Newark City Council
December 12, 2024

Prototypical Residential Units
Single Family Single Family Townhome Condo Apartment I Large Lot I Small Lot Avg. Unit Size 2,500 SF 2,000 SF 1,500 SF 1,300 SF 850 SF Avg. No. of Bedrooms 4 BR 3 BR 3 BR 2 BR 2 BR
Avg. Sales Price/ Rent $787,500 $700,000 $562,500 $580,000 $2,000 Imo.

From the sales prices and rent levels, household income is determined using assumptions with respect to a share of income spent on housing and housing purchase terms. For ownership units, 35% of income is spent on housing (including mortgage payments, property taxes, home owner association dues, and insurance). Renters are assumed to spend 30% of their income on rent. These relationships are grounded in state housing policy and reflective of the current averages for Alameda County.

Gross household income is adjusted to a net amount available for expenditures after deducting the portion of income dedicated to income taxes, contributions to Social Security and Medicare, savings, and repayment of household debt. Housing costs are not deducted as part of this adjustment step because they are addressed separately as expenditures within the IMPLAN model. The adjusted household income available for expenditures becomes the input into the IMPLAN model. As a result, household income associated with each of the prototypes is as follows:

Household Income
Single Family Single Family Townhome Condo Apartment I Large Lot I Small Lot Gross Household Income $159,000 $142,000 $116,000 $124,000 $80,000 Percent Income Available 67% 67% 67% 67% 71% for Expenditures Household Income
Available for Expenditures $107,000 $95,000 $78,000 $83,000 $57,000 flnput to IMPLAN modell
The nexus analysis is conducted on 100-unit project modules (i.e., 100 new households) for ease of presentation and to avoid awkward fractions.

3. IMPLAN Model Results
The IMPLAN model was applied to link household income to job growth occurring in Alameda County. The IMPLAN model distributes spending among various types of goods and services (industry sectors) based on data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey and the Bureau of Economic Analysis Benchmark input-output study, to estimate employment generated. Job creation, driven by increased demand for products and services, is projected for each of the industries that will serve the new households. The employment generated by this new household spending is summarized below.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \001-001.docx

Jobs Generated Per 100 Units
Single Family Single Family Townhome Condo Apartment I Large Lot I Small Lot Annual Household
Expenditures, 100 Units $10,650,000 $9,510,000 $7,770,000 $8,310,000 $5,680,000 Total Jobs Generated, 73.1 64.8 53.0 56.6 37.5 100 Units The IMPLAN model quantifies jobs generated at establishments that serve new residents directly (i.e. supermarkets, banks or schools), jobs generated by increased demand at firms which service or supply these establishments {wholesalers, janitorial contractors, accounting firms, or any jobs down the service/supply chain from direct jobs), and jobs generated when the new employees spend their wages in the local economy and generate additional jobs.

Retail, restaurants, and health care represent the largest share of jobs generated by household expenditures.

4. Compensation Levels of Jobs and Household Income
The output of the IMPLAN model - the numbers of jobs by industry - is then entered into the Keyser Marston Associates jobs housing nexus analysis model to quantify the compensation levels of new jobs and the income of the new worker households. The KMA model sorts the jobs by industry into jobs by occupation, based on national data, and then attaches local wage distribution data to the occupations, using recent Alameda County data from the California Employment Development Department (EDD). The KMA model also converts the number of employees to the number of employee households, recognizing that there is, on average, more than one worker per household, and thus the number of housing units in demand for new workers is reduced.

The output of the model is the number of new worker households by income level (expressed in relation to the Area Median Income, or AMI} attributable to the new residential units and new households in Newark. Three categories of addressed: Very Low (under 50% of AMI), Low (50% to 80% of AMI) and Moderate (80% to 120% of AMI).

Following are the numbers of worker households by income level associated with the Newark prototype units.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \001-001.docx

New Worker Households by Income Level per 100 Market Rate Units Single Family I Single Family
Large Lot I Small Lot
Very Low (Under 50% AMI) 13.2 11.7
Low (50%-80% AMI) 7.4 6.5
Moderate (80%-120% AMI) 7.2 6.3
Total, Less than 120% AMI 27.8 24.5
Greater than 120% AMI 6.3 5.7
Total, New Households 34.1 30.2

5. Impact Fee Levels Supported by the Nexus Analysis
Townhome

9.5 5.3

5.2 20.0

4.7 24.7
Condo Apartment

10.2 6.7

5.7 3.7

5.5 3.7

21.4 14.1

5.0 3.4

26.4 17.5
The last step in the analysis puts a dollar amount on the cost of mitigating the affordable housing impacts. The conclusions of the nexus analysis, expressed as the number of worker households by income affordability category, are linked to the cost of delivering housing to the households in need. Each income or affordability tier is associated with a subsidy needed to produce and deliver a unit at the specified affordability level; this subsidy is referred to as the 'affordability gap.'
Affordability gaps are calculated for each of the three affordable tiers. The analysis assumes households earning less than 80% of Area Median Income will be assisted in rental units, while households earning between 80% and 120% of Area Median Income will be assisted in ownership units.

The resulting affordability gaps are as follows:
■ $240,000 for households in the under 50% AMI category; ■ $214,000 for households in the 50% to 80% AMI category; and, ■ $169,000 for households in the 80% to 120% AMI category.

When the affordability gap conclusions for each income tier are linked to the number of affordable units required as a result of market rate development (as indicated in the inset table on the next page) and divided by 100 units, the result is a Total Nexus Cost per new market rate residential unit. The results per unit are:

Nexus Per Market Rate Unit or Maximum Supported Impact Fee per Unit Affordability
Income Cateaorv Gap
Very Low (30% - 50% AMI) $240,000
Low (50%-80% AMI) $214,000
Moderate (80%-120% AMI) $169,000
Total Nexus Costs
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \001-001.docx
Single Single
Family/ Family I
Larae Lot Small Lot Townhome
$31,600 $28,000 $22,900
$15,800 $13,900 $11,300
$12,200 $10,700 $8,700
$59,600 $52,600 $42,900
Condo Apartment
$24,500 $16,100
$12,100 $8,000
$9,300 $6,200
$45,900 $30,300
Page4
The Total Nexus Costs, or Mitigation Costs, indicated above, may also be expressed on a per square foot level. The results per square foot of building area (net rentable or sellable Sq.Ft.) are as follows:

Total Nexus Cost or Maximum Supported Impact Fee Per Sq.Ft. of Building Area Single Single
Affordability Family I Family I
Income Category Gap Large Lot Small Lot Townhome Condo Apartment Prototype Size 2,500 SF 2,000 SF 1,500 SF 1,300 SF 850SF Very Low (30% - 50% AMI) $240,000 $12.60 $14.00 $15.30 $18.80 $18.90 Low (50%-80% AMI) $214,000 $6.30 $7.00 $7.50 $9.30 $9.40 Moderate (80%-120% AMI) $169,000 $4.90 $5.40 $5.80 $7.20 $7.30 Total Nexus Costs $23.80 $26.40 $28.60 $35.30 $35.60
These costs express the total linkage or nexus costs for the five prototype developments in Newark. These total nexus costs represent the ceiling for any impact fee requirement placed on market rate development. The totals are not recommended levels for fees; they represent only the maximums established by this analysis, below which fees may be set.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \001-001.docx

(Intentionally left blank.)
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \001-001.docx

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
The following report documents and quantifies the linkages between new market-rate residential development in the City of Newark and the demand for additional affordable housing. The analysis, which demonstrates support for a Housing Impact Fee, has been prepared by Keyser Marston Associates (KMA) for the City of Newark in accordance with a contractual agreement.

The City of Newark has an lnclusionary Housing Ordinance adopted in 2004 requiring all residential projects with five or more units to set-aside 15% of units as affordable. Payment of a fee in-lieu of providing units is subject to approval by the Council. Due to limited housing development since the time the lnclusionary Housing Ordinance was adopted, no inclusionary units have been produced under the program.

Since the 2004 adoption of the City's inclusionary housing program, there have been several court cases affecting inclusionary housing programs. The Palmer case in particular precludes cities from requiring the inclusion of affordable units in rental projects unless the developer receives a density bonus or certain regulatory concessions and agrees by contract to restrict the rents. Palmer and other recent and pending cases have encouraged cities to seek alternative strategies to address the need for affordable housing.

At this time, the City is considering replacement of its inclusionary program with a Housing Impact Fee applicable to new market rate residential development. Fee revenues would be used to assist construction of new affordable units as mitigation for increased affordable housing needs linked to new market rate residential construction. Advantages of housing impact fees compared to inclusionary include the ability to apply requirements to rental projects and greater flexibility to produce affordable units of the type and in the locations that best fit community needs. The City already has a Housing Impact Fee that applies to non-residential development.

Analyses of the impacts of new development are called linkage or nexus analyses. This nexus analysis establishes maximum supportable Housing Impact Fee levels based on a quantification of the impact that new market rate residential development has on the need for affordable housing.

The Nexus Concept
At its most simplified level, the underlying nexus concept is that the newly constructed units represent net new households in Newark. These households represent new income in Newark that will consume goods and services, either through purchases of goods and services or "consumption" of governmental services. New consumption translates to jobs; a portion of the jobs are at lower compensation levels; low compensation jobs relate to lower income households that cannot afford market rate units in Newark and therefore need affordable housing.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \001-001.docx

Use of This Study
The nexus study has been prepared for the limited purpose of determining nexus support for a Housing Impact Fee in the City of Newark affecting new residential construction. We caution against the use of this study, or any impact study for that matter, for purposes beyond the intended use. All impact studies are limited and imperfect, but can be helpful for understanding the externalities created by new development. The nexus analysis presented in this report is an impact analysis only and the nexus amounts are not recommended fee levels.

Methodology and Models Used
The methodology or analysis procedure for this nexus analysis starts with the sales price or rental rate of a new market rate residential unit, and moves through a series of linkages to the gross income of the household that purchased or rented the unit, the income available for expenditures on goods and services, the jobs associated with the purchases and delivery of those services, the income of the workers doings those jobs, the household income of the workers and, ultimately, the affordability level of the housing needed by the worker households.

The steps of the analysis from household income available for expenditures to jobs generated were performed using the IMPLAN model, a model widely used for the past 35 years to quantify the impacts of changes in a local economy, including employment impacts from changes in personal income. From job generation by industry, KMA used its own jobs housing nexus model to quantify the income of worker households by affordability level.

To illustrate the linkages by looking at a simplified example, we can take an average household that buys a house at a certain price. From that price, we estimate the gross income of the household (from mortgage rates and lending practices) and the portion of income available for expenditures. Households will "purchase" or consume a range of goods and services, such as purchases at the supermarket or services at the bank. Purchases in the local economy in turn generate employment. The jobs generated are at different compensation levels. Some of the jobs are low paying and as a result, even when there is more than one worker in the household, there are some lower and middle-income households who cannot afford market rate housing in Newark.

The IMPLAN model quantifies jobs generated at establishments that serve new residents directly (e.g., supermarkets, banks or schools), jobs generated by increased demand at firms which service or supply these establishments, and jobs generated when the new employees spend their wages in the local economy and generate additional jobs. The IMPLAN model estimates the total impact combined.

Net New Underlying Assumption
An underlying assumption of the analysis is that households that purchase or rent new units represent net new households in Newark. If purchasers or renters have relocated from Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \001-001.docx

elsewhere in the city, vacancies have been created that will be filled. An adjustment to new construction of units would be warranted if Newark were experiencing demolitions or loss of existing housing inventory. However, the rate of housing unit removal is so low as to not warrant an adjustment or offset.

On an individual project basis, if existing units are removed to redevelop a site to higher density, then there could be a need for recognition of the existing households in that all new units might not represent net new households, depending on the program design and number of units removed relative to new units.

Since the analysis addresses net new households in Newark and the impacts generated by their consumption expenditures, it quantifies net new demands for affordable units to accommodate new worker households. As such, the impact results do not address nor in any way include existing deficiencies in the supply of affordable housing.

Geographic Area of Impact
Housing impacts, like most types of impacts, occur irrespective of political boundaries. Like other types of impact analyses, such as traffic, impacts beyond city boundaries are experienced, are relevant, and are important. The City of Newark regulates land use within its boundaries and is the only jurisdiction in a position to require mitigation of impacts from new residential development occurring there, including mitigation of impacts extending beyond the City's boundaries.

While much of the housing impacts documented in the nexus analysis will occur within the City of Newark, some impacts will be experienced elsewhere in the County and beyond. The nexus analysis focuses on impacts occurring within Alameda County but includes impacts outside the County boundaries to the limited degree that households make some expenditures or seek certain services in neighboring counties. The IMPLAN model uses a data set specific to Alameda County that computes the jobs generated within the County. The input to the IMPLAN model used in the analysis is household income available for expenditures, without adjusting to a local share. While it is expected that households will make most expenditures within Alameda County, some expenditures on goods and services may occur in neighboring counties. Given the precise share is difficult to quantify particularly as relates to services such as medical care, and because expenditures occurring outside the County and the resulting impacts are still appropriately included in the nexus analysis, no adjustment to a local share is made.

Market Rate Residential Project Types
Five prototypical residential project types were selected for analysis in this nexus study. The prototypes were intended to represent the range of product types currently being built in Newark or which are expected in the future including:

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \001-001.docx

■ Single Family Detached (SFD) / Large Lot
■ Single Family Detached / Small Lot
■ Townhomes
■ Stacked Flat Condominiums
■ Apartments
Affordability Tiers
The nexus analysis addresses the following three income or affordability tiers:
■ Very Low Income (under 50% of Area Median Income or AMI) ■ Low Income (50% to 80% AMI)
■ Moderate Income (80% to 120% AMI)
Report Organization
The report is organized into four sections as follows:
■ Section A. presents information regarding the prototypical new market rate residential units and the estimated household income of purchases or renters of those units. ■ Section B. describes the IMPLAN model which is used in the nexus analysis to translate household income into the estimated number of jobs in retail, restaurants, healthcare, and other sectors serving new residents.
■ Section C. presents the linkage between employment growth associated with residential development and the need for new lower income housing units required in each of three income categories.
■ Section D. quantifies the nexus or mitigation cost based on the cost of delivering affordable units to new worker households in each of the three lower income categories.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \001-001.docx

A. MARKET RATE UNITS AND HOUSEHOLD INCOME
This section describes the prototypical market rate residential units and the income of the purchaser and renter households. Market rate prototypes are representative of new residential units currently being built in Newark or that are likely to be built in Newark over the next several years. Household income is estimated based on the amount necessary for the mortgage or rent payments associated with the prototypical new market rate units and becomes the basis for the input to the IMPLAN model described in Section B of this report. These are the starting points of the chain of linkages that connect new market rate units to incremental demand for affordable residential units.

This section provides a summary of the prototypes and household income. More description and supporting tables are provided in Appendix 1.

Recent Housing Market Activity and Prototypical Units
KMA identified five residential prototypes in consultation with City staff; these prototypes are representative of the types of development that the City of Newark expects to see over the coming years. KMA then undertook a market survey of projects covering these prototypes. The survey was conducted in December 2013 and January 2014 and included the City of Newark as well as the neighboring cities of Fremont and Union City. At that time, there were no new residential projects actively marketing in Newark; however, Fremont has one new single family and two new townhome developments. KMA also obtained data on sales of existing homes in Newark, Union City and Fremont built since 1990. Stacked flat condos have been absent from the market in Newark but are included in the nexus analysis to address the potential for stacked flat condos to be built in Newark at some point in the future. For stacked flat condos, the sales price is based on an estimate of the price required for development of this prototype to become feasible.

The results of the market survey and the selection of five prototypes are summarized in the table on the following page. The main objective of the survey was to establish current sales prices or rents per unit and per square foot for the various residential project types recently developed, or expected to be developed in the future, in Newark. Table A-1 at the end of this section provides a more detailed summary of the five market rate prototypes.

It is important to note that the prototypes analysis is intended to reflect average or typical residential projects in the Newark market rather than any specific project. It would be expected that specific projects would vary to some degree from the prototypes.

In summary, the prototypes tested in the nexus analysis are as follows:

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \001-001.docx

Prototypical Residential Units
Avg. Unit Size
Avg. No. of Bedrooms
Avg. Sales Price/ Rent
Single Family
I Large Lot
2,500 SF
4 BR
$787,500
Single Family
I Small Lot
2,000 SF
3 BR
$700,000
Income of Housing Unit Purchaser or Renter
Townhome
1,500 SF
3 BR
$562,500
Condo
1,300 SF
2 BR
$580,000
Apartment
850 SF
2 BR
$2,000 Imo.

After the prototypes are established, the next step in the analysis is to determine the income of the purchasing or renting households in the prototypical units.

Ownership Units
To make the determination for ownership units, terms for the purchase of residential units used in the analysis are slightly less favorable than what can be achieved at the current time since current terms are not likely to endure. The selected terms for the analysis are: 20% down payment, 30 year fixed rate mortgage, 5.25% interest rate. The assumption of a 20% down payment is based on the median for purchase loans in Alameda County 1
. The interest rate at 5.25% reflects an
estimate of the longer term average based on the experience over the past ten years. 2 Current rates as of February 2014 are about 1 % lower. Tables A-2 through A-5 at the end of this section provide the details.

