter 17.34 (Design Review), Chapter 17.37 (Waivers), and Chapter 17.46 (Definitions), generally affecting development and design standards for residential and residential mixed-use development.
Conclusion
56 Thank you!
Staff and consultants welcome any
questions or comments
Item E. 2.
DATE 09/10/2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Michael Coulom, Housing Policy and Programs Manager SUBJECT Public Hearing to consider adopting an ordinance amending the Newark Zoning Map to rezone certain property into the -BRH Overlay District
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
On January 11, 2024, the City Council voted to adopt Ordinance 547 establishing the By-Right Housing (-BRH) Overlay District and identifying specific housing opportunity sites for inclusion in the -BRH Overlay District. The -BRH Overlay District satisfies certain requirements of state law and implements Housing Element Policy H3.1 and Program H3.6. Staff have identified additional parcels that should be included in the -BRH Overlay District.
Staff recommends City Council adopt the draft Ordinance to amend the Newark Zoning Map to include specific additional parcels in the -BRH Overlay District to comply with state law and ensure consistency among the City's code (Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance).
BACKGROUND
State law requires that cities and counties update their General Plan Housing Element every eight years. The content of the Housing Element is structured to address the requirements set forth in state law. Among other requirements, Housing Elements must identify specific vacant and non-vacant sites with the realistic capacity of being developed with enough housing units to meet a jurisdiction’s regional housing need allocation (RHNA) for that eight-year period. These are commonly referred to as “opportunity sites” and are collectively referred to as the Housing Element “site inventory”.
City Council adopted the Sixth Cycle Housing Element for the period between 2023 and 2031 at its October 26, 2023 meeting. This replaced the Fifth Cycle Housing Element for years 2015-2023, which itself replaced the Fourth Cycle for years 2009-2014. The Sixth Cycle site inventory included several opportunity sites that had been “carried over” from previous Housing Element site inventories.
Government Code Section 65583.2(c) provides that if a nonvacant site identified in the Fifth Cycle Housing Element, or a vacant site identified in both the Fourth Cycle Housing Element and the Fifth Cycle Housing Element, was not developed with a residential use, that site may only be included in the Sixth Cycle Housing Element if the City rezones the site within a specified period of time to allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households. For these housing developments, the City cannot require discretionary entitlements prior to approval of eligible residential projects, but instead must approve these projects ministerially.
On January 11, 2024, the City Council adopted an ordinance establishing the By-Right Housing (-BRH) Overlay District and identified specific opportunity sites for inclusion in the -BRH Overlay District (Attachment 2). The -BRH Overlay District addresses the requirements of Government Code Section 65583.2(c) and implements Housing Element Policy H3.1 and Program H3.6. A number of parcels were unintentionally omitted from the rezoning action in 2023 and it is necessary to amend the Newark Zoning Map to avoid future potential conflicts with state law and ensure accurate implementation of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element (Attachment 3).
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The adopted Housing Element contains a policy (Policy H3.1) and a program (Program H3.6) that communicate the City’s intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow ministerial approval of eligible residential projects on specific sites that are reused from the Fourth and Fifth Cycle housing elements:
POLICY H3.1: Allow By-Right Approval of Projects with 20 Percent Affordable Units on “Reused” Sites. Pursuant to AB 1397, amend the Zoning Ordinance to require by-right approval of housing development that includes 20 percent of the units as housing affordable to lower-income households on sites being used to meet the 6th Cycle RHNA that represent “reuse sites” previously identified in the 4th and 5th Cycles Housing Element, and on sites that are subject to a text amendment to accommodate the lower-income RHNA. Source: 6th Cycle Housing Element page 210.
PROGRAM H3.6: Pursuant to AB 1397, amend the Zoning Ordinance to require by-right approval of housing development that includes 20 percent of the units as housing affordable to lower-income households, on sites being used to meet the 6th Cycle RHNA that represent “reuse sites” previously identified in the 4th and 5th Cycles Housing Element. The nine sites listed in [Housing Element] Table 6-2 will be adjusted by text amendment to accommodate the lower income RHNA as needed. Source: 6th Cycle Housing Element pages 228-229.
Applicable Sites
Consistent with State law, reused Fourth and Fifth Cycle eligible sites include those vacant and non-vacant sites that meet the following criteria:
Allow residential densities of 20 dwelling units per acre; and Can accommodate at least 16 units.
Qualifying Development
In order for “by-right” development to apply on applicable sites in the -BRH Overlay District, residential development projects must:
Set aside a minimum of 20 percent of the total units proposed as affordable to lower-income households, and
Comply with all applicable objective standards and criteria of the base zoning district where the site is located.