All ownership product types include an estimate of homeowners' insurance, homeowner association dues, and property taxes which are included along with the mortgage payment as part of housing expenses for purposes of determining mortgage eligibility3 . The analysis estimates
gross household income based on the assumption that these housing costs represent, on average, approximately 35% of gross income. The assumption that housing expenses represent 35% of gross income is reflective of the average for new purchase loans originated in Alameda County4 and is consistent with criteria used by lenders to determine mortgage eligibility5 .
1 Median down payment at 20% is based on Freddie Mac data on its portfolio of mortgages within zip codes corresponding to Alameda County and is specific to principal residence purchase loans originated during 2 nd quarter
of 2012, the most recent period available at the time the data was accessed. 2 Based on Freddie Mac Primary Mortgage Market Survey weekly average rates for 30 year fixed rate mortgages during the period from 2004 through 2013.
3 Housing expenses are combined with other debt payments such as credit cards and auto loans to compute a Debt To Income (DTI) ratio which is a key criteria used for determining mortgage eligibility. 4 New purchase loans in Alameda County have an average debt to income ratio of 34.96% based on data from Freddie Mac on its portfolio of mortgages within zip codes corresponding to Alameda County and specific to principal residence purchase loans originated during 2
nd quarter of 2012, the most recent period available at the time the data was accessed. Debt to income ratio includes other forms of debt such as student loans, credit cards, and auto loans which suggests a ratio including only housing expenses would be less than 35%. Applying a ratio below 35% in the analysis would have produced a higher estimate of gross household income and higher resulting nexus findings; therefore, application of a 35% ratio represents a conservative assumption for purposes of the nexus analysis.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \001-001.docx

Apartment Units
Household income for renter households is estimated based on the assumption that rent represents, on average, 30% of gross household income, a percentage that is consistent with the average for Newark reported by the Census of 28.9%. 6 While slightly above the average from the Census, the 30% factor was selected for consistency with the California Health and Safety Code standard for relating income to affordable rent levels 7. Selection of 30% produces a lower estimate of gross household income and lower resulting nexus conclusions than if the exact average from the Census at 28.9% were used; therefore, this represents a conservative approach for purposes of the nexus analysis. While leasing agents and landlords may permit rental payments to represent a slightly higher share of total income, use of the 30% factor, which is representative of the average, is appropriate. Further, many renters will choose to spend less than 30% of their income on rent where possible, since, unlike an ownership situation, the unit is not viewed as an investment with value enhancement potential. The resulting relationship is that annual household income is 3.3 times annual rent.

The estimated gross household incomes of the purchasers or renters of the prototype units are calculated in tables A-2 through A-6, and summarized below.

Household Income
Gross Household Income
Single Family
I Large Lot
$159,000
Income Available for Expenditures
Single Family
I Small Lot
$142,000
Townhome Condo Apartment
$116,000 $124,000 $80,000
The input into the IMPLAN model used in this analysis is the net income available for expenditures. To arrive at income available for expenditures, gross income must be adjusted for Federal and State income taxes, contributions to Social Security and Medicare, savings, and payments on household debt. Per KMA correspondence with the producers of the IMPLAN model (IMPLAN Group LLC), other taxes including sales tax, gas tax, and property tax are handled internally within the model as part of the analysis of expenditures. Housing costs are addressed separately, as described below, and so are not deducted as part of this adjustment step. Table A-7 at the end of this section shows the calculation of income available for expenditures.

Income available for expenditures is estimated at approximately 67% of gross income in the case of the ownership prototypes. The estimate is based on a review of data from the Internal 5 Fannie Mae mortgage underwriting eligibility criteria establishes a debt to income threshold of 36% above which tighter credit standards apply. A debt to income ratio of up to 45% is permitted for borrowers meeting specified credit criteria; however, most households have other forms of debt such as credit cards, student loans, and auto loans that would be considered as part of this ratio.
6 2010-2012 American Community Survey.
7 Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5 defines affordable rent levels based on 30% of income.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \001-001.docx

Revenue Service and California Franchise Tax Board tax tables. Per the Internal Revenue Service, households earning between $100,000 and $200,000 per year, or the residents of our prototypical ownership units, will pay an average of 13% of gross income for federal taxes. State taxes are estimated to average 5% of gross income based on tax rates per the California Franchise Tax Board. The employee share of the FICA payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare is 7.65% of gross income (conservatively assumes all earners in the household are within the $117,000 ceiling on income subject to Social Security taxes).

Savings and repayment of household debt represent another necessary adjustment to gross income. Savings includes various IRA and 401 K type programs as well as non-retirement household savings and investments. Debt repayment includes auto loans, credit cards, and all other non-mortgage debt. Savings and repayment of debt are estimated to represent a combined 8% of gross income based on the 20 year average derived from United States Bureau of Economic Analysis data.

The percentage of income available for expenditure for input into the IMPLAN model is prior to deducting housing costs. The reason is for consistency with the IMPLAN model which defines housing costs as expenditures. The IMPLAN model addresses the fact that expenditures on housing do not generate employment to the degree other expenditures such as retail or restaurants do, but there is some limited maintenance and property management employment generated.

After deducting income taxes, Social Security, Medicare, savings, and repayment of debt, for purchasers of one of the new ownership prototypes, the estimated income available for expenditures is 67%. This is the factor used to adjust from gross income to the income available for expenditures for input into the IMPLAN model. As indicated above, other forms of taxation such as property tax are handled internally within the IMPLAN model.

Income available for expenditures for the prototypical renter household is based on the same evaluation, but a lower income tax bracket applies to the renter households. The result is that the renter household would have an estimated 71 % of income available for expenditures. The rate of savings and debt repayment is assumed to be the same for the renter household as for households in the ownership prototypes.

Estimates of household income available for expenditures are presented in the following table:

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \001-001.docx

Income Available for Expenditures
Single Family Single Family Townhome Condo Apartment I Large Lot I Small Lot Gross Household Income $159,000 $142,000 $116,000 $124,000 $80,000 Percent Income Available 67% 67% 67% 67% 71% for Expenditures Household Income
Available for Expenditures $107,000 $95,000 $78,000 $83,000 $57,000 [Input to IMPLAN model]
The nexus analysis is conducted on 100-unit building modules for ease of presentation, and to avoid awkward fractions. Tables A-8 and A-9 summarize the conclusions of this section and calculate the household income for the 100-unit building modules. This is the input into the IMPLAN model.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \001-001.docx

TABLE A-1

SUMMARY OF PROTOTYPES

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
Density
Average Unit Size
Avg. Number of Bedrooms
Market Rate Price
1 ta·r!;I� ti;>f �inglf Fa.mil�
! __ De.Jacti�9J -,
8 du/acre
2,500 sf
4 BR
$315 $787,500
(l) Stacked Flat Condomium based on feasible price.

Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Newark Prololypes 1.24.14; Prototypes
�-.Srnall,Lof Sirigle -
'.· f �milY.bitact}E}{f -
12 du/acre
2,000 sf
3 BR
$350 $700,000
r---_-- --1 L _ "T QWnhome§
18 du/acre
1,500 sf
3 BR
$375 $562,500
r--s·ta.ckecf Flat I l ,i; oodoro1n-1um�
50 1,300 sf
2 BR
• ,2:3 Stciry1--j
'._. ��P@rtrneru�· .
25 du/acre
850 sf
2 BR
$446 $580,000 (
1 ) $2.35 $2,000

TABLE A-2
PROTOTYPE 1: rSFD / LARGE LOT

SALES PRICE TO INCOME RATIO

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
Sales Price
Mortgage Payment
Downpayment @ 20%
Loan Amount
Interest Rate
Term of Mortgage
Annual Mortgage Payment
Other Costs
Property Taxes
HOA Dues / Maintenance
Homeowner Insurance
Total Annual Housing Cost
% of Income Spent on Hsg
$315 /SF 2,500 SF 1
20% 2

1.25% of sales price 4
$200 per month 5

0.20% sale price 6
Annual Household Income Required
Sales Price to Income Ratio
Notes
(1) Based on Market Survey.

Prototype 1
SFD / Large Lot
$787,500 1
$157,500
$630,000

5.25% 3
30 years
$41,700
$9,800
$2,400
$1,600
$55,500
35% 7
$159,000

5.0 (2) Median down payment at 20% is based on Freddie Mac data on its portfolio of mortgages within zip codes corresponding to Alameda County and specific to principal residence purchase loans originated during 2nd quarter of 2012. (3) Average mortgage interest rate for prior 10 years derived from Freddie Mac Primary Mortgage Market Survey and about

0.75% above current favorable rates. Based on weekly average rates for 30 year fixed rate mortgages during the period from 2004 through 2013.
(4) 1.25% property tax rate is inclusive of ad valorem taxes plus estimated fixed charges and assessments. (5) Based on HOA dues for new single family project currently selling in Fremont from the Market Survey. (6) Estimated from quote obtained from Progressive Insurance. (7) Based on Freddie Mac data on mortgages originated in Alameda County which reflect an average debt to income ratio of 35% including both housing expenses and other debt like auto loans and credit cards. Were other debt excluded, the ratio would likely be lower than 35%. Using a ratio less than 35% would have increased the supported maximum fee levels from those reflected in the analysis; therefore, 35% represents a conservative estimate.

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\16\16090\001\Copy of Newark Nexus model 3-14-14; 3/14/2014; dd

TABLE A-3
PROTOTYPE2:SFD/SMALL LOT

SALES PRICE TO INCOME RATIO

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
Sales Price
Mortgage Payment
Downpayment @ 20%
Loan Amount
Interest Rate
Term of Mortgage
Annual Mortgage Payment
Other Costs
Property Taxes
HOA Dues / Maintenance
Homeowner Insurance
Total Annual Housing Cost
% of Income Spent on Hsg
$350 /SF 2,000 SF 1
20% 2

1.25% of sales price 4
$200 per month 5

0.20% sale price 6
Annual Household Income Required
Sales Price to Income Ratio
Notes
(1) Based on Market Survey.

Prototype 2
SFD / Small Lot
$700,000 1
$140,000
$560,000

5.25% 3
30 years
$37,100
$8,800
$2,400
$1,400
$49,700
35% 7
$142,000

4.9 (2) Median down payment at 20% is based on Freddie Mac data on its portfolio of mortgages within zip codes corresponding to Alameda County and specific to principal residence purchase loans originated during 2nd quarter of 2012. (3) Average mortgage interest rate for prior 10 years derived from Freddie Mac Primary Mortgage Market Survey and about

0.75% above current favorable rates. Based on weekly average rates for 30 year fixed rate mortgages during the period from 2004 through 2013.
(4) 1.25% property tax rate is inclusive of ad valorem taxes plus estimated fixed charges and assessments. (5) Based on HOA dues for new single family project currently selling in Fremont from the Market Survey. (6) Estimated from quote obtained from Progressive Insurance. (7) Based on Freddie Mac data on mortgages originated in Alameda County which reflect an average debt to income ratio of 35% including both housing expenses and other debt like auto loans and credit cards. Were other debt excluded, the ratio would likely be lower than 35%. Using a ratio less than 35% would have increased the supported maximum fee levels from those reflected in the analysis; therefore, 35% represents a conservative estimate.

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\16\16090\001\Copy of Newark Nexus model 3-14-14; 3/14/2014; dd

TABLE A-4
PROTOTYPE 3: TOWNHOME

SALES PRICE TO INCOME RATIO

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
Sales Price
Mortgage Payment
Downpayment @ 20%
Loan Amount
Interest Rate
Term of Mortgage
Annual Mortgage Payment
Other Costs
Property Taxes
HOA Dues / Maintenance
Homeowner Insurance
Total Annual Housing Cost
% of Income Spent on Hsg
$375 /SF 1,500 SF 1
20% 2

1.25% of sales price 4
$235 per month 5

0.20% sale price 6
Annual Household Income Required
Sales Price to Income Ratio
Notes
(1) Based on Market Survey.

Prototype 3
Townhome
$562,500 1
$112,500
$450,000

5.25% 3
30 years
$29,800
$7,000
$2,820
$1,100
$40,720
35% 7
$116,000

4.8 (2) Median down payment at 20% is based on Freddie Mac data on its portfolio of mortgages within zip codes corresponding to Alameda County and specific to principal residence purchase loans originated during 2nd quarter of 2012. (3) Average mortgage interest rate for prior 10 years derived from Freddie Mac Primary Mortgage Market Survey and about

0.75% above current favorable rates. Based on weekly average rates for 30 year fixed rate mortgages during the period from 2004 through 2013.
(4) 1.25% property tax rate is inclusive of ad valorem taxes plus estimated fixed charges and assessments. (5) Based on average HOA dues for two townhome projects currently selling in Fremont identified in the market survey. (6) Estimated from quote obtained from Progressive Insurance for HO-6 "walls in" policy covering interior of unit and personal property. Exterior of structure and common area assumed to be covered by separate homeowners association policy.
(7) Based on Freddie Mac data on mortgages originated in Alameda County which reflect an average debt to income ratio of 35% including both housing expenses and other debt like auto loans and credit cards. Were other debt excluded, the ratio would likely be lower than 35%. Using a ratio less than 35% would have increased the supported maximum fee levels from those reflected in the analysis; therefore, 35% represents a conservative estimate.

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\16\16090\001\Copy of Newark Nexus model 3-14-14; 3/14/2014; dd

TABLE A-5
PROTOTYPE4:CONDO

SALES PRICE TO INCOME RATIO

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
Sales Price
Mortgage Payment
Downpayment @ 20%
Loan Amount
Interest Rate
Term of Mortgage
Annual Mortgage Payment
Other Costs
Property Taxes
HOA Dues / Maintenance
Homeowner Insurance
Total Annual Housing Cost
% of Income Spent on Hsg
Annual Income Required
Sales Price to Income Ratio
Notes
$446 /SF 1,300 SF 1
20% 2

1.25% of sales price 4
$350 per month 5

0.20% sale price 6
Prototype 4
Condo
$580,000 1
$116,000
$464,000

5.25% 3
30 years
$30,700
$7,300
$4,200
$1,200
$43,400
35% 7
$124,000

4.7 (1) No new or newer stacked flat condos were identified in the market survey. Price represents an estimate of the sales price required for development feasibility.
(2) Median down payment at 20% is based on Freddie Mac data on its portfolio of mortgages within zip codes corresponding to Alameda County and specific to principal residence purchase loans originated during 2nd quarter of 2012. (3) Average mortgage interest rate for prior 10 years derived from Freddie Mac Primary Mortgage Market Survey and about

0. 75% above current favorable rates. Based on weekly average rates for 30 year fixed rate mortgages during the period from 2004 through 2013.
(4) 1.25% property tax rate is inclusive of ad valorem taxes plus estimated fixed charges and assessments. (5) Based on average HOA dues for a sampling of existing 2 bedroom condos in Newark as reported by MLS. (6) Estimated from quote obtained from Progressive Insurance for HO-6 "walls in" policy covering interior of unit and personal property. Exterior of structure and common area assumed to be covered by separate homeowners association policy.
(7) Based on Freddie Mac data on mortgages originated in Alameda County which reflect an average debt to income ratio of 35% including both housing expenses and other debt like auto loans and credit cards. Were other debt excluded, the ratio would likely be lower than 35%. Using a ratio less than 35% would have increased the supported maximum fee levels from those reflected in the analysis; therefore, 35% represents a conservative estimate.

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\16\16090\001\Copy of Newark Nexus model 3-14-14; 3/14/2014; dd

TABLE A-6
PROTOTYPE5:RENTAL

RENT TO INCOME RATIO

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
Market Rent
Monthly
Annual
% of Income Spent on Rent
( excludes utilities)
$2.35 /SF
Annual Household Income Required
Annual Rent to Income Ratio
Notes
850 SF 1
Prototype 5
Rental
$2,000 2
$24,000
30% 3
$80,000

3.3 (1) No new or newer stacked flat condos were identified in the market survey. Price represents an estimate of the sales price required for development feasibility.
(2) Based on the results of the market survey. Represents rent levels applicable to new units. (3) Renter households are assumed to spend 30% of income on rent, or slightly more than the median for Newark renter households at 29.1 % and slightly less than the median for all of Alameda County at 31 % per the 2008 - 2012 American Community Survey. While landlords may permit rental payments to represent a slightly higher share of total income, 30% represents an average.

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\16\16090\001\Copy of Newark Nexus model 3-14-14; 3/14/2014; dd

TABLE A-7

INCOME AVAILABLE FOR EXPENDITURES'

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
Prototype 1 :

SFD I Large Lot
Gross Income 100%
(Less) Federal Income Taxes (avg. rate)' 12.7%
(Less) Average State Income Tax Rate 0 5%
(Less) FICA Tax Rate• 7.65%
(Less) Savings and other deductions� 8%
Percent of Income Available for 67%
Expenditures 6 [Input to IMPLAN model]
Notes:

Prototype 2:

SFD I Small Lot
100%

12.7%
5%

7.65%
8%
67%
Prototype 3: Prototype 4: Prototype 5:

T.ownhome Condo Rental
100% 100% 100%

12.7% 12.7% 9.5%
5% 5% 4%

7.65% 7.65% 7.65%
8% 8% 8%
67% 67% 71%
1 Gross income after deduction of taxes and savings. Income available for expenditures is the input to the IMPLAN model which is used to estimate the resulting employment impacts. Housing costs are not deducted as part of this adjustment step because they are addressed separately as expenditures within the IMPLAN model.

L Reflects average tax rates (as opposed to marginal) based on U.S. Internal Revenue Services. Tax Statistics. Table 3.2 Returns with Total Ir.come Tax: Total Income Tax as a Percentage of Adjusted Gross Income, by Selected Marital Status and Size of Adjusted Gross Income, Tax Year 2011 (2011 tax year is the most recent available). For Prototypes 1 - 4, the average tax rate for AGI of $100,000 to $200,000 of 12.7% is applied. For Prototype 5, the average tax rate for AGI of $75,000 to $100,000 of 9.5% is applied. j Average tax rate estimated by KMA based on marginal rates per the California Franchise Tax Board and ratios of taxable income to gross income estimated based on U.S. Internal Revenue Service data. The higher average tax rates applicable to single or married filing separately tax filers is applied in the analysis so as to produce a conservative (likely understated) estimate. 4 For Social Security and Medicare. Conservatively assumes all income will be subject to Social Security taxes. The current ceiling on applicability of Social Security taxes is $117,000 (ceiling applies per earner not per household). :> Household savings including retirement accounts like 401k / IRA and other deductions such as interest costs on credit cards, auto loans, etc, necessary to determine the amount of income available for expenditures. The 8% rate used in the analysis is based on the average over the past 20 years computed from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis data, specifically the National Income and Product Accounts, Table 2.1 "Personal Income and It's Disposition."
6 Deductions from gross income to arrive at the income available for expenditures are consistent with the way the IMPLAN model and National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) defines income available for personal consumption expenditures. Income taxes, contributions to Social Security and Medicare, and savings are deducted; however, property taxes and sales taxes are not. Housing costs are not deducted as part of the adjustment because they are addressed separately as expenditures within the IMPLAN model.

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 22
\\Sf-fs2\wp\16\16090\001\Copy of Newark Nexus model 3-14-14; 311412014; dd TABLE A-8
FOR SALE PROTOTYPES: SALES PRICE TO INCOME SUMMARY

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
100 Unit
Per Unit Per Sq.Ft. Building Module

PROTOTYPE1:SFD/LARGE LOT
Units 100 Units
Building Sq.Ft. (net salable area) 2,500 250,000
Sales Price $787,500 $315 $78,750,000
Sales Price to Income Ratio 5.0 5.0
Gross Household Income $159,000 $15,900,000
Income Available for Expenditur, 67% of gross $107,000 $10,65 0,000 PROTOTYPE2:SFD/SMALL LOT
Units 100 Units
Building Sq.Ft. (net salable area) 2,000 200,000
Sales Price $700,000 $350 $70,000,000
Sales Price to Income Ratio 4.9 4.9
Gross Household Income $142,000 $14,200,000
Income Available for Expenditur, 67% of gross $95,000 $9,510,000 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 23
\\Sf-fs2\wp\16\16090\001\Copy of Newark Nexus model 3-14-14; 3/14/2014; dd TABLE A-8
FOR SALE PROTOTYPES: SALES PRICE TO INCOME SUMMARY

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
100 Unit
Per Unit Per Sq.Ft. Building Module

PROTOTYPE 3: TOWNHOME
Units 100 Units
Building Sq.Ft. (net salable area) 1,500 150,000
Sales Price $562,500 $375 $56,250,000
Sales Price to Income Ratio 4.8 4.8
Gross Household Income $116,000 $11,600,000
Income Available for Expenditur, 67% of gross $78,000 $7,770,000 PROTOTYPE4:CONDO
Units 100 Units
Building Sq.Ft. (net salable area) 1,300 130,000
Sales Price $580,000 $446 $58,000,000
Sales Price to Income Ratio 4.7 4.7
Gross Household Income $124,000 $12,400,000
Income Available for Expenditur, 67% of gross $83,000 $8,310,000 Notes:
(1) Represents net income available for expenditures after income tax, payroll taxes, and savings. See Table A-7 for derivation.

Source: See Tables A-2 to A-7.

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 24
\\Sf-fs2\wp\16\16090\001\Copy of Newark Nexus model 3-14-14; 3/14/2014; dd TABLE A-9

NEW MARKET RATE RESIDENTIAL HOUSEHOLD SUMMARY

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
Per Unit
PROTOTYPE5:RENTAL
Units
Building Sq.Ft. (net rentable area) 850
Rent
Monthly $2,000
Annual $24,000
Rent to Income Ratio 3.3
Gross Household Income $80,000
Income Available for Expenditure 1 71% of gross $57,000 Notes:
100 Unit
Per Sq.Ft. Building Module
100 Units
85,000
$2.35 /SF $200,000
$28.20 /SF $2,400,000

3.3 $8,000,000
$5,680,000
(1) Represents net income available for expenditures after income tax, payroll taxes, and savings. See Table A-7 for derivation.

Source: Table A-6 and A-7.

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\16\16090\001\Copy of Newark Nexus model 3-14-14; 3/14/2014; dd

(This page intentionally left blank.)
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001\001-001.docx

B. THE IMPLAN MODEL
Consumer spending by residents of new housing units will create jobs, particularly in sectors such as restaurants, health care, and retail, which are closely connected to the expenditures of residents. The widely used economic analysis tool, IMPLAN (IMpact Analysis for PLANning), was used to quantify these new jobs by industry sector.

IMPLAN Model Description
The IMPLAN model is an economic analysis software package now commercially available through the IMPLAN Group, LLC. IMPLAN was originally developed by the U.S. Forest Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management and has been in use since 1979 and refined over time. It has become a widely used tool for analyzing economic impacts for a broad range of applications from major construction projects to natural resource programs.

IMPLAN is based on an input-output accounting of commodity flows within an economy from producers to intermediate and final consumers. The model establishes a matrix of supply chain relationships between industries and also between households and the producers of household goods and services. Assumptions about the portion of inputs or supplies for a given industry likely to be met by local suppliers, and the portion supplied from outside the region or study area are derived internally within the model using data on the industrial structure of the region.

The output or result of the model is generated by tracking changes in purchases for final use (final demand) as they filter through the supply chain. Industries that produce goods and services for final demand or consumption must purchase inputs from other producers, which in turn, purchase goods and services. The model tracks these relationships through the economy to the point where leakages from the region stop the cycle. This allows the user to identify how a change in demand for one industry will affect a list of over 400 other industry sectors. The projected response of an economy to a change in final demand can be viewed in terms of economic output, employment, or income.

Data sets are available for each county and state, so the model can be tailored to the specific economic conditions of the region being analyzed. This analysis utilizes the data set for Alameda County. As will be discussed, much of the employment impact is in local-serving sectors, such as retail, eating and drinking establishments, and medical services. A significant portion of these jobs will be located in Newark or nearby. In addition, the employment impacts will extend throughout the County and beyond based on where jobs are located that serve Newark residents. In fact, Newark is part of the larger Bay Area economy and impacts will likewise extend throughout the region.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \001-001.docx

Application of the IMP LAN Model to Estimate Job Growth The IMPLAN model was applied to link income to household expenditures to job growth.

Employment generated by the household income of residents is analyzed in modules of 100 residential units to simplify communication of the results and avoid awkward fractions. The IMPLAN model distributes spending among various types of goods and services (industry sectors) based on data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey and the Bureau of Economic Analysis Benchmark input-output study, to estimate employment generated.

Job creation, driven by increased demand for products and services, was projected for each of the industries that will serve the new households. The employment generated by this new household spending is summarized below.

Jobs Generated Per 100 Units
Single Family Single Family
I Large Lot I Small Lot Townhome Condo Apartment
Annual Household
Expenditures, 100 Units $10,650,000 $9,510,000 $7,770,000 $8,310,000 $5,680,000 Total Jobs Generated,
100 Units 73.1 64.8 53.0 56.6 37.5
Table 8-1 provides a detailed summary of employment generated by industry. The table shows industries sorted by projected employment. The Consumer Expenditure Survey published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks expenditure patterns by income level. IMPLAN utilizes this data to reflect the pattern by income bracket. In the case of the Newark prototypes, the large lot single family units are in the $150,000 and up income category, while the other ownership prototypes are in the $100,000 to $150,000 category and the apartment prototype is in the $75,000 to $100,000 category. Estimated employment is shown for each IMPLAN industry sector representing 1 % or more of total employment. The jobs that are generated are heavily retail jobs, jobs in restaurants and other eating establishments, and in services that are provided locally such as health care. The jobs counted in the IMPLAN model cover all jobs, full and part time, similar to the U.S. Census and all reporting agencies (unless otherwise indicated).

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \001-001.docx

TABLE B-1

IMPLAN MODEL OUTPUT

EMPLOYMENT GENERATED

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
Per 100 Market Rate Units
Prototype 1: Prototype 2: Prototype 3: Prototype 4: Prototype 5: %of SFD / large lot SFD / Small lot Townhome Condo Rental Jobs Household Expenditures (100 Market Rate Unit, $10,650,000 $9,510,000 $7,770,000 $8,310,000 $5,680,000 Jobs Generated by Industry 2
Retail Stores - Food and beverage 2.7 2.3 1.9 2.0 1.2 4% Retail Stores - General merchandise 2.6 2.2 1.8 2.0 1.2 3% Retail Stores - Motor vehicle and parts 1.6 1.4 1.1 1.2 0.7 2% Retail Stores - Miscellaneous 1.6 1.4 1.1 1.2 0.7 2%
Retail Stores - Clothing and accessories 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.1 0.7 2% Retail Stores - Health and personal care 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.5 1% Retail Stores - Building and garden supply 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.4 1% Retail Nonstores - Direct and electronic sales 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.4 1% Subtotal Retail 12.9 11.0 9.0 9.6 5.8 17%
Offices of physicians and dentists 4.0 4.1 3.4 3.6 2.5 6% Private hospitals 3.4 3.5 2.8 3.0 2.1 5%
Nursing and residential care facilities 2.4 2.5 2.0 2.2 1.5 4% Medical and diagnostic labs and outpatient care .LQ .LQ 0.8 0.9 0.6 2% Subtotal Health Care 10.8 11.1 9.1 9.7 6.8 17%
Food services and drinking places 9.5 9.0 7.4 7.9 5.3 14% Real estate including property management 2.3 2.4 1.9 2.1 1.8 4% Private household operations 2.6 2.1 1.8 1.9 1.2 3%
Wholesale trade businesses 1.6 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.4 3%
Individual and family services 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.4 0.8 2%
Civic, social, professional organizations 1.3 1.1 0.9 1.0 0.6 2% Other private educational services 1.8 1.1 0.9 1.0 0.5 2% Elementary and secondary schools 1.7 1.1 0.9 1.0 0.5 2% Personal care services 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.6 2%
Employment services 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.6 2%
Banking and depository credit 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.5 1%
Home health care services 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.5 1%
Securities, investments, and related 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.4 1% Automotive repair and maintenance 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.4 1% Services to buildings and dwellings 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.4 1% Child day care services 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.3 1%
Grantmaking and social advocacy organizations 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.3 1% Colleges, universities, and professional schools 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 1% All Other 17.2 14.7 12.0 12.8 8.3 23%
Total Number of Jobs Generated 73.1 64.8 53.0 56.6 37.5 100% ' Estimated employment generated by expenditures of households within 100 prototypical market rate units. Employment estimates are based on the IMPLAN Group's economic model, IMPLAN, for Alameda County.
2 For Industries representing more than 1 % of total employment.

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates. Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\16\16090\001\Copy of Newark Nexus model 3-14-14; 3/14/2014; dd Page 29 (This page intentionally left blank.)

C. THE KMA JOBS HOUSING NEXUS MODEL
This section presents a summary of the analysis linking the employment growth associated with residential development, or the output of the IMPLAN model (see Section B), to the estimated number of lower income housing units required in each of three income categories, for each of the five residential prototype units.

Analysis Approach and Framework
The analysis approach is to examine the employment growth for industries related to consumer spending by residents in the 100-unit modules. Then, through a series of linkage steps, the number of employees is converted to households and housing units by affordability level. The findings are expressed in terms of numbers of affordable units per 100 market rate units.

The analysis addresses the affordable unit demand associated with single family detached, townhomes, condos, and rental units in Alameda County. The table below shows the 2014 Alameda County Area Median Income (AMI), as well as the income limits for the three categories that were evaluated: Very Low (50% of AMI), Low (80% of AMI), and Moderate (120% of AMI). The income definitions used in the analysis are those published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
2014 Income Limits for Alameda County
Household Size (Persons)
1 2 3 4 5 6+
Very Low (30% - 50% AMI) $32,750 $37,400 $42,100 $46,750 $50,500 $54,250 Low (50%-80% AMI) $47,350 $54,100 $60,850 $67,600 $73,050 $78,450 Moderate (80%-120% AMI) $78,550 $89,750 $101,000 $112,200 $121,200 $130,150 Median (100% of Median) $65,450 $74,800 $84,150 $93,500 $101,000 $108,450 The analysis is conducted using a model that KMA developed and has applied to similar evaluations in many other jurisdictions. The model inputs are all local data to the extent possible, and are fully documented in the following description.

Analysis Steps
The tables at the end of this section present a summary of the nexus analysis steps for the prototype units. Following is a description of each step of the analysis.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \001-001.docx

Step 1 - Estimate of Total New Employees
Table C-1 commences with the total number of employees associated with the new market rate units. The employees were estimated based on household expenditures of new residents using the IMPLAN model (see Section B).

Step 2 -Changing Industries Adjustment and Net New Jobs The local economy, like that of the U.S. as a whole, is constantly evolving. In the Oakland, Fremont, Hayward Metropolitan Division (defined as Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), over the past twenty years, employment in manufacturing sectors of the economy has continued to decline along with employment in State and Federal government, telecommunications, and banking. Defense related employment has also declined from around 12,000 jobs twenty years ago to near zero today. Jobs lost over the last decade in these declining sectors were replaced by job growth in other industry sectors.

Step 2 makes an adjustment to take these declines, changes and shifts within all sectors of the economy into account recognizing that jobs added are not 100% net new in all cases. A 25% adjustment is utilized based on the long term shifts in employment that have occurred in some sectors of the local economy and the likelihood of continuing changes in the future. Long term declines in employment experienced in some sectors of the economy mean that some of the new jobs are being filled by workers that have been displaced from another industry and who are presumed to already have housing locally. Existing workers downsized from declining industries are assumed to be available to fill a portion of the new retail, restaurant, health care, and other jobs associated with services to residents. This is a conservative assumption given some displaced workers may exit the workforce entirely by retiring rather than seek a new job in one of the industries serving new residents.

The 25% downward adjustment used for purposes of the analysis was derived from California Employment Development Department data on employment by industry in Alameda and Contra Costa County over the twenty year period from 2012 to 1992. The 2012 data set reflects a higher unemployment rate at 9% than the 6.6% unemployment rate in 1992 which will tend to overstate any long term declines since the 2012 data also reflects some cyclical or short term declines relative to the 1992 employment data. Over this period, approximately 38,000 jobs were lost in declining industry sectors. Over the same period, growing and stable industries added a total of 158,000 jobs. Figures are adjusted to exclude losses in department of defense employment given there are almost no defense jobs left in the area and so continuing declines in this sector is not expected to be a factor in the in the future. The figures are used to establish a ratio between jobs lost in declining industries to jobs gained in growing and stable industries at 25% 8
. The 25% factor is applied as an adjustment in the analysis, effectively assuming one in 8 The 25% ratio is calculated as 38,000 jobs lost in declining sectors excluding defense divided by 158,000 jobs gained in growing and stable sectors= 23.9% (rounded to 25%).

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \001-001.docx

every four new jobs is filled by a worker down-sized from a declining industry and who already lives locally.

Step 3 - Adjustment from Employees to Employee Households This step (Table C-1) converts the number of employees to the number of employee households, recognizing that there is, on average, more than one worker per household, and thus the number of housing units in demand for new workers is reduced. The workers-perworker-household ratio eliminates from the equation all non-working households, such as retired persons, students, and those on public assistance. The County average of 1.61 workers per worker household (from the U.S. Census Bureau 2010-2012 American Community Survey) is used for this step in the analysis. The number of jobs is divided by 1.61 to determine the number of worker households. This ratio is distinguished from the overall number of workers per household in that the denominator includes only households with at least one worker. If the average number of workers in all households were used, it would have produced a greater demand for housing units. The 1.61 ratio covers all workers, full and part time.

Step 4 - Occup ational Distribution of Employees
The occupational breakdown of employees is the first step to arrive at income level. The output from the IMPLAN model provides the number of employees by industry sector, shown in Table B-1. The IMPLAN output is paired with data from the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics May 2012 Occupational Employment Survey (OES) to estimate the occupational composition of employees for each industry sector.

Step 4a - Translation from IMPLAN Industry Codes to NA/CS Industry Codes The output of the IMPLAN model is jobs by industry sector using IMPLAN's own industry classification system which consists of 440 industry sectors. The OES occupation data uses the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Estimates of jobs by IMPLAN sector must be translated into estimates by NAICS code for consistency with the OES data.

The NAICS system is organized into industry codes ranging from two- to six-digits. Two-digit codes are the broadest industry categories and six-digit codes are the most specific. Within a two-digit NAICS code, there may be several three-digit codes and within each three digit code, several four-digit codes, etc. A chart published by IMPLAN relates each IMPLAN industry sector with one or more NAICS codes, with matching NAICS codes ranging from the two-digit level to the five-digit level. For purposes of the nexus analysis, all employment estimates must be aggregated to the four digit NAICS code level to align with OES data which is organized by fourdigit NAICS code. For some industry sectors, an allocation is necessary between more than one four-digit NAICS code. Where required, allocations are made proportionate to total employment at the national level from the OES.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \001-001.docx

The table below illustrates analysis Step 4a in which employment estimates by IMPLAN Code are translated to NAICS codes and then aggregated at the four digit NAICS code level. The examples used are Child Day Care Centers and Food and Drinking Places. The process is applied to all the industry sectors.

Illustration of Model Step 4a.

A. IMPLAN Output by 8. Link to Corresponding
IMPLAN Industry Sector NAICS Code
Jobs IMPLAN Sector Jobs NAICS Code

1.2 399 - Child day 1.2 6244 Child day
care services care services

9.5 413 - Food and 9.5 722 Food and
Drinking Places Drinking Places
C. Aggregate at 4-Digit NAICS Code Level
% Total
Jobs Employment

1.2 100%

8.60 90%

0.57 6%

0.34 4%
4-Diqit NAICS
6244 Child day care
services
7225 Restaurants
and Other Eating
Places
7223 Special Food
Services
7224 Drinking
Places (Alcoholic
Beveraqes)
Step 4b - Apply OES Data to Estimate Occupational Distribution Employment estimates by four-digit NAICS code from step 4a are paired with data on occupational composition within each industry from the OES to generate an estimate of employment by detailed occupational category. As shown on Table C-1, new jobs will be distributed across a variety of occupational categories. The three largest occupational categories are office and administrative support (16%), sales (15%), and food preparation and serving (14%-15%). Step 4 of Table C-1 indicates the percentage and number of employee households by occupation associated with 100 market rate units.

Step 5 - Estimates of Emplo yee Households Meeting the Lower Inc ome Definitions In this step, occupations are translated to employee incomes based on recent Alameda County wage and salary information from the California Employment Development Department (EDD).

The wage and salary information summarized in Appendix 2 Tables 2, 4, and 6 provided the income inputs to the model.

For each occupational category shown in Table C-1, the OES data provides a distribution of specific occupations within the category. For example, within the Food Preparation and Serving Category, there are Supervisors, Cooks, Bartenders, Waiters and Waitresses, Dishwashers, etc. In total there are over 100 detailed occupation categories included in the analysis as shown Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \001-001.docx

in Appendix 2, Tables 2, 4, and 6. Each of these over 100 occupation categories has a different distribution of wages which was obtained from EDD and is specific to workers in Alameda County as of 2013.

For each detailed occupational category, the model uses the distribution of wages to calculate the percent of worker households that would fall into each income category. The calculation is performed for each possible combination of household size and number of workers in the household. For households with more than one worker, individual employee income data was used to calculate the household income by assuming multiple earner households are, on average, formed of individuals with similar incomes.

The table below illustrates Step 5 as applied to food preparation and serving workers. Annual compensation for food preparation and serving workers in Alameda County as of 2013 is distributed9 around a mean of $21,500. For households with one worker, 100% are estimated to qualify as Very Low. For households with two or more workers between 37% and 100% are estimated to qualify as Very Low depending on the household size. For households with three or more workers, only larger households with than six or more people are estimated to qualify as Very Low.