Qualifying residential projects on -BRH sites that meet the required criteria, provide a minimum of 20 percent of the units as affordable to lower-income households, and comply with all objective standards would be allowed ministerially “by right” and not require discretionary review. These projects are still subject to Design Review, except that such Design Review is ministerial. A qualifying residential project subject to ministerial review is not considered a “Project” under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Zoning Map Amendments
The Sixth Cycle Housing Element identifies 43 eligible parcels comprising 11 opportunity sites that meet the above criteria. The exhibits to Ordinance 547 unintentionally omitted 17 of these parcels. To fully implement Policy H3.1 and Program H3.6, and to comply with Government Code Section 65583.2(c), staff recommends the City’s Zoning Map be amended to include the 17 missing parcels in the -BRH Overlay District. Table 1 identifies the parcels that staff recommends adding to the -BRH Overlay District. Exhibits B and C of Attachment 1 also include a table and map of the parcels to be rezoned -BRH.
Table 1: Parcels to be added to the -BRH Overlay District Assessor's Parcel Number Street Address
92-29-14-2 6505 THORNTON AVE
92-29-15-2 6521 THORNTON AVE
92-50-1-3 6658 THORNTON AVE
92-50-2-3 6642 THORNTON AVE
92-50-3-3 6626 THORNTON AVE
92A-919-8-2 6211 THORNTON AVE
92A-919-9-2 6223 THORNTON AVE
92A-919-11-2 6263 THORNTON AVE
92A-919-12-2 6275 THORNTON AVE
92A-919-13-2 6289 THORNTON AVE
92A-919-14-2 6319 THORNTON AVE
92A-919-15-2 6333 THORNTON AVE
92A-919-19-2 6389 THORNTON AVE
92A-919-20-2 6417 THORNTON AVE
92A-919-21-2 6433 THORNTON AVE
92A-919-22-2 6449 THORNTON AVE
92A-2375-33 38290 CEDAR BLVD
Findings of Fact
As provided in Section 17.39.080 (Criteria for zoning amendments), the Planning Commission shall not recommend, and the City Council shall not approve amendments to Title 17 unless the proposed amendments meet the following criteria:
1. The amendment is consistent with the general plan;
Any change in district boundaries is necessary to achieve the balance of land uses desired by the city, consistent with the general plan, and to increase the inventory of land within a given zoning district; and
2. The amendment will promote the growth of the city in an orderly manner and promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare.
3. The Findings of Fact applicable to the requested actions are provided in Attachment 1, Exhibit A.
Public Notice
Notice of this public hearing with the recommended Zoning amendments was published in the Tri-City Voice on Tuesday, August 25, 2026. Mailed notices were sent to property owners of sites within 500 feet of each parcel to receive the -BRH Overlay District. A mailed notice, with an explanation of the zoning amendments and the overlay district, was also provided to each property owner with sites that would be rezoned.
ENVIRONMENTAL/PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
The requested actions are exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) since the proposed amendments to the Zoning Map have no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The proposed changes to the Zoning Map do not provide entitlements for any land use development projects, nor do they change the allowed uses of land or the intensity of any previously authorized use of land. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that adoption of the proposed Zoning Map amendments will have no significant effect on the environment.
At their regular meeting on July 28, 2026, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing to consider a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt amendments to the Zoning Map for the Project. The Planning Commission voted to adopt Resolution 2037 (4-0) (Attachment 4).
FISCAL IMPACT
Adoption of the recommended action would not result in any fiscal impacts to the City in that the action does not provide entitlements for any land use development projects that would result in additional City services or expenditures.
STRATEGIC PRIORITY AREA
Further Economic Vitality and Housing for All
REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Prepared by - Michael Coulom, Housing Policy and Programs Manager Reviewed by - Steven Turner, Community Development Director Reviewed by - Krysten Lee, Finance Director
Reviewed by - Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Approved by - David J. Benoun, City Manager
Attachments
1. Draft Ordinance
2. Ordinance 547
3. 6th Cycle Housing Element
4. Resolution 2,037
5. Staff Presentation
ORDINANCE NO. _____
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWARK AMENDING THE
NEWARK ZONING MAP TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY
INTO THE -BRH OVERLAY DISTRICT
WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Newark adopted Resolution No. 9,684 adopting a Housing Element Update for the Fourth Cycle period between 2009 and 2014 (the 4th Cycle Housing Element), which identified housing sites that would accommodate the City of Newark’s (City) Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA); and WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Newark adopted Resolution No. 10,361 approving the amendment to the General Plan by adopting the Fifth Cycle Housing Element for the period between 2015 and 2023 (the 5th Cycle Housing Element), which identified housing sites that would accommodate the City’s RHNA; and
WHEREAS, the California Legislature has found that “California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5); and
WHEREAS, State Housing Element Law (Government Code Sections 65580 et seq.) requires that the City Council adopt a Housing Element for the eight-year period 2023-2031 to accommodate the City of Newark’s (City) RHNA of 1,874 housing units, comprised of 464 verylow-income units, 268 low-income units, 318 moderate-income units, and 824 above moderateincome units; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11,575, adopting a general plan amendment to repeal the 5th Cycle Housing Element and adopt the Sixth Cycle Housing Element of the General Plan for the period between 2023 and 2031 (the 6th Cycle Housing Element) and adopt the Safety Element of the General Plan, in compliance with State Housing Element Law; and
WHEREAS, certain housing sites identified in the 5th Cycle Housing Element were not developed with residential uses during the period between 2015-2023 and were “carried over” to the 6th Cycle Housing Element to be used as sites that can accommodate housing units meeting the City’s RHNA; and.