Step 5 Illustration for Food Preparation and Serving Worker Households Percent Qualifying as Very Low for Each Possible Household Size I No. of Workers Combination Percent of Worker Households That Would Qualify as Very Low For Each Possible Combination of Household Size and No. of Workers Applying 2014 Income Limits for Alameda County
HH Size 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person Limit $32,750 $37,400 $42,100 $46,750 $50,500 $54,250
No. Workers
in Household
1 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
2 N/A 37% 61% 77% 100% 100%
3 or more10 N/A N/A 0% 0% 0% 21%
The step illustrated above is repeated around 300 times for each of the over 100 detailed occupations and at each of the three affordable income tiers. At the end of Step 5, the nexus model has established a matrix indicating the percentages of households that would qualify in the affordable income tiers for every detailed occupational category and every potential combination of household size and number of workers in the household. 9 In addition to the mean compensation, EDD reported 25th , 50th
, and 75th percentile compensations are utilized.
1 ° Census data aggregates households with three or more workers; therefore, a corresponding aggregation is necessary for purposes of the analysis.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \001-001.docx

Step 6 - Distribution of Household Size and Number of Workers In this step, the model examines the demographics of Alameda County in order to develop probability factors for each potential combination of household size and number of workers.

The table below presents the probability factors used in the model. The factors represent the probability that a worker is a member of a household of a given size and number of workers.

Step 6: Probability Factors for Combinations of Number of Workers and Household Size Household Size (Persons)
1 2 3 4 5 6+
No. Workers in Household
1 0.190781 0.148746 0.084114 0.060346 0.027678 0.023864 2 N/A 0.147885 0.095065 0.071567 0.032824 0.028302
3 or more N/A N/A 0.024071 0.034927 0.016019 0.013812
Note: probability factors sum to 1.00000
Probability factors are specific to Alameda County and are derived from the 2010 - 2012 American Community Survey. Application of these probability factors accounts for the following:
■ Households have a range in size and a range in the number of workers. ■ Large households generally have more workers than smaller households.

The result of Step 6 is a distribution of Alameda County working households by number of workers and household size.

Step 7 - Estimate of Number of Households that Meet Size and Income Criteria Step 7 is the final step to calculate the number of worker households meeting the size and income criteria for the three affordability tiers. The calculation combines the matrix of results from Step 5 on percentage of worker households that would meet the income criteria at each potential household size / no. of workers combination, with Step 6, the probability of a worker household having a given household size / number of workers combination. The result is the percentage of households that fall into each affordability tier. The percentages are then multiplied by the number of households from Step 3 to arrive at number of households in each affordability tier.

Table C-2 shows the result after completing Steps 5, 6, and 7. The results shown are for the under 50% of AMI category. The methodology is repeated for each of the three income tiers, resulting in a total count of worker households per 100 units.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \001-001.docx

Summary Findings
Table C-3 indicates the results of the analysis for each of the residential prototypes. The table presents the number of households generated in each affordability category and the total number over 120% of Area Median Income.

The findings in Table C-3 are presented below. The table shows the total demand for affordable housing units associated with 100 market rate units.

New Worker Households by Income Level per 100 Market Rate Units Single Family I Single Family
Lame Lot I Small Lot Townhome Condo Apartment
Very Low (Under 50% AMI) 13.2 11.7 9.5 10.2 6.7
Low (50%-80% AMI) 7.4 6.5 5.3 5.7 3.7
Moderate {80%-120% AMI) 7.2 6.3 5.2 5.5 3.7
Total, Less than 120% AMI 27.8 24.5 20.0 21.4 14.1
Greater than 120% AMI 6.3 5.7 4.7 5.0 3.4
Total, New Households 34.1 30.2 24.7 26.4 17.5
Housing demand for new worker households earning less than 120% of AMI ranges from 27.8 units per 100 market rate units for large lot Single Family units, to 14.1 units per 100 market rate units for apartments. Housing demand is distributed across the lower income tiers with the greatest number of households in the under 50% of AMI tier. The finding that the jobs associated with consumer spending tend to be low-paying jobs where the workers will require housing affordable at the lower income levels is not surprising. As noted above, direct consumer spending results in employment that is concentrated in lower paid occupations including food preparation, administrative, and retail sales.
lnclusionary Percentages Supported
The analysis findings identify how many lower income households are generated for every 100 market rate units. These findings are adjusted to a supported inclusionary percentage which represents the percentage of units provided on-site within a project that would fully mitigate the affordable housing impacts as documented in this nexus analysis. While the City is considering elimination of its existing inclusionary program in favor housing impact fees, these percentages are never-the-less provided for additional information which may potentially be useful; for example, in making required findings if affordable units are proposed to be included within a project as an alternative to payment of the Housing Impact Fee.

The percentages are calculated including both market rate and affordable units (for example, 25 affordable units per 100 market rate units translates to a project of 125 units; 25 affordable units out of 125 units equals 20%).

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \001-001.docx

The inset table below presents the results of the analysis, drawn from Table C-4. Each tier is cumulative, or inclusive of the tiers above. The analysis supports maximum inclusionary percentages between 12.4% and 21.7%, depending on the prototype.

Cumulative lnclusionary Percentage Supported by Nexus Analysis Very Low (Under 50% AMI)
Low (50%-80% AMI)
Moderate (80%-120% AMI)
Single Family Single Family
I Larqe Lot I Small Lot Townhome

11.6%

17.0%

21.7%

10.5%

15.4%

19.7%

8.7%

12.9%

16.7%
Condo Apartment

9.3% 6.3%

13.7% 9.4%

17.6% 12.4%
The percentages shown above are not recommended inclusionary percentages. They are included for purposes of additional information relative to the alternative means of compliance provisions of the proposed Housing Impact Fee Ordinance which requires certain findings in connection with approval of a proposed alternative means of compliance.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \001-001.docx

TABLE C-1

NET NEW HOUSEHOLDS AND OCCUPATION DISTRIBUTION

EMPLOYEE HOUSEHOLDS GENERATED

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
Prototype 1 : Prototype 2: Prototype 3: Prototype 4: Prototype 5:

SFD / Large Lot SFD / Small Lot Townhome Condo Rental
Step 1 - Employees ' 73.1 64.8 53.0 56.6 37.5
Step 2 -Adjustment for Changing Industries (25%) 54.8 48.6 39.7 42.5 28.1 Step 3-Adjustment for Number of Households (1.61)' 34.1 30.2 24.7 26.4 17.5 Step 4 -Occupation Distribution 3
Management Occupations 4.1% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.1%
Business and Financial Operations 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% Computer and Mathematical 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2%
Architecture and Engineering 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%
Life, Physical, and Social Science 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Community and Social Services 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.9%
Legal 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
Education, Training, and Library 4.6% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 2.8% Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media 1.8% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% Healthcare Practitioners and Technical 7.4% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.7% Healthcare Support 4.3% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 5.0%
Protective Service 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3%
Food Preparation and Serving Related 14.4% 15.1% 15.1% 15.1% 15.2% Building and Grounds Cleaning and Main!. 6.0% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% Personal Care and Service 5.7% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.3%
Sales and Related 15.3% 15.1% 15.1% 15.1% 14.6%
Office and Administrative Support 15.5% 15.6% 15.6% 15.6% 15.8% Farming, Fishing, and Forestry 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Construction and Extraction 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8%
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 3.5% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.8% Production 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7%
Transportation and Material Moving 5.5% 5.4% 5.4% 5.4% 5.4% Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Management Occupations 1.4 1 2 1.0 1.1 0.7
Business and Financial Operations 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.6
Computer and Mathematical 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2
Architecture and Engineering 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Life, Physical, and Social Science 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Community and Social Services 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.3
Legal 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1
Education, Training, and Library 1.6 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.5
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical 2.5 2.5 2.1 2.2 1.5 Healthcare Support 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.3 0.9
Protective Service 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2
Food Preparation and Serving Related 4.9 4.6 3.7 4.0 2.7 Building and Grounds Cleaning and Main!. 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.0 Personal Care and Service 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.5 0.9
Sales and Related 5.2 4.6 3.7 4.0 2.6
Office and Administrative Support 5.3 4.7 3.9 4.1 2.8
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Construction and Extraction 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.7 Production 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3
Transportation and Material Moving il ti Ll .11 0.9
Totals 34.1 30.2 24.7 26.4 17.5
Notes:
1 Estimated employment generated by expenditures of households within 100 prototypical market rate units. Employment estimates based on economic model, IMPLAN.
' Adjustment from number of workers to households using average of 1.61 workers per worker household derived from the U.S. Census American Community 3 See Appendix 2, Tables 1 through 6 for additional information on Major Occupation Categories.

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\16\16090\001\Copy of Newark Nexus model 3-14-14; 3/14/2014; dd Page 39 TABLE C-2
VERY LOW-INCOME EMPLOYEE HOUSEHOLDS1 GENERATED

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
Per 100 Market Rate Units
Prototype 1: Prototype 2: Prototype 3: Prototype 4: Prototype 5:

SFD / Large Lot SFD / Small Lot ifownhome Condo Rental
Step 5 & 6 - Very Low Income Households (under 50% AMI) within Major Occupation Categories 2 Management 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00
Business and Financial Operations 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 Computer and Mathematical
Architecture and Engineering
Life, Physical and Social Science
Community and Social Services
Legal
Education Training and Library 0.27 0.17 0.14 0.15 0.09 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, & Medi,
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 Healthcare Support 0.56 0.56 0.45 0.49 0.33
Protective Service
Food Preparation and Serving Related 3.57 3.33 2.72 2.91 1.94 Building Grounds and Maintenance 0.88 0.77 0.63 0.68 0.45 Personal Care and Service 1.18 1.00 0.82 0.87 0.57
Sales and Related 2.68 2.32 1.90 2.03 1.29
Office and Admin 1.37 1.23 1.00 1.07 0.71
Farm, Fishing, and Forestry
Construction and Extraction
Installation Maintenance and Repair 0.17 0.16 0.13 0.14 0.09 Production
Transportation and Material Moving 0.81 0.70 0.57 0.61 0.40 Very Low Income Households - Major Occupatior 11.53 10.27 8.39 8.97 5.88 Very Low Inc. Households1 - all other occupation: 1.64 1.42 1.16 1.24 0.81 Total Very Low Income Households1 13.17 11.69 9.55 10.21 6.69 1 Includes households earning from zero through 50% of Alameda County Area Median Income. 2 See Appendix 2 Tables 1 through 6 for additional information on Major Occupation Categories. Note that the model places individual employees into households. Many households have multiple income sources and therefore household income is higher than the wages shown in Appendix 2 tables 2, 4, and 6. The distribution of the number of workers per worker household and the distribution of household size are based on American Community Survey data.

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\16\16090\001\Copy of Newark Nexus model 3-14-14; 3/14/2014; dd Page 40 TABLE C-3

IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY

EMPLOYEE HOUSEHOLDS GENERATED

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA

RESIDENTIAL UNIT DEMAND IMPACTS
PER 100 MARKET RATE UNITS
Prototype 1 : Prototype 2: Prototype 3: Prototype 4: Prototype 5:

Number of New Households 1 SFD / Large Lot SFD / Small Lot I'ownhome Condo Rental Under 50% Area Median Income 13.2 11.7 9.5 10.2 6.7
50% to 80% Area Median Income 7.4 6.5 5.3 5.7 3.7
80% to 120% Area Median Income 7.2 6.3 5.2 5.5 3.7
Subtotal through 120% of Median 27.8 24.5 20.0 21.4 14.1 Over 120% Area Median Income 6.3 5.7 4.7 5.0 3.4
Total Employee Households 34.1 30.2 24.7 26.4 17.5
Percent of New Households 1
Under 50% Area Median Income 39% 39% 39% 39% 38%
50% to 80% Area Median Income 22% 21% 21% 21% 21%
80% to 120% Area Median Income 21% 21% 21% 21% 21%
Subtotal through 120% of Median 81% 81% 81% 81% 81%
Over 120% Area Median Income 19% 19% 19% 19% 19%
Total Employee Households 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Notes
1 Households of retail, education, healthcare and other workers that serve residents of new market rate units.

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\16\16090\001\Copy of Newark Nexus model 3-14-14; 3/14/2014; dd Page 41 TABLE C-4

INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENT SUPPORTED

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
Prototype 1:

SFD / Large Lot
Supported lnclusionary Requirement
Per 100 Market Rate Units - Cumulative Through
50% OF MEDIAN INCOME
80% OF MEDIAN INCOME
120% OF MEDIAN INCOME

13.2 Units

20.5 Units

27.8 Units
Prototype 2:

SFD/ Small
Lot

11.7Units

18.2 Units

24.5 Units
Supported lnclusionary Percentage - Cumulative Through 1 50% OF MEDIAN INCOME
80% OF MEDIAN INCOME
120% OF MEDIAN INCOME
Notes:

11.6% 10.5%

17.0% 15.4%

21.7% 19.7%
Prototype 3:
irownhome

9.5 Units

14.8 Units

20.0 Units

8.7%

12.9%

16.7%
Prototype 4: Prototype 5:

Condo Rental

10.2 Units 6.7 Units

15.9 Units 10.4 Units

21.4 Units 14.1 Units

9.3% 6.3%

13.7% 9.4%

17.6% 12.4%
1 Calculated by dividing the supported number of affordable units by the total number of units (supported affordable units + 100 market rate units).

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\16\16090\001\Copy of Newark Nexus model 3-14-14; 3/14/2014; dd Page 42 D. MITIGATION COSTS
This section takes the conclusions of the previous section on the number of households in the lower income categories associated with the market rate units and identifies the total cost of assistance required to make housing affordable. This section puts a cost on the units for each income level to produce the "total nexus cost." This is done for each of the prototype units.

A key component of the analysis is the size of the gap between what households can afford and the cost of producing new housing in Newark, known as the 'affordability gap.' Affordability gaps are calculated for each of the three categories of area median income: Very Low (under 50% of median), Low (50% to 80%), and Moderate (80% to 120%). The following summarizes the analysis of mitigation cost which is based on the affordability gap or net cost to deliver units that are affordable to worker households in the lower income tiers. Detailed affordability gap calculations are presented in Tables 0-1 through 0-3 at the end of this section.

City Assisted Affordable Unit Prototypes
For estimating the affordability gap, there is a need to match a household of each income level with a unit type and size according to governmental regulations and City practices and policies.

The analysis assumes that the City will assist households earning between 80% and 120% of Area Median Income with ownership units. The prototype affordable unit should reflect a modest unit consistent with what the City is likely to assist and appropriate for housing the average moderate income worker household, which in the case of Newark is assumed to be a three person household in a two-bedroom townhome unit (for reference, the average household size in Newark is 3.3 persons and for Alameda County the average is 2.8 based on the 2010-2012 American Community Survey). The analysis assumes households earning less than 80% of Area Median Income will be assisted in rental units. The analysis uses a two bedroom affordable rental prototype.

For the purposes of estimating the affordability gaps, we do not assume additional sources of affordable housing financing such as the federal and state low income housing tax credit program. While many affordable housing developments use a wide array of funding sources including tax credits, it is not assured that these sources will be available in the future.

Accessing these sources is also highly competitive due to the limited supply and the amount of funding that tax credits can generate can fluctuate widely.

Development Costs
KMA prepared an estimate of total development cost for a typical two bedroom affordable rental unit (inclusive of land, all fees and permits, financing and other indirect costs) based on a review of development pro formas for recent affordable and market rate rental developments, comparable land sale data, and construction cost data sources such as RS Means. It is noted that the construction costs assume payment of prevailing wages, which would typically be Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \001-001.docx

required in publicly subsidized affordable housing projects. On this basis, KMA concluded that on average, the new affordable rental units would have a total development cost per unit of $310,000.

For ownership units, total development costs (including profit) under normal market conditions, is equal to the market rate sales price. Since there are no new or recent townhome projects selling in Newark, KMA estimated the market sales price for a typical two bedroom, 1,300 square foot townhome to be $500,500 unit ($385 per square foot) based on data developed in the market survey.

Development Costs
Income Group Unit Tenure I Type Development Cost
Under 50% AMI Rental $310,000
50% to 80% AMI Rental $310,000
80% to 120% AMI Ownership $500,500
Unit Values
For affordable ownership units, unit values are the affordable purchase prices. Affordable purchase prices for ownership units are calculated based on the purchase price affordable to a household earning 110% of the Alameda County area median income. For a two bedroom unit, KMA calculated the affordable sales price as $331,500. Details of the calculation are presented in Table D-2.

For rental units, unit values are based upon the Net Operating Income (NOi) generated by the units at the restricted rents and the resulting investment supported. For Low-Income households, affordable rents are based on households earning 60% of the Alameda County median, and for Very Low Income households, rents are based on households earning 50% of median per the California Health and Safety Code standards. The NOi is computed based on the affordable rents less vacancy and operating and maintenance expenses. The NOi is then capitalized at a target return on investment of 7.5% to estimate the supported investment for the project. It is noted that the 7.5% return is higher than would be expected for a typical market rate apartment project because rent growth in affordable housing projects is significantly constrained by increases in median incomes, which do not tend to keep pace with market rent growth. On this basis, KMA estimated the value of the Low Income rental unit at $96,000 and the Very Low Income rental unit at $70,000.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \001-001.docx

Maximum Affordable Sales Prices and Rent Levels
Unit Tenure I Household Maximum Month';' Unit Values I
Income Group Type Size Housing Costs 1 Sales Price
Under 50% AMI Rental 3 persons $1,0521 Month $70,000
50% to 80% AMI Rental 3 persons $1,262 I Month $96,000
80% to 120% AMI Ownership 3 persons $2,700 I Month $331,500 Affordability Gap
The affordability gap is the difference between the cost of developing a residential unit and the unit values at the affordable rents or sales prices.

The resulting affordability gaps are as follows:

Affordability Gap Calculation
Unit Value Development
I Sales Price Cost
Affordable Rental Units
Very Low (Under 50% AMI) $70,000 $310,000
Low (50% to 80% AMI) $96,000 $310,000
Affordable Ownershie_ Units
Moderate (80% to 120% AMI) $331,500 $500,500
Tables 0-1 to 0-3 present the detailed affordability gap calculations.

Total Linkage Costs
Affordability
Gap
$240,000
$214,000
$169,000
The last step in the linkage fee analysis marries the findings on the numbers of households in each of the lower income ranges associated with the five prototypes to the affordability gaps, or the costs of delivering housing to them in Newark.

Table 0-4 summarizes the analysis. The Affordability Gaps are drawn from the prior discussion.

The 'Total Nexus Cost per Market Rate Unit" shows the results of the following calculation: the affordability gap times the number of affordable units demanded per market rate unit. (Demand for affordable units for each of the income ranges is drawn from Table C-3 in the previous section and is adjusted to a per-unit basis from the 100 unit building module.) 11 For rental units, maximum housing costs are the affordable rents. For the moderate-income ownership unit, maximum monthly housing costs includes all housing expenses such as mortgage, insurance, property taxes , HOA dues, and utilities.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \001-001.docx

The total nexus costs for each of the prototypes are as follows:

Nexus Per Market Rate Unit
Single Single
Affordability Family/ Family I
Income Category Gap Large Lot Small Lot Townhome Condo Apartment Very Low (30% - 50% AMI} $240,000 $31,600 $28,000 $22,900 $24,500 $16,100 Low (50%-80% AMI) $214,000 $15,800 $13,900 $11,300 $12,100 $8,000 Moderate (80%-120% AMI) $169,000 $12,200 $10,700 $8,700 $9,300 $6,200 Total Nexus Costs $59,600 $52,600 $42,900 $45,900 $30,300 The Total Nexus Costs, or Mitigation Costs, indicated above, may also be expressed on a per square foot level. The square foot area of the prototype unit used throughout the analysis becomes the basis for the calculation. Again, see Appendix 1 for more discussion of the prototypes. The results per square foot of building area are as follows:

Total Nexus Cost or Maximum Supported Impact Fee Per Sq.Ft. of Building Area'<! Single Single
Affordability Family/ Family/
Income Category Gap Large Lot Small Lot Townhome Condo Apartment Prototvoe Size 2,500 SF 2,000 SF 1,500 SF 1,300 SF 850SF Very Low (30% - 50% AMI) $240,000 $12.60 $14.00 $15.30 $18.80 $18.90 Low (50%-80% AMI) $214,000 $6.30 $7.00 $7.50 $9.30 $9.40 Moderate (80%-120% AMI) $169,000 $4.90 $5.40 $5.80 $7.20 $7.30 Total Nexus Costs $23.80 $26.40 $28.60 $35.30 $35.60
These costs express the total linkage or nexus costs for the five prototype developments in the City of Newark. These total nexus costs represent the ceiling for any requirement placed on market rate development. The totals are not recommended levels for fees; they represent only the maximums established by this analysis, below which fees or other requirements may be set.
12 Findings are presented based on net rentable or sellable square footage Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \001-001.docx

TABLE D-1

AFFORDABILITY GAP CALCULATION FOR MODERATE INCOME

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
I. City-Assisted Affordable For-Sale Prototype
Building Type 2-BR Townhome
Density 25 du/ac
Number of Bedrooms 2-BR
Unit Size 1,300 SF
Market Rate Sale Price $500,500
II. Affordable Sales Price
Household Size 3 person HH
110% of Median Income $84,150
Maximum Affordable Sales Price !
1 l $331,500
Ill. Affordability Gap
Market Rate Sale Price $500,500
(Less) Affordable Price {$331,500}
Affordability Gap $169,000
(
1 > See Table D-2 for KMA estimate.

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates
Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\16\16090\001\Newark Affordability Gaps Page 47 TABLE 0-2
ESTIMATED AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRICES- MODERATE lNCOME

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
Unit Size
Household Size
100% AMI Alameda County 2013
Annual Income @ 110%
%of AMI
% for Housing Costs
Available for Housing Costs
(Less) Property Taxes
(Less) HOA
(Less) Utilities
(Less) Insurance
(Less) Mortgage Insurance
Income Available for Mortgage
Mortgage Amount
Down Payment (homebuyer cash)
Supported Home Price
Key Assumptions
- Mortgage Interest Rate
- Down Payment
- Property Taxes(% of sales price)
- HOA (per month)
- Utilities (per month)
- Mortgage Insurance (% of loan amount)
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates
3-person HH
$84,150
$92,565
110.0%
35%
$32,398
($4,150)
($2,700)
($1,068)
($1,080)
($4,253)
$19,147
$314,900
$16,600
$331,500

4.50%

5.0%

1.25%
$225
$89

1.35%
Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wpl 16\ 16090\001 \Newark Affordability Gaps Page 48 TABLE 0-3

AFFORDABILITY GAPS FOR VERY LOW AND LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
L Affordable Rent
Average Number of Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms
Average Household Size 3 Persons per HH
Household Income
Income Allocation to Housing
Monthly Housing Cost
(Less) Utility Allowance
Maximum Monthly Rent
II. Net Operating Income (NOi)
Gross Scheduled Income (GSI)
Monthly
Annual
Other Income
(Less) Vacancy 5%
Effective Gross Income (EGI)
(Less) Operating Expensesf2l
(Less) Property Taxes 1.25%
Net Operating Income (NOi)
Ill. Capitalized Value and Affordability Gap
Net Operating Income (NOi)
Target Return on Investment
Total Capitalized Value
(Less) Total Development. CostsP)
Affordability Gap
Ol Utility allowances from Alameda County Housing Authority. (
2 ) Includes replacement reserves.
$42,075
30%
$1,052
{$44}
$1,008
Per Unit
$1,008
$12,095
$250
{$617}
$11,727
($5,500)
!$1,000}
$5,227
$5,227

7.50%
$70,000
($310,000)
($240,000)
2 Bedrooms
3 Persons per HH
$50,490
30%
$1,262
{$44} (1)
$1,218
Per Unit
$1,218
$14,619
$250
($743}
$14,126
($5,500)
!$1,390}
$7,236
$7,236

7.50%
$96,000
{$310,000}
($214,000)
<
3 ) Development costs estimated by KMA based on project comps (includes prevailing wages).

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates
Filename; Newark Affordability Gaps; Page 49
TABLE D-4

SUPPORTED FEE / NEXUS SUMMARY PER UNIT

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA

TOTAL NEXUS COST PER MARKET RATE UNIT
Affordability
Gap 1
Household Income Level
Under 50% Area Median Income $240,000 1
50% to 80% Area Median Income $214,000 1
80% to 120% Area Median Income $169,000 2
Total Supported Fee/ Nexus
Prototype 1 :

SFD / Large Lot
$31,600
$15,800
$12,200
$59,600
TOT AL NEXUS COST PER SQUARE FOOT OF BUILDING AREA •
Nexus Cost Per Market Rate Unit 3
Prototype 2: Prototype 3: Prototype 4: Prototype 5:

SFD / Small Lot Townhome Condo Rental
$28,000 $22,900 $24,500 $16,100
$13,900 $11,300 $12,100 $8,000
$10,700 $8,700 $9,300 $6,200
$52,600 $42,900 $45,900 $30,300
Nexus Cost Per Square Foot (Net Rentable / Sellable) •
Household Income Level
Under 50% Area Median Income
50% to 80% Area Median Income
80% to 120% Area Median Income
Total Supported Fee/ Nexus
Notes:

Unit Size (SF)
Prototype 1 :

SFD / Large Lot
2,500 SF
$12.60
$6.30
$4.90
$23.80
'Assumes affordable rental units (2-3 story apartment). See Table D-3.

Prototype 2:

SFD / Small Lot
2,000 SF
$14.00
$7.00
$5.40
$26.40
Prototype 3: Prototype 4: Prototype 5:

Townhome Condo Rental
1,500 SF
$15.30
$7.50
$5.80
$28.60
1,300 SF
$18.80
$9.30
$7.20
$35.30
850 SF
$18.90
$9.40
$7.30
$35.60
'Affordability gap for moderate income households based on ownership unit (townhome) priced at 110% AMI. See Table D-1. 3 Nexus cost per unit computed by multiplying affordable unit demand per 100 units from Table C-3 by the affordability gap and dividing by 100 units. 4 Computed by dividinQ the nexus cost per unit by the square footaQe of the unit.

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\16\16090\001\Copy of Newark Nexus model 3-14-14; 3/14/2014; dd Page 50 ADDENDUM: ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND AND NOTES ON SPECIFIC ASSUMPTIONS No Excess Supply of Affordable Housing
An assumption of this residential nexus analysis is that there is no excess supply of affordable housing available to absorb or offset new demand; therefore, new affordable units are needed to mitigate the new affordable housing demand generated by development of new market rate residential units. Based on a review of the City's current Housing Element, conditions in Newark are consistent with this underlying assumption. According to the Housing Element for the 2007 to 2014 period, approximately one third of all households in the City were paying more than thirty percent of their income on housing. Current Census data (2010 to 2012 ACS) indicates that this percentage has now climbed to over 40% of households that are spending more than 30% of their income on housing. Vacancy rates in Newark are around 2% according to Census data.

Affordability Gap
The use of the affordability gap for establishing a maximum fee supported from the nexus analysis is grounded in the concept that a jurisdiction will be responsible for delivering affordable units to mitigate impacts. The nexus analysis has established that units will be needed at one or more different affordability levels and the type of unit to be delivered depends on the income/affordability level. In Newark, the City is anticipated to assist in the development of rental units for household incomes less than 80% of median and for moderate income households, ownership units are assumed to be assisted.

The units assisted by the public sector for affordable households are usually small in square foot area (for the number of bedrooms) and modest in finishes and amenities. As a result, in some communities these units are similar in physical configuration to what the market is delivering at market rate; in other communities (particularly very high income communities), they may be smaller and more modest than what the market is delivering. Parking, for example, is usually the minimum permitted by the code. In some communities where there is a wide range in land cost per acre or per unit, it may be assumed that affordable units are built on land parcels in the lower portion of the cost range. KMA tries to develop a total development cost summary that represents the lower half of the average range, but not so low as to be unrealistic.

If the affordability gap is the difference between total development cost and the affordable sales price, the question sometimes arises as to how total development cost is defined. KMA defines total development costs as including land costs, construction costs, site improvements, architectural and engineering, financing and all other indirect costs, and an allowance for an industry profit (non-profit developers receive a development fee instead).

In a healthy and stable economy, when projects are feasible, the sales price is therefore the same as the total development cost inclusive of profit. In some economic cycles sales prices Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001\001-001.docx

might enable larger than standard profits, as was the case in the 2002 to 2004 period, for example, when sales prices escalated ahead of construction and land costs, and sales prices were achieved that enabled higher than standard profit margins. In other market cycles, such as the recent housing downturn, sales prices were depressed such that they were not high enough to cover total development costs and there is no profit. Projects are not feasible during these periods.

Excess Capacity of Labor Force
In the context of economic downturns such as the recent severe recession, the questim11 is sometimes raised as to whether there is excess capacity in the labor force to the extent that consumption impacts generated by new households will be in part, absorbed by existing jobs and workers, thus resulting in fewer net new jobs. In response, an impact analysis of this nature is a one-time impact requirement to address impacts generated over the life of the project.

Recessions are temporary conditions; a healthy economy will return and the impacts will be experienced. The economic cycle also self-adjusts. Development of new residential units is not likely to occur until conditions improve or there is confidence that improved conditions are imminent. When this occurs, the improved economic condition of the households in the local area will absorb the current underutilized capacity of existing workers, employed and unemployed. By the time new units become occupied, economic conditions will have likely improved.

The Burden of Paying for Affordable Housing
Newark's impact fee program will not place all burden for the creation of affordable housing on new residential construction. Newark currently has a Housing Impact Fee that applies to commercial development. The burden of affordable housing is also borne by many sectors of the economy and society. A most important source in recent years of funding for affordable housing development comes from the federal government in the form of tax credits (which result in reduced income tax payment by tax credit investors in exchange for equity funding).

Additionally there are other federal grant and loan programs administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and other federal agencies. The State of California also plays a major role with a number of special financing and funding programs. Much of the state money is funded by voter approved bond measures paid for by all Californians.

Local governments play a large role in affordable housing. In addition, private sector lenders play an important role, some voluntarily and others less so with the requirements of the Community Reinvestment Act. Then there is the non-profit sector, both sponsors and developers that build much of the affordable housing.

In summary, all levels of government and many private parties, for profit and non-profit contribute to supplying affordable housing. Residential developers are not being asked to bear the burden alone any more than they are assumed to be the only source of demand or cause for Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001\001-001.docx

needing affordable housing in our communities. Based on past experience, the impact fee program will fund only a small percentage of the affordable housing needed in the City of Newark.

Disclaimers
This report has been prepared using the best and most recent data available at the time of the analysis. Local data and sources were used wherever possible. Major sources include the U.S.

Census Bureau: 2010-2012 American Community Survey, California Employment Development Department and the IMPLAN model. While we believe all sources utilized are sufficiently sound and accurate for the purposes of this analysis, we cannot guarantee their accuracy. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. assumes no liability for information from these and other sources.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001\001-001.docx

(This page intentionally left blank.)
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001\001-001.docx

APPENDIX 1: MARKET SURVEY
(This page intentionally left blank.)
I. INTRODUCTION
One of the underlying components of the Residential Nexus Study is the identification of residential building prototypes that are expected to be developed in the City of Newark, both today and in the future, and what the market prices for those prototypes will be. These market prices are then used to estimate the incomes of new households that will live in those units and a quantification of the number and types of new jobs that will be created as a result of those households. In this section, Keyser Marston Associates (KMA) describes the residential building prototypes utilized for the analysis. summarizes the residential market data researched, and describes the market price point conclusions drawn therefrom.

II. RESIDENTIAL PROTOTYPES
In collaboration with City staff, a total of five market rate residential prototypes were selected for market pricing - four for-sale prototypes and one rental prototype. The intent of the selected prototypes is to identify representative development prototypes that are envisioned to be developed in Newark in the future. It is noted that one prototype, the stacked flat condominiums, is not commonly being developed outside of San Francisco and select high-value Peninsula and South Bay locales. However, stacked flat condos may become possible in Newark as the market continues to mature.

Residential Prototypes Density Avg. Unit Size
For-Sale Prototypes
1) Larger Lot Single Family Detached Homes
2) Small Lot Single Family Detached
3) Townhomes
4) Stacked Flat Condominiums
Rental Prototype
5) 2-3 Story Apartments
Source: KMA in collaboration with City of Newark
Ill. MARKET SURVEY & PRICE ESTIMATES
a) Residential Building Activity
8 du/acre
12 du/acre
18 du/acre
50 du/acre
25 du/acre
2,500 sq. ft.
2,000 sq. fl.
1,500 sq. ft.
1,300 sq. ft.
850 sq. ft.

The City of Newark has not had significant new home construction in the last ten years, A limited amount of developable land in Newark in combination with the downturn in the real estate market resulting from the recession has kept construction to a minimum. However, Newark is anticipating additional residential development in the coming years and has several large residential developments in the planning stages.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001\001-001.docx

b) Overview of For-Sale Market
The median home price in Newark declined nearly half during the recession - from a high of $614,000 in 2006 to $325,000 in 2011 (there was a slight uptick in pricing in 2010 resulting from a temporary federal homebuyer tax credit). The median price rebounded significantly, about 30%, between 2012 and 2013.

Since Newark has experienced almost no new residential construction in recent years, market pricing for this analysis has also been based on a review of market comps in the neighboring cities of Fremont and Union City. The median home price chart below also includes Union City and Fremont (zip code 94538). As shown, the median home price trend for Union City and Fremont zip code 94538 is similar to that of Newark.
$700,000
$650,000
$600,000
$550,000
$500,000
$450,000
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000
Median Home Price Trends
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
01-03
..,._Newark Union City --Fremont 94538
Source; Dataquick, city-data.com, Note; The median home prices for Fremont zip code 94538 (Irvington/South Fremont area) are the lowest of the four Fremont zip codes and the closest to the Newark medians.

The recent rebound in median home prices can be attributed to improvement in the broader economy as well as to continued favorable mortgage interest rates and low home inventories. It would be expected that the pace of home price escalation will moderate as home inventories increase to more typical levels, and as federal policy makers continue to allow mortgage interest rates to rise gradually from the historic lows experienced over the course of the last couple of years.
c) New For-Sale Home Projects and Pricing
In order to estimate market pricing of the four for-sale residential prototypes, KMA first researched asking prices of newly constructed homes currently on the market. Market research Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001\001-001.docx

firm Real Estate Economics identified just one single family home development and two attached townhome developments currently being marketed for sale in the City of Fremont.

There were no new projects identified in Newark or Union City.

Newty Built Residential
Projects Location Unit Sizes Price Price PSF
Single Family Detached
1) Central Park Terraces Union St & Railroad 1,644 sf $677,990 $412 Ave, Fremont (94538) 1,712 sf $706,990 $413
2,094 sf $761,990 $364
Attached Townhomes
1) Lunare Townhomes Blacow & Fremont 1,198 sf $495,000 $413 Blvd, Fremont (94538) 1,425 sf $575,000 $404
2) Tavenna Ardenwood Blvd & 1,246 sf $578,490 $464
Paseo Padre, Fremont 1,617 sf $693,490 $429
(94555) 1,701 sf $720.490 $424
1,969 sf $753,490 $383
Source: Real Estate Economics (December 2013).
d) Re-Sale Home Prices
Given the limited number of newly built homes currently on the market, KMA also analyzed resale prices of existing homes as an additional source of data to estimate the prototype home prices. These prices are shown in the chart below.
2013 Sales of Newer Single Family Homes*
Newark & Union City
$1,000,000
$900,000
$800,000
Q) $700,000
·
a..
;:: $600,000
Q) $500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
1,000
*Homes built since 1990
Source: Oataquick
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001\001-001.docx
♦
1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
Square Feet
3,500

e) For-Sale Prototype Price Estimates
The pricing of new home developments currently on the market combined with the re-sale data noted above formed the basis for KMA's prototype price estimates. The prototype pricing estimates took into consideration the following factors:
• Based on the median home prices in Newark as compared to Union City and Fremont (zip code 94538), the prototype pricing assumes somewhat lower pricing in Newark than in these neighboring locales;
• In general, larger homes sell for a higher total price but a lower price per square foot than smaller homes; and
• In general, newly built homes sell for a premium over re-sales, all else being equal.