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65583.2(c) provides that if a nonvacant site identified in the 5th Cycle Housing Element, or a vacant site identified in both the both the 4th Cycle Housing Element and 5th Cycle Housing Element, was not developed with a residential use, that site may only be included in the Housing Element if the City rezones the site within a specified period of time to allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20% of the units are affordable to lower income households; and WHEREAS, the 6th Cycle Housing Element includes 43 parcels that were carried over from the 4th and 5th Cycle Housing Elements and identified as sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA; and
WHEREAS, the identified carry-over sites are capable to be developed with residential uses having densities of at least 20 units per acre; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newark adopted Ordinance No. 547 to update the Zoning Code by adding Chapter 17.15, By Right Housing (-BRH) Overlay District, amend the Newark Zoning Map by applying the -BRH Overlay District to specific parcels throughout the City, and make other miscellaneous related changes to implement the Housing Element and, more specifically, identify the applicability standards for residential development that may be developed by-right without discretionary review; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 547 unintentionally omitted specific parcels from the list of parcels to be included in the -BRH Overlay Zone and amended Newark Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the Newark Zoning Map to include the omitted parcels to comply with Government Code Section 65583.2(c) and implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the amendment of the Newark Zoning Map is referred to as the “Project”; and WHEREAS, a staff report dated July 28, 2026, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on July 28, 2026, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff report at a noticed public hearing on the Project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the staff recommendation as provided in the staff report, adopted Resolution 2037 incorporated herein by reference, and transmitted the resolution to the City Council; and WHEREAS, a staff report dated September 10, 2026, and incorporated herein by reference described and analyzed the Project for City Council; and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2026, the City Council reviewed the staff report at a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Newark Municipal Code section 17.31.060 and pursuant to State law, the City published a public hearing notice in The Tri City Voice on August 25, 2026 and mailed as required for a public hearing before the City Council at 7:00 p.m. on September 10, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the City Council fully considered the Project at the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Project meets the requisite findings of fact necessary for approval as further explained in the staff report and the recommended findings of fact and determinations associated with this Ordinance, as identified in “Exhibit A” attached to this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the Project application and other documents that constitute a record of proceedings for the Project is the City of Newark, 37101 Newark Blvd., Newark, CA 94560; and
WHEREAS, the City’s General Plan, Zoning Code, and Municipal Code are incorporated herein by reference and are available for review at City Hall during normal business hours and on the City’s website.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Newark does ordain as follows:
Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this action.
Section 2. The Project is exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) since the proposed amendments to the Zoning Map have no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The proposed changes to the Zoning Map do not provide entitlements for any land use development projects, nor do they change the allowed uses of land or the intensity of any previously authorized use of land. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that adoption of the proposed Zoning Map amendments will have no significant effect of the environment.
Section 3. Pursuant to NMC Sections 17.39.070 and 17.39.080, the City Council of the City of Newark does hereby make the findings of fact and determinations required by the City of Newark Municipal Code as further explained in the staff report and set forth in “Exhibit A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 4. The City Council hereby approves an amendment to the Newark General Plan land use and Zoning Map by applying the By Right Housing (-BRH) Overlay District to specific parcels, as identified in “Exhibits B & C”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 6: If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of this Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of Newark hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof is declared invalid or unenforceable.
Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from the date of its passage. Before expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage, this ordinance shall be published in The Tri-City Voice, a newspaper of general circulation published and printed in the County of Alameda and circulated in the City of Newark.
Exhibit A: Findings of Fact
Exhibit B: Parcels to be Rezoned with the By Right Housing (-BRH) Overlay District Exhibit C: Map of Parcels to be Rezoned with the -BRH Overlay District