Consistent with these factors, the prices of the Newark residential prototypes have been conservatively estimated lower than the three new developments currently being marketed in Fremont but are higher than the trend line average of re-sale homes.

For-Sale Prototype Price Estimates Size Price Price PSF Prototype 1: Larger Lot Single Family Detached Homes
Prototype 2: Small Lot Single Family Detached
Prototype 3: Townhomes
Prototype 4: Stacked Flat Condominiums
'Price required for feasibility
2,500 sf
2,000 sf
1,500 sf
1,300 sf
$787,500
$700,000
$562,500
$580,000·
$315
$350
$375
$446·
It is noted that the sale price for the stacked flat condominium prototype is based on a price required for feasibility rather than a theoretical current market price. Historically, stacked flat condominiums have not been built in Newark or in neighboring jurisdictions due to the fact that the prices that these types of units can be sold for in this area are not sufficient to offset the higher development cost. This study assumes that stacked flat condominiums will only be built if market prices are sufficient to achieve financially feasibility. f) Rental Housing Market
Average apartment rents in Newark are positioned at roughly the mid-point of other cities in Alameda County and slightly above neighboring Fremont and Union City.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001\001-001.docx

I
7Ala,r1eda County Aver?ge ('.P,artment . -- -
�Rents(O4�013), _ .

1. Berkeley $2,502

2. Emeryville $2,294

3. Oakland $2,133

4. Dublin $2,035

5. Pleasanton $1,924

6. Newark $1,856

7. Fremont $1,801

8. Union City $1,798

9. Alameda $1,757

10. Livermore $1,615

11. Hayward $1,465

12. Castro Valley $1,430

13. San Leandro $1,305
Source: Rea/Facts
In general, the apartment market throughout the Bay Area has enjoyed increasingly healthy conditions in the last few years, evidenced by rising rents and high occupancy rates.

In order to estimate apartment rents for newly built units in Newark, KMA conducted a survey of eleven apartment developments in Newark, Union City, and Fremont. Of these properties, the range of rents is roughly as follows (additional detail is contained in Appendix 1: Table 1 ):

Apartment Survey Average Average Rent Rent/Sq. Ft.
1-Bedroom
2-Bedroom
All Unit Sizes
Sq. Ft.
744 sf
982 sf
863 sf
Source: KMA SuNey (December 2013)
g) Rental Prototype Rent Estimates
$1,809 - $2,120
$2,165 - $2,371
$1,989 - $2,239
$2.43 - $2.85
$2.20 - $2.41
$2.30 - $2.59
The following are KMA's rent estimates for the Newark rental prototype. While rent growth has been significant over the course of the last several years in the Newark market, we have not escalated current rents for purposes of this analysis. We anticipate the rate of rent growth to slow in the balance of 2014.

Rental Prototype Rent Estimates Sq. Ft. Rent/Month Rent/Sq. Ft.

Prototype 5: 2-3 Story Apartments
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001\001-001.docx
850 sf $2,000 $2.35

APPENDIX 1, TABLE 1
ASKING APARMENT RENTS - SELECT DEVELOPMENTS IN NEWARK, UNION CITY1 FREMONT

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
Newark Apartments
Sycamore Bay
1 BO/ 1 BA
1 BO/ 1 BA
2 BO/ 2 BA
2 BO/ 2 BA
2 BO/ 2 BA
2 BO/ 2 BA
Average
Bay Bridge Apartments
1 BO/ 1 BA
2 BO/ 1 BA
Average
Aiderwood Park
1 BO/ 1 BA
2 BO/ 1 BA
2 BO/ 2 BA
Average
Union City Apartments
Avalon Union City
1 BD/ 1 BA
1 BO/ 1 BA
1 BO/ 1 BA
1 BO/ 1 BA
1 BO/ 1 BA
2 BO/ 1 BA
2 BO/ 2 BA
Average
Eaves Union City
1 BO/ 1 BA
1 BO/ 1 BA

2. BO/ 1 BA
2 BO/ 1 BA
Average
Sq. Ft. Low Rent High Rent Low $/SF
37171 Sycamore Street, Newark (Bul/t 1998)
665 $1,921 $2,111 $2.89
709 $1,920 $2,041 $2.71
958 $2,984 $3,110 $3.11
963 $2,241 $2,241 $2.33
977 $2,407 $2,407 $2.46
1,008 $2,210 $2,437 $2.19
880 $2,281 $2,391 $2.59
35655 Haley Street, Newark (Built 1981)
487 $1,380 $1,380 $2.83
749 $1,645 $1,645 $2.20
618 $1,513 $1,513 $2.45
37057 Magnolia Street, Newark (Built 1986)
685 $1 ;521 $1,636 $2.22
850 $1,776 $1,939 $2.09
909 $1,922 $1,922 $2.11
815 $1,740 $1,832 $2.14
24 Union Square, Union City (Built 2009)
683 $1,725 $2,800 $2.53
700 $1,755 $2,800 $2.51
732 $1,750 $2,840 $2.39
792 $1,830 $2,875 $2.31
919 $1,850 $2,895 $2.01
1,146 $2,195 $3,505 $1.92
1,331 $2,305 $3,625 $1.73
900 $1,916 $3,049 $2.13
2175 Decato Road, Union City (Built 1973)
650 $1,660 $1,795 $2.55
650 $1,500 $1,520 $2.31
830 $1,885 $1,970 $2.27
830 $1,795 $1,835 $2.16
740 $1,710 $1,780 $2.31
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates
Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\16\ 16090\001 \Newark Apartment Rents 12 30 13; Apartment Rents; 2/2712014 High $/SF
$3.17
$2.88
$3.25
$2.33
$2.46
$2.42
$2.72
$2.83
$2.20
$2.45
$2.39
$2.28
$2.11
$2.25
$4.10
$4.00
$3.88
$3.63
$3.15
$3.06
$2.72
$3.39
$2.76
$2.34
$2.37
$2,21
$2.41

Verandas
1 BO/ 1 BA
1 BO/ 1 BA
2 BO/ 2 BA
Average
Skylark
1 BO/ 1 BA
2 BO/ 1 BA
2 BO/ 2 BA
2 BO/ 2 BA
Average
Fremont Apartments
Paragon
1 BO/ 1 BA
1 BO/ 1 BA
1 BO/ 1 BA
1 BO/ 1 BA
2 BO/ 2 BA
2 BO/ 2 BA
2 BO/ 2 BA
2 BO/ 2 BA
Average
Archstone Fremont Center
1 BO/ 1 BA
1 BO/ 1 BA
1 BO/ 1 BA
1 BD/ 1 BA
2 BO/ 2 BA
2 BO/ 2 BA
3 BO/ 2 BA
Average
Creekside Village
1 BO/ 1 BA
1 BO/ 1 BA
2 BD/2 BA
2 BO/ 2 BA
Average
Avalon Fremont
1 BO/ 1 BA
1 BO/ 1 BA
2 BO/ 2 BA
Average
Sq. Ft. Low Rent High Rent Low $/SF
33 Union Square, Union City (Built 1989)
603 $1,630 $2,244 $2.70
777 $1,735 $2,537 $2.23
955 $1,998 $2,854 $2.09
778 $1,788 $2,545 $2.30
34655 Skylark Drive, un;on Cfty (Built 1986)
716 $1,575 $1,575 $2.20
850 $1,620 $1,620 $1.91
913 $1,775 $1,790 $1.94
946 $1,795 $1,830 $1.90
856 $1,691 $1,704 $1.98
3700 Beacon Avenue, Fremont (Built 2013)
685 $1,865 $1,895 $2.72
738 $1,960 $2,050 $2.66
"832 $2,115 $2,130 $2.54
854 $2,190 $2,190 $2.56
1,058 $2,430 $2,475 $2.30
1,111 $2,650 $2,650 $2.39
1,159 $2,575 $2,575 $2.22
1,179 $2,500 $2,645 $2.12
952 $2,286 $2,326 $2.40
39410 Civic Drive, Fremont (Built 2001)
786 $1,940 $1,960 $2.47
798 $2,005 $2,005 $2.51
925 $2,060 $2,160 $2.23
1,050 $2
,090 $2,090 $1.99
982 $2,415 $2,505 $2.46
1,039 $2,410 $2,410 $2.32
1,421 $3,235 $3,235 $2.28
1,000 $2,308 $2,338 $2.31
2999 Sequoia Avenue, Fremont (Built 1986)
640 $1,706 $1,994 $2.67
720 $1,762 $1,968 $2.45
870 $2,079 $2,260 $2.39
910 $2,182 $2,442 $2.40
785 $1,932 $2,166 $2.46
39939 Stevenson Common; Fremont (Built 1992)
761 $1,760 $1',790 $2.31
785 $1,820 $1,845 $2.32
1,056 $2,165 $2,205 $2.05
867 $1,915 $1,947 $2.21
High $/SF
$3.72
$3.27
$2.99
$3.27
$2.20
$1.91
$1.96
$1.93
$1.99
$2.77
$2.78
$2.56
$2.56
$2.34
$2.39
$2.22
$2.24
$2.44
$2.49
$2.51
$2.34
$1.99
$2.55
$2.32
$2.28
$2,34
$3.12
$2.73
$2.60
$2.68
$2.76
$2.35
$2.35
$2.09
$2.24
Source: Project websites; ApartmentGuide.com; Rent.com; RealFacts (December 2013) Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates
Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\16\16090\001\Newark Apartment Rents 12 30 13; Apartment Rents; 2/2712014

(This page intentionally left blank.)
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001\001-001.docx

APPENDIX 2: SUPPORTING TECHNICAL TABLES
(This page intentionally left blank.)

APPENDIX 2, TABLE 1
WORKER OCCUPATION DISTRIBUTION, 2012
SERVICES TO HOUSEHOLDS EARNING $75-$100,000, RESIDENT SERVICES

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
Worker Occupation Distribution 1
Services to Households Earning
Major Occupations (2% or more) $75-$100,000
Management Occupations 4.0%
Business and Financial Operations Occupations 3.4%
Education, Training, and Library Occupations 2. 7%
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations 8.4% Healthcare Support Occupations 4.9%
Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 14.8%
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations 5. 7% Personal Care and Service Occupations 5.2%
Sales and Related Occupations 14.3%
Office and Administrative Support Occupations 15.4%
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations 3. 7% Transportation and Material Moving Occupations 5.3%
All Other Worker Occupations - Services to Households Earning 12.1% $75-$100,000
INDUSTRY TOTAL 100.0%
1 Distribution of employment by industry is per the IMPLAN model and the distribution of occupational employment within those industries is based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Survey.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, IMPLAN
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\16\16090\001\75-100k Newark 2-26-14; 2/27/2014; dd Page 67 APPENDIX 2, TABLE 2
AVERAGE ANNUAL WORKER COMPENSATION, 2013
SERVICES TO HOUSEHOLDS EARNING $75-$100,000

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
Occupation 3

Management Occupations
Chief Executives
General and Operations Managers
Sales Managers
Administrative Services Managers
Financial Managers
Food Service Managers
Medical and Health Services Managers
Property, Real Estate, and Community Association Managers Social and Community Service Managers
All other Management Occupations (Avg. All Categories)
Business and Financial Operations Occupations
Human Resources Specialists
Labor Relations Specialists
Management Analysts
Training and Development Specialists
Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists
Business Operations Specialists, All Other
Accountants and Auditors
Financial Analysts
Personal Financial Advisors
Loan Officers
Weighted Mean Annual Wage
All Other Business and Financial Operations Occupations (Avg. All Categories) Weighted Mean Annual Wage
Education, Training, and Library Occupations
Vocational Education Teachers, Postsecondary
Preschool Teachers, Except Special Education
Elementary School Teachers, Except Special Education
Middle School Teachers, Except Special and Career/Technical Education Secondary School Teachers, Except Special and Career/Technical Education Self-Enrichment Education Teachers
Substitute Teachers
Teachers and Instructors, All Other, Except Substitute Teachers Teacher Assistants
All Other Education, Training, and Library Occupations (Avg. All Categories) Weighted Mean Annual Wage
2013 Avg.

Compensation 1
$199,700
$132,900
$141,700
$101,200
$144,800
$51,200
$113,500
$85,600
$74,600
$119,300
$119,300
$74,600
$81,200
$103,200
$86,500
$86,100
$89,300
$80,100
$98,300
$81,000
$83,100
$85,700
$85,700
$57,600
$33,900
$71,200
$71,000
$71,600
$51,100
$41,500
$60,400
$32,000
$50,200
$50,200
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, California Employment Development Department, IMPLAN Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\16\16090\001\75-100k Newark 2-26-14; 2/27/2014; dd % of Total % of Total
Occupation Resident Services
Group 2 Workers

3.7% 0.2%

32.9% 1.3%

5.2% 0.2%

3.9% 0.2%

6.7% 0.3%

5.8% 0.2%

7.6% 0.3%

10.8% 0.4%

3.6% 0.1%

19.8% 0.8%
100.0% 4.0%

5.9% 0.2%

3.8% 0.1%

5.9% 0.2%

4.2% 0.1%

7.1% 0.2%

13.1% 0.4%

17.1% 0.6%

4.7% 0.2%

5.4% 0.2%

4.7% 0.2%

28.2% 1.0%
100.0% 3.4%

4.6% 0.1%

12.7% 0.3%

9.2% 0.2%

4.1% 0.1%

6.4% 0.2%

10.9% 0.3%

4.6% 0.1%

7.4% 0.2%

15.9% 0.4%

24.1% 0.7%
100.0% 2.7%

APPENDIX 2, TABLE 2
AVERAGE ANNUAL WORKER COMPENSATION, 2013
SERVICES TO HOUSEHOLDS EARNING $75-$100,000

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
Occupation 3

Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations
Pharmacists
Physicians and Surgeons, All Other
Registered Nurses
Dental Hygienists
Pharmacy Technicians
Licensed Practical and Licensed Vocational Nurses
All Other Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations (Avg. All Categories) Weighted Mean Annual Wage
Healthcare Support Occupations
Home Health Aides
Nursing Assistants
Dental Assistants
Medical Assistants
All Other Healthcare Support Occupations (Avg. All Categories) Weighted Mean Annual Wage
Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations
First-Line Supervisors of Food Preparation and Serving Workers Cooks, Fast Food
Cooks, Restaurant
Food Preparation Workers
Bartenders
Combined Food Preparation and Serving Workers, Including Fast Food Counter Attendants, Cafeteria, Food Concession, and Coffee Shop Waiters and Waitresses
Dining Room and Cafeteria Attendants and Bartender Helpers Dishwashers
Hosts and Hostesses, Restaurant, Lounge, and Coffee Shop All Other Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations (Avg. All Categories) Weighted Mean Annual Wage
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations First-Line Supervisors of Housekeeping and Janitorial Workers Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners
Landscaping and Groundskeeping Workers
All Other Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations (Avg. All Cat Weighted Mean Annual Wage
2013 Avg.

Compensation 1
$131,300
$190,500
$115,100
$98,900
$47,100
$60,400
$105,900
$105,900
$29,100
$35,300
$40,300
$37,700
$34,800
$34,800
$31,700
$19,900
$26,200
$22,800
$22,600
$21,500
$20,600
$21,600
$19,400
$21,600
$20,900
$22,700
$22,700
$47,200
$31,800
$29,600
$31,600
$32,000
$32,000
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, California Employment Development Department, IMPLAN Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\16\16090\001\75-100k Newark 2-26-14; 2/27/2014; dd % of Total % of Total
Occupation Resident Services
Group 2 Workers

3.8% 0.3%

4.4% 0.4%

31.1% 2.6%

3.8% 0.3%

5.0% 0.4%

9.5% 0.8%

42.4% 3.6%
100.0% 8.4%

21.3% 1.0%

32.9% 1.6%

10.0% 0.5%

17.0% 0.8%

18.8% 0.9%
100.0% 4.9%

7.0% 1.0%

4.8% 0.7%

9.0% 1.3%

6.3% 0.9%

5.0% 0.7%

26.1% 3.9%

3.6% 0.5%

21.0% 3.1%

3.2% 0.5%

4.4% 0.7%

3.1% 0.5%

6.6% 1.0%
100.0% 14.8%

3.4% 0.2%

51.0% 2.9%

12.4% 0.7%

25.1% 1.4%

8.2% 0.5%
100.0% 5.7%

APPENDIX 2, TABLE 2
AVERAGE ANNUAL WORKER COMPENSATION, 2013
SERVICES TO HOUSEHOLDS EARNING $75-$100,000

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
Occupation 3

Personal Care and SeNice Occupations
First-Line Supervisors of Personal Service Workers
Nonfarm Animal Caretakers
Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket Takers
Amusement and Recreation Attendants
Hairdressers, Hairstylists, and Cosmetologists
Manicurists and Pedicurists
Childcare Workers
Personal Care Aides
Fitness Trainers and Aerobics Instructors
Recreation Workers
All Other Personal Care and Service Occupations (Avg. All Categories) Sales and Related Occupations
First-Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers
Cashiers
Counter and Rental Clerks
Retail Salespersons
Sales Representatives, Services, All Other
Weighted Mean Annual Wage
Sales Representatives. Wholesale and Manufacturing, Except Technical and Scientif Real Estate Sales Agents
All Other Sales and Related Occupations (Avg. All Categories) Weighted Mean Annual Wage
Office and Administrative Support Occupations
First-Line Supervisors of Office and Administrative Support Workers Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks
Customer Service Representatives
Receptionists and Information Clerks
Stock Clerks and Order Fillers
Executive Secretaries and Executive Administrative Assistants Medical Secretaries
Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, Except Legal, Medical, and Executive Office Clerks, General
All Other Office and Administrative Support Occupations (Avg. All Categories) Weighted Mean Annual Wage
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations
First-Line Supervisors of Mechanics, Installers, and Repairers Automotive Body and Related Repairers
Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics
Bus and Truck Mechanics and Diesel Engine Specialists
Maintenance and Repair Workers, General
All Other Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations (Avg. All Categories) Weighted Mean Annual Wage
2013 Avg.

Compensation 1
$42,900
$25,500
$22,300
$22,700
$29,500
$18,900
$23,600
$22,600
$50,600
$28,200
$27,100
$27,100
$49,500
$26,400
$33,900
$28,700
$71,400
$73,800
$36,700
$35,100
$35,100
$62,400
$45,900
$43,200
$34,600
$29,100
$60,100
$41,800
$43,500
$37,400
$41,800
$41,800
$80,500
$51,400
$50,300
$58,500
$45,800
$51,800
$51,800
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, California Employment Development Department. IMPLAN Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\16\16090\001\75-100k Newark 2-26-14; 2/27/2014; dd % of Total % of Total
Occupation Resident Services
Group 2 Workers

3.6% 0.2%

5.1% 0.3%

3.7% 0.2%

5.9% 0.3%

16.8% 0.9%

3.0% 0.2%

11.8% 0.6%

25.9% 1.4%

5.6% 0.3%

5.3% 0.3%

13.1% 0.7%
100.0% 5.2%

9.8% 1.4%

25.5% 3.6%

4.6% 0.7%

37.1% 5.3%

3.1% 0.4%

5.3% 0.8%

3.4% 0.5%

11.2% 1.6%
100.0% 14.3%

6.5% 1.0%

7.5% 1.2%

9.4% 1.4%

7.9% 1.2%

11.0% 1.7%

3.4% 0.5%

4.7% 0.7%

10.2% 1.6%

13.8% 2.1%

25.6% 3.9%
100.0% 15.4%

7.8% 0.3%

5.5% 0.2%

20.0% 0.7%

3.3% 0.1%

35.4% 1.3%

28.0% 1.0%
100.0% 3.7%

APPENDIX 2, TABLE 2
AVERAGE ANNUAL WORKER COMPENSATION, 2013
SERVICES TO HOUSEHOLDS EARNING $75-$100,000

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
Occupation 3

Transportation and Material Moving Occupations
Bus Drivers, School or Special Client
Driver/Sales Workers
Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers
Light Truck or Delivery Services Drivers
Taxi Drivers and Chauffeurs
Parking Lot Attendants
Industrial Truck and Tractor Operators
Cleaners of Vehicles and Equipment
Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand
Packers and Packagers, Hand
All Other Transportation and Material Moving Occupations (Avg. All Categories) Weighted Mean Annual Wage
2013 Avg.

Compensation 1
$35,600
$34,100
$44,800
$37,300
$29,100
$27,400
$43,400
$24,500
$31,400
$23,700
$33.800
$33,800
% of Total % of Total
Occupation Resident Services
Group 2 Workers

6.4% 0.3%

7.9% 0.4%

13.1% 0.7%

11.4% 0.6%

3.6% 0.2%

4.1% 0.2%

3.4% 0.2%

6.3% 0.3%

23.4% 1.2%

7.0% 0.4%

13.4% 0.7%
100.0% 5.3%

87.9%
1 The methodology utilized by the California Employment Development Department (EDD) assumes that hourly paid employees are employed full-time. Annual compensation is calculated by EDD by multiplying hourly wages by 40 hours per work week by 52 weeks. 2 Occupation percentages are based on the 2012 National Industry - Specific Occupational Employment survey compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Wages are based on the 2012 Occupational Employment Survey data for Alameda County, updated by the California Employment Development Department to 2013 wage levels. 3 Including occupations representing 3% or more of the major occupation group Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. California Employment Development Department. IMPLAN Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\16\16090\001\75-100k Newark 2-26-14; 2/27/2014; dd

APPENDIX 2, TABLE 3
WORKER OCCUPATION DISTRIBUTION, 2012
SERVICES TO HOUSEHOLDS EARNING $100,000 TO $150,000

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
Worker Occupation Distribution 1
Services to Households Earning
Major Occupations (2% or more) $100,000 to $150,000
Management Occupations 3.9%
Business and Financial Operations Occupations 3.4%
Education, Training, and Library Occupations 3.2%
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations 8.1% Healthcare Support Occupations 4. 7%
Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 14.8%
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations 5.6% Personal Care and Service Occupations 5.4%
Sales and Related Occupations 14. 7%
Office and Administrative Support Occupations 15.3%
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations 3.5%
Transportation and Material Moving Occupations 5.3%
All Other Worker Occupations - Services to Households Earning 12.1% $100,000 to $150,000
INDUSTRY TOT AL 100.0%
1 Distribution of employment by industry is per the IMPLAN model and the distribution of occupational employment within those industries is based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Survey.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, IMPLAN
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\16\16090\001\100-150k Newark 2-26-14; 2/27/2014; dd Page 72 APPENDIX 2, TABLE 4
AVERAGE ANNUAL WORKER COMPENSATION, 2013
SERVICES TO HOUSEHOLDS EARNING $100,000 TO $150,000

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
Occupation 3

Management Occupations
Chief Executives
General and Operations Managers
Sales Managers
Administrative Services Managers
Financial Managers
Food Service Managers
Medical and Health Services Managers
Property, Real Estate, and Community Association Managers Social and Community Service Managers
Managers, All Other
All other Management Occupations (Avg. All Categories)
Business and Financial Operations Occupations
Human Resources Specialists
Labor Relations Specialists
Management Analysts
Training and Development Specialists
Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists
Business Operations Specialists, All Other
Accountants and Auditors
Financial Analysts
Personal Financial Advisors
Loan Officers
Weighted Mean Annual Wage
All Other Business and Financial Operations Occupations (Avg. All Categories) Weighted Mean Annual Wage
Education, Training, and Library Occupations
Vocational Education Teachers, Postsecondary
Preschool Teachers, Except Special Education
Elementary School Teachers, Except Special Education
Middle School Teachers, Except Special and Career/Technical Education Secondary School Teachers, Except Special and Career/Technical Education Self-Enrichment Education Teachers
Substitute Teachers
Teachers and Instructors, All Other, Except Substitute Teachers Teacher Assistants
All Other Education, Training, and Library Occupations (Avg. All Categories) Weighted Mean Annual Wage
2013 Avg.

Compensation 1
$199,700
$132,900
$141,700
$101,200
$144,800
$51,200
$113,500
$85,600
$74,600
$134,300
i120,700
$120,700
$74,600
$81,200
$103,200
$86,500
$86,100
$89,300
$80,100
$98,300
$81,000
$83,100
i85,700
$85,700
$57,600
$33,900
$71,200
$71,000
$71,600
$51,100
$41,500
$60,400
$32,000
iS0,100
$50,100
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, California Employment Development Department, IMPLAN Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \ 100-1 S0k Newark 2-26-14; 2/27/2014; dd % of Total % of Total
Occupation Resident Services
Group 2 Workers

3.8% 0.1%

33.5% 1.3%

5.2% 0.2%

3.9% 0.2%

6.8% 0.3%

5.9% 0.2%

7.3% 0.3%

8.6% 0.3%

4.0% 0.2%

3.1% 0.1%

17.8% 0.7%
100.0% 3.9%

5.9% 0.2%

4.0% 0.1%

5.8% 0.2%

4.3% 0.1%

6.9% 0.2%

13.2% 0.5%

16.6% 0.6%

4.8% 0.2%

5.8% 0.2%

4.9% 0.2%

27.9% 1.0%
100.0% 3.4%

4.7% 0.1%

13.0% 0.4%

9.1% 0.3%

4.0% 0.1%

6.2% 0.2%

10.8% 0.3%

4.4% 0.1%

7.5% 0.2%

15.8% 0.5%

24.5% 0.8%
100.0% 3.2%

APPENDIX 2, TABLE 4
AVERAGE ANNUAL WORKER COMPENSATION, 2013
SERVICES TO HOUSEHOLDS EARNING $100,000 TO $150,000

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
Occupation 3

Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations
Pharmacists
Physicians and Surgeons, All Other
Registered Nurses
Dental Hygienists
Pharmacy Technicians
Licensed Practical and Licensed Vocational Nurses
All Other Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations (Avg. All Categories) Weighted Mean Annual Wage
Healthcare Support Occupations
Home Health Aides
Nursing Assistants
Dental Assistants
Medical Assistants
All Other Healthcare Support Occupations (Avg. All Categories) Weighted Mean Annual Wage
Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations
First-Line Supervisors of Food Preparation and Serving Workers Cooks, Fast Food
Cooks, Restaurant
Food Preparation Workers
Bartenders
Combined Food Preparation and Serving Workers, Including Fast Food Counter Attendants, Cafeteria, Food Concession, and Coffee Shop Waiters and Waitresses
Dining Room and Cafeteria Attendants and Bartender Helpers Dishwashers
Hosts and Hostesses, Restaurant, Lounge, and Coffee Shop All Other Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations (Avg. All Categories) Weighted Mean Annual Wage
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations First-Line Supervisors of Housekeeping and Janitorial Workers Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners
Landscaping and Groundskeeping Workers
All Other Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations (Avg. All Cati Weighted Mean Annual Wage
2013 Avg.

Compensation 1
$131,300
$190,500
$115,100
$98,900
$47,100
$60,400
$105,500
$105,500
$29,100
$35,300
$40,300
$37,700
$34,700
$34,700
$31,700
$19,900
$26,200
$22,800
$22,600
$21,500
$20,600
$21,600
$19,400
$21,600
$20,900
$22,700
$22,700
$47,200
$31,800
$29,600
$31,600
$32,000
$32,000
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, California Employment Development Department, IMPLAN Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \ 100-150k Newark 2-26-14; 2/27/2014; dd % of Total % of Total
Occupation Resident Services
Group 2 Workers

4.1% 0.3%

4.3% 0.4%

30.7% 2.5%

3.7% 0.3%

5.5% 0.4%

9.4% 0.8%

42.2% 3.4%
100.0% 8.1%

21.9% 1.0%

32.6% 1.5%

9.9% 0.5%

16.7% 0.8%

18.9% 0.9%
100.0% 4.7%

7.0% 1.0%

4.8% 0.7%

9.0% 1.3%

6.4% 0.9%

5.0% 0.7%

26.2% 3.9%

3.6% 0.5%

20.9% 3.1%

3.2% 0.5%

4.4% 0.6%

3.1% 0.5%

6.6% 1.0%
100.0% 14.8%

3.4% 0.2%

51.2% 2.9%

11.9% 0.7%

25.2% 1.4%

8.3% 0.5%
100.0% 5.6%

APPENDIX 2, TABLE 4
AVERAGE ANNUAL WORKER COMPENSATION, 2013
SERVICES TO HOUSEHOLDS EARNING $100,000 TO $150,000

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
Occupation 3

Personal Care and Service Occupations
First-Line Supervisors of Personal Service Workers
Nonfarm Animal Caretakers
Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket Takers
Amusement and Recreation Attendants
Hairdressers, Hairstylists, and Cosmetologists
Childcare Workers
Personal Care Aides
Fitness Trainers and Aerobics Instructors
Recreation Workers
All Other Personal Care and Service Occupations (Avg. All Categories) Sales and Related Occupations
First-Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers
Cashiers
Counter and Rental Clerks
Retail Salespersons
Sales Representatives, Services, All Other
Weighted Mean Annual Wage
Sales Representatives, Wholesale and Manufacturing, Except Technical and Scientifo All Other Sales and Related Occupations (Avg. All Categories) Weighted Mean Annual Wage
Office and Administrative Supporl Occupations
First-Line Supervisors of Office and Administrative Support Workers Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks
Customer Service Representatives
Receptionists and Information Clerks
Stock Clerks and Order Fillers
Executive Secretaries and Executive Administrative Assistants Medical Secretaries
Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, Except Legal, Medical, and Executive Office Clerks, General
All Other Office and Administrative Support Occupations (Avg. All Categories) Weighted Mean Annual Wage
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations
First-Line Supervisors of Mechanics, Installers, and Repairers Automotive Body and Related Repairers
Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics
Bus and Truck Mechanics and Diesel Engine Specialists
Tire Repairers and Changers
Maintenance and Repair Workers, General
All Other Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations (Avg. All Categories) Weighted Mean Annual Wage
2013 Avg.

Compensation 1
$42,900
$25,500
$22,300
$22,700
$29,500
$23,600
$22,600
$50,600
$28,200
$27,300
$27,300
$49,500
$26,400
$33,900
$28,700
$71,400
$73,800
$34,300
$34,300
$62,400
$45,900
$43,200
$34,600
$29,100
$60,100
$41,800
$43,500
$37,400
$41,700
$41,700
$80,500
$51,400
$50,300
$58,500
$31,000
$45,800
$51,200
$51,200
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, California Employment Development Department, IMPLAN Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \ 100-1 S0k Newark 2-26-14; 2/27/2014; dd % of Total % of Total
Occupation Resident Services
Group 2 Workers

3.6% 0.2%

5.2% 0.3%

3.6% 0.2%

5.9% 0.3%

15.9% 0.9%

13.3% 0.7%

25.9% 1.4%

5.7% 0.3%

5.3% 0.3%

15.6% 0.8%
100.0% 5.4%

10.2% 1.5%

26.5% 3.9%

4.0% 0.6%

39.1% 5.8%

3.0% 0.4%

4.2% 0.6%

13.0% 1.9%
100.0% 14.7%

6.6% 1.0%

7.4% 1.1%

9.4% 1.4%

7.7% 1.2%

11.7% 1.8%

3.3% 0.5%

4.5% 0.7%

10.0% 1.5%

13.6% 2.1%

25.8% 3.9%
100.0% 15.3%

7.9% 0.3%

5.9% 0.2%

21.8% 0.8%

3.4% 0.1%

3.3% 0.1%

32.1% 1.1%

25.7% 0.9%
100.0% 3.5%

APPENDIX 2, TABLE 4
AVERAGE ANNUAL WORKER COMPENSATION, 2013
SERVICES TO HOUSEHOLDS EARNING $100,000 TO $150,000

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
Occupation 3

Transportation and Material Moving Occupations
Bus Drivers, School or Special Client
Driver/Sales Workers
Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers
Light Truck or Delivery Services Drivers
Taxi Drivers and Chauffeurs
Parking Lot Attendants
Industrial Truck and Tractor Operators
Cleaners of Vehicles and Equipment
Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand
Packers and Packagers, Hand
All Other Transportation and Material Moving Occupations (Avg. All Categories) Weighted Mean Annual Wage
2013 Avg.

Compensation 1
$35,600
$34,100
$44,800
$37,300
$29,100
$27,400
$43,400
$24,500
$31,400
$23,700
i33,700
$33,700
% of Total % of Total
Occupation Resident Services
Group 2 Workers

7.3% 0.4%

7.7% 0.4%

12.8% 0.7%

11.2% 0.6%

3.9% 0.2%

4.2% 0.2%

3.2% 0.2%

6.4% 0.3%

22.7% 1.2%

7.1% 0.4%

13.5% 0.7%
100.0% 5.3%

87.9%
1 The methodology utilized by the California Employment Development Department (EDD) assumes that hourly paid employees are employed full-time. Annual compensation is calculated by EDD by multiplying hourly wages by 40 hours per work week by 52 weeks. 2 Occupation percentages are based on the 2012 National Industry - Specific Occupational Employment survey compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Wages are based on the 2012 Occupational Employment Survey data for Alameda County. updated by the California Employment Development Department to 2013 wage levels. 3 Including occupations representing 3% or more of the major occupation group Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, California Employment Development Department, IMPLAN Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\ 16\ 16090\001 \ 100-1 S0k Newark 2-26-14; 2/27/2014; dd

APPENDIX 2, TABLE 5
WORKER OCCUPATION DISTRIBUTION, 2012
SERVICES TO HOUSEHOLDS EARNING $150,000 AND OVER

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
Worker Occupation Distribution 1
Services to Households Earning
Major Occupations (2% or more) $150,000 and over
Management Occupations 4.0%
Business and Financial Operations Occupations 3.5%
Education, Training, and Library Occupations 4.5%
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations 7.2% Healthcare Support Occupations 4. 1%
Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 14.0%
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations 5.9% Personal Care and Service Occupations 5.6%
Sales and Related Occupations 15.0%
Office and Administrative Support Occupations 15.1%
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations 3.4%
Transportation and Material Moving Occupations 5.4%
All Other Worker Occupations - Services to Households Earning 12.4% $150,000 and over
INDUSTRY TOT AL 100.0%
1 Distribution of employment by industry is per the IMPLAN model and the distribution of occupational employment within those industries is based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Survey.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, IMPLAN
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\16\16090\001\150k plus Newark 2-26-14; 2/27/2014; dd Page 77 APPENDIX 2, TABLE 6
AVERAGE ANNUAL WORKER COMPENSATION, 2013
SERVICES TO HOUSEHOLDS EARNING $150,000 AND OVER

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
Occupation 3

Management Occupations
Chief Executives
General and Operations Managers
Sales Managers
Administrative Services Managers
Financial Managers
Food Service Managers
Medical and Health Services Managers
Property, Real Estate, and Community Association Managers Social and Community Service Managers
Managers, All Other
All other Management Occupations (Avg. All Categories)
Business and Financial Operations Occupations
Human Resources Specialists
Labor Relations Specialists
Management Analysts
Training and Development Specialists
Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists
Business Operations Specialists, All Other
Accountants and Auditors
Financial Analysts
Personal Financial Advisors
Loan Officers
Weighted Mean Annual Wage
All Other Business and Financial Operations Occupations (Avg. All Categories) Weighted Mean Annual Wage
Education, Training, and Library Occupations
Vocational Education Teachers, Postsecondary
Preschool Teachers, Except Special Education
Elementary School Teachers, Except Special Education
Middle School Teachers, Except Special and Career/Technical Education Secondary School Teachers, Except Special and Career/Technical Education Self-Enrichment Education Teachers
Substitute Teachers
Teachers and Instructors, All Other, Except Substitute Teachers Teacher Assistants
All Other Education, Training, and Library Occupations (Avg. All Categories) Weighted Mean Annual Wage
2013 Avg.

Compensation 1
$199,700
$132,900
$141,700
$101,200
$144,800
$51,200
$113,500
$85,600
$74,600
$134,300
i121,600
$121,600
$74,600
$81,200
$103,200
$86,500
$86,100
$89,300
$80,100
$98,300
$81,000
$83,100
i85,800
$85,800
$57,600
$33,900
$71,200
$71,000
$71,600
$51,100
$41,500
$60,400
$32,000
iS0,200
$50,200
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, California Employment Development Department, IMPLAN Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\16\16090\001\150k plus Newark 2-26-14; 2/27/2014; dd % of Total % of Total
Occupation Resident Services
Group 2 Workers

3.9% 0.2%

33.8% 1.3%

5.1% 0.2%

4.0% 0.2%

6.8% 0.3%

5.5% 0.2%

6.4% 0.3%

7.5% 0.3%

4.2% 0.2%

3.2% 0.1%

19.8% 0.8%
100.0% 4.0%

5.7% 0.2%

4.0% 0.1%

5.8% 0.2%

4.6% 0.2%

6.7% 0.2%

13.5% 0.5%

16.2% 0.6%

4.7% 0.2%

5.8% 0.2%

4.8% 0.2%

28.1% 1.0%
100.0% 3.5%

5.0% 0.2%

12.8% 0.6%

8.9% 0.4%

4.0% 0.2%

6.2% 0.3%

10.3% 0.5%

4.3% 0.2%

7.6% 0.3%

15.5% 0.7%

25.4% 1.1%
100.0% 4.5%

APPENDIX 2, TABLE 6
AVERAGE ANNUAL WORKER COMPENSATION, 2013
SERVICES TO HOUSEHOLDS EARNING $150,000 AND OVER

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
Occupation 3

Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations
Pharmacists
Physicians and Surgeons, All Other
Registered Nurses
Dental Hygienists
Pharmacy Technicians
Licensed Practical and Licensed Vocational Nurses
All Other Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations (Avg. All Categories) Weighted Mean Annual Wage
Healthcare Support Occupations
Home Health Aides
Nursing Assistants
Dental Assistants
Medical Assistants
All Other Healthcare Support Occupations (Avg. All Categories) Weighted Mean Annual Wage
Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations
First-Line Supervisors of Food Preparation and Serving Workers Cooks, Fast Food
Cooks, Restaurant
Food Preparation Workers
Bartenders
Combined Food Preparation and Serving Workers, Including Fast Food Counter Attendants, Cafeteria, Food Concession, and Coffee Shop Waiters and Waitresses
Dining Room and Cafeteria Attendants and Bartender Helpers Dishwashers
Hosts and Hostesses, Restaurant, Lounge, and Coffee Shop All Other Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations (Avg. All Categories) Weighted Mean Annual Wage
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations First-Line Supervisors of Housekeeping and Janitorial Workers First-Line Supervisors of Landscaping, Lawn Service, and Groundskeeping Workers Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners
Landscaping and Groundskeeping Workers
All Other Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations (Avg. All Call Weighted Mean Annual Wage
2013 Avg.

Compensation 1
$131,300
$190,500
$115,100
$98,900
$47,100
$60,400
$104,800
$104,800
$29,100
$35,300
$40,300
$37,700
$34,600
$34,600
$31,700
$19,900
$26,200
$22,800
$22,600
$21,500
$20,600
$21,600
$19,400
$21,600
$20,900
$22,700
$22,700
$47,200
$53,300
$31,800
$29,600
$31,600
$32,700
$32,700
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, California Employment Development Department, IMPLAN Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\16\16090\001\150k plus Newark 2-26-14; 2/27/2014; dd % of Total % of Total
Occupation Resident Services
Group 2 Workers

4.6% 0.3%

4.2% 0.3%

30.1% 2.2%

3.6% 0.3%

6.3% 0.5%

9.3% 0.7%

41.9% 3.0%
100.0% 7.2%

22.6% 0.9%

32.1% 1.3%

9.6% 0.4%

16.4% 0.7%

19.3% 0.8%
100.0% 4.1%

7.0% 1.0%

4.7% 0.7%

8.9% 1.2%

6.5% 0.9%

5.1% 0.7%

26.1% 3.7%

3.7% 0.5%

20.8% 2.9%

3.2% 0.4%

4.3% 0.6%

3.0% 0.4%

6.6% 0.9%
100.0% 14.0%

3.4% 0.2%

3.0% 0.2%

51.6% 3.0%

11.0% 0.6%

25.5% 1.5%

5.4% 0.3%
100.0% 5.9%

APPENDIX 2, TABLE 6
AVERAGE ANNUAL WORKER COMPENSATION, 2013
SERVICES TO HOUSEHOLDS EARNING $150,000 AND OVER

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
Occupation 3

Personal Care and Service Occupations
First-Line Supervisors of Personal Service Workers
Nonfarm Animal Caretakers
Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket Takers
Amusement and Recreation Attendants
Hairdressers, Hairstylists, and Cosmetologists
Childcare Workers
Personal Care Aides
Fitness Trainers and Aerobics Instructors
Recreation Workers
All Other Personal Care and Service Occupations (Avg. All Categories) Sales and Related Occupations
First-Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers
Cashiers
Counter and Rental Clerks
Retail Salespersons
Sales Representatives, Services, All Other
Weighted Mean Annual Wage
Sales Representatives, Wholesale and Manufacturing, Except Technical and Scientifo All Other Sales and Related Occupations (Avg. All Categories) Weighted Mean Annual Wage
Office and Administrative Supporl Occupations
First-Line Supervisors of Office and Administrative Support Workers Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks
Customer Service Representatives
Receptionists and Information Clerks
Stock Clerks and Order Fillers
Executive Secretaries and Executive Administrative Assistants Medical Secretaries
Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, Except Legal, Medical, and Executive Office Clerks, General
All Other Office and Administrative Support Occupations (Avg. All Categories) Weighted Mean Annual Wage
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations
First-Line Supervisors of Mechanics, Installers, and Repairers Automotive Body and Related Repairers
Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics
Bus and Truck Mechanics and Diesel Engine Specialists
Tire Repairers and Changers
Maintenance and Repair Workers, General
All Other Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations (Avg. All Categories) Weighted Mean Annual Wage
2013 Avg.

Compensation 1
$42,900
$25,500
$22,300
$22,700
$29,500
$23,600
$22,600
$50,600
$28,200
$27,300
$27,300
$49,500
$26,400
$33,900
$28,700
$71,400
$73,800
$34,000
$34,000
$62,400
$45,900
$43,200
$34,600
$29,100
$60,100
$41,800
$43,500
$37,400
$41,700
$41,700
$80,500
$51,400
$50,300
$58,500
$31,000
$45,800
$51,200
$51,200
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, California Employment Development Department, IMPLAN Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\16\16090\001\150k plus Newark 2-26-14; 2/27/2014; dd % of Total % of Total
Occupation Resident Services
Group 2 Workers

3.7% 0.2%

5.5% 0.3%

3.7% 0.2%

6.2% 0.3%

13.9% 0.8%

16.8% 0.9%

24.3% 1.4%

6.0% 0.3%

5.2% 0.3%

14.8% 0.8%
100.0% 5.6%

10.5% 1.6%

26.9% 4.0%

3.8% 0.6%

40.0% 6.0%

3.0% 0.5%
3A% 0.5%

12.4% 1.9%
Hm.0% 15.0%

6.5% 1.0%

7.4% 1.1%

9.5% 1.4%

7.3% 1.1%

12.1% 1.8%

3.4% 0.5%

3.9% 0.6%

10.3% 1.5%

13.8% 2.1%

25.8% 3.9%
100.0% 15.1%

7.9% 0.3%

5.8% 0.2%

22.3% 0.8%

3.6% 0.1%

3.5% 0.1%

31.1% 1.0%

25.8% 0.9%
100.0% 3.4%

APPENDIX 2, TABLE 6
AVERAGE ANNUAL WORKER COMPENSATION, 2013
SERVICES TO HOUSEHOLDS EARNING $150,000 AND OVER

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

CITY OF NEWARK, CA
Occupation 3

Transportation and Material Moving Occupations
Bus Drivers, School or Special Client
Driver/Sales Workers
Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers
Light Truck or Delivery Services Drivers
Taxi Drivers and Chauffeurs
Parking Lot Attendants
Cleaners of Vehicles and Equipment
Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand
Packers and Packagers, Hand
All Other Transportation and Material Moving Occupations (Avg. All Categories) Weighted Mean Annual Wage
2013 Avg.

Compensation 1
$35,600
$34,100
$44,800
$37,300
$29,100
$27,400
$24,500
$31,400
$23,700
i33,400
$33,400
% of Total % of Total
Occupation Resident Services
Group 2 Workers

9.2% 0.5%

7.2% 0.4%

12.5% 0.7%

10.8% 0.6%

4.5% 0.2%

4.4% 0.2%

6.1% 0.3%

21.6% 1.2%

6.9% 0.4%

16.8% 0.9%
100.0% 5.4%

87.6%
1 The methodology utilized by the California Employment Development Department (EDD) assumes that hourly paid employees are employed full-time. Annual compensation is calculated by EDD by multiplying hourly wages by 40 hours per work week by 52 weeks. 2 Occupation percentages are based on the 2012 National Industry- Specific Occupational Employment survey compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Wages are based on the 2012 Occupational Employment Survey data for Alameda County. updated by the California Employment Development Department to 2013 wage levels. 3 Including occupations representing 3% or more of the major occupation group Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, California Employment Development Department, IMPLAN Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\Sf-fs2\wp\16\16090\001\150k plus Newark 2-26-14; 2/27/2014; dd

APPENDIX L
RESOLUTION NO. 10,132
RESOLUTION NO. 10,132

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWARK ESTABLISHING A PARKS IMPACT FEE OF $7,460

PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 66001, REPEALING THE PARK-IN-LIEU FEE
(RESOLUTION NO. 5799) AND AMEND THE MASTER FEE
SCHEDULE (RESOLUTION NO. 10094) TO REFLECT THESE

CHANGES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newark ("City") is authorized to prescribe and establish fees in regard to services or functions performed by the City for the public in a governmental and proprietary capacity; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. allows local governments to impose impact fees on new development in order to recover the cost of improvements that are needed to serve that new development; and
WHEREAS, the City of Newark adopted a Park-in-lieu fee by Resolution No. 5799 on May 25, 1989 and established a Quimby Fee by Ordinance No. 264, introduced on March 22, 1990; and
WHEREAS, both of these existing fees are outdated and need to be brought into conformity with current conditions in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to have a single, updated parks impact fee that will ensure that new development pays the cost to continue the current parks standard; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared the attached 2013 Newark Parks Impact Fee Study which establishes a reasonable relationship between the parks fee and the purpose of the fee; and WHEREAS, the City has duly noticed, advertised, scheduled, and held a Public Hearing on September 26, 2013; and
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2013, the City Council reviewed material presented in the staff report including the Newark Parks Impact Fee Study, concerning the purpose of the fee and the relationship between the fee and its purpose; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newark which hereby finds, declares, and resolves that:
1) The City herby receives and approves the Newark Parks Impact Fee Study. 2) After considering the Newark Parks Impact Fee Study, this Resolution, and the testimony received at a public hearing, the City herby makes the following findings:
a) The Park Impact Fee approved pursuant to this Resolution shall be used to fund the cost of parkland acquisition, park and recreation facility development, construction attributable to new residential development in the City, and any administrative cost associated with the park impact fee program; and
b) The Newark Parks Impact Fee Study demonstrates that there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the Park Impact Fee and the cost of park facilities attributable to the development upon which the fee is proposed. Since the need for park and recreation facilities is inherently population-driven associated park facility costs are assessed based on average household population.
3) The City finds pursuant to the California Environmental Quality ACT ("CEQA") this action is not a "project" because the Resolution provides a mechanism for funding the acquisition and development of parks but does not involve a commitment to any specific project for such purposes that may result in a potential significant impact on the Environment (CEQA guidelines Section 15378)
4) The City does hereby approve the following park impact fee on new residential development for park land acquisition and development of park and recreational facilities.

Park Impact Fee of $7,460 per residential dwelling unit. 5) The Park Impact Fee would not apply to approved projects that have a Development Agreement or Vesting Tentative Map unless the provisions of the document allow the application of such fees.
6) Residential Developers shall be given a credit against this fee for the actual cost of public parks included in their developments.
7) The Park-in-Lieu fee established by Resolution 5799 is hereby rescinded. 8) The Master Fee Schedule is hereby amended to add a Park Impact Fee of $7,460 and to delete the Park In Lieu Fee and the Quimby Fee, as outlined in Exhibit A. 9) Effective Date: This resolution shall be effective upon the effectiveness of the repeal of Ordinance No. 264 (Quimby Fee).

Resolution No. 10,132 2
I HEREBY CERTIFY the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newark held on September 26, 2013, by Vice Mayor Apodaca, who moved its adoption and passage, which motion was caITied after being duly seconded, and passed by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

SECONDED:

Resolution No. 10,132
Council Members Collazo, Freitas, Marshall, Vice Mayor Apodaca, and Mayor Nagy
None
None
Council Member Collazo
3 APPROVED:
�1,fl�
s/ALAN L. NAGY
Mayor
Exhibit A
f
):,.p ,,.J;f ! .,�·-H,(;'(1
1 , /.\:.;•{•111,B ir it / .,. \
C !)J t �·t ,· I •i: {I)" 11,,
,,(t/,JF,<<',di,, 1
, 1;•1,, ,, 11 1p ,i .. 1,\1 t ,, j; 'I
V. CAPITAL ASSETS - CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISE FUND
A. DEVELOPMENT
104-0000 3740 1. Street Trees
208-0000
a. City Planted (three year maintenance) 325/tree
104-0000 3850 2. Park lmgact Fee 7 460/dwellin11 unit
6 Parl� iA lieH
a-, S1,1bEli11isieAs *
flt SiAgle family heme 2,998/ElwelliAg HAit
� MHlti family heme 2,27BfElwelliRg l!Hit
Ir. GeRElitieRal 1,1se peFmits **
flt +we SF less beEIFeems 1,BQQfElwelliRg HRit
� +hFee beEIFeems 2,QQQ,101,YelliRg HRit
W l<eHr er meFe beEIFeems 2,2QQfElwelliRg HRit
! 5StablisheEI by OFEliRaRce Ne. 264. See Ghapter 16.3Q NMG for ElefiRitieAs ef siRgle aREI mHlti family hemes.
400-0000 3860 PSF ** AA aEIElitieRal fee, baseEI SR actHal cast fer sePrices, R�ay be chaFgeEI feF FeRtals •• ! .... - - :.: ., __ ,

3. Capital Facilities*
Resolution No. 10,132
City of Newark
a.
37101 Newark Boulevard, Newark, CA 94560-3796
(510) 578-4000
Public Safety
(1) Single-family residential
(2) Multi-family residential
(3) Commercial
58 ........... '. ...... ,.. ........
1,989/unit
2,079/unit

1.73/ square foot
' l
2013 Newark Parks Impact Fee Study
Summary
This study calculates the cost to maintain a standard of three acres of improved parkland per 1,000 residents at $7,476.52. This amount has a reasonable relationship to the purpose ofthe parks impact fee and would be the maximum parks impact fee amount for the City of Newark.

Purpose of the New ark Parks Im pact Fee
The City of Newark's parks impact fee is intended to ensure that the city has adequate parks facilities to serve both new and existing residents, commensurate with the level of parks facilities available to current residents of the city and the standard set forth in the city's general plan.

The recreation element ofN ewark's general plan establishes a standard of three acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. This is compatible with the amount of parkland that is currently available to Newark residents, as is shown through the data and calculations below.

Park Acres
Community Park 16.54
Lakeshore Park 25.96
Musick Park 0.76
MacGregor School Park 10.3
Eucalyptus Grove North 1.64
Mayhews Landing Park 8.35
Mirabeau Park 6.02
Bridgepointe Park 3.53
Birch Grove Park 14.37
Ash Street Park 6.00
Civic Center Park 5.00
Eucalyptus Grove South 3.38
Byington Park 2.97
Silliman Recreation Center Park 24.23
TOTAL 129.05
According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the population ofNewark is 42,573. This means that Newark currently has a ratio of3.03 park acres per 1,000 residents. Based on this Resolution No. 10,132
information and the standard set in the Newark General Plan, the impact is calculated based on 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.

Calculation of the Newark Parks Impact Fee
The calculation to develop the impact fee is as shown below:

Cost per household = (Total cost of one acre of parkland) X (Parks standard per person) X
(People per household)
Each of the three inputs to the calculation is explained below.

Total cost of one acre of park/am/
The total cost of one acre of parkland includes both the land cost and the improvement cost. The land cost is the average asking price per acre of vacant land over 0.75 acre in size in the Tri-Cities area (Newark, Fremont and Union City) on one day during the period this study was being prepared (April 26, 2013). Smaller properties were eliminated because of their higher price per acre and the fact that the smallest park in Newark is 0.76 acres (Musick Park). This sample included 15 properties, which are listed in the appendix to this study. To ensure that the average price is reasonable and not unduly influenced by outliers, the two highest and two lowest costs per acre were discarded for the calculation. The result was an average land cost of$345,792.67 per acre.

The improvement cost includes the cost of park design and planning as well as the cost of the improvements themselves. These costs would vary depending on the size of the park and the level of improvements. Park design and planning could be accomplished for approximately $25,000 to $75,000 per park, depending on the level of complexity and the amount of work completed by city staff. For purposes of these calculation, an average of $25,000 per acre of parkland is included for design and planning.

Industry standards for park improvements vary according to the level of improvements needed, with passive use facilities and natural areas requiring less funds per acre and active facilities such as playfields, playgrounds, and bathrooms requiring more. New parks in Newark are expected to be primarily for active use, and therefore an average cost of$200,000 per acre is anticipated.

Parks standard per person
The parks standard, as established by the Newark General Plan and the current situation in the city, is 3 acres per 1,000 residents.

People per houselto/d
Resolution No. 10,132
The average number of people per household according to the 2010 U.S. Census is 3.28.

Fee Amount
Using the formula and data described above, the fee amount would be $7,462.52 per household or dwelling unit.

Reasonable Relationship between the Purpose of the Fee and the Amount of the Fee The fee per dwelling unit is a direct calculation of the cost to acquire and improve the land needed to maintain the city's standard of three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Therefore, there is a reasonable relationship between the purpose of the fee and the amount of the fee.

Resolution No. 10,132
Appendix: Data Used in Land Cost Calculations
Listings for Vacant Land in Newark, Fremont & Union City on mis.com on April 26, 2013
Address City MLS # Acres Asking $$/acre
Price
0 VARGAS RD Fremont 81219469 20.03 1,250,000 $62,406.39 42088 VARGAS RD Fremont 40575230 20.03 1,250,000 $62,406.39 0 MILL CREEK RD Fremont 40600478 54.08 3,599,000 $66,549.56 0 E WARREN AV Fremont 81300462 2.27 350,000 $154,185.02 00 Warren Ave Fremont 40610199 2.27 350,000 $154,185.02 501 CRYSTALLINE Fremont 21303973 18.29 3,000,000 $164,024.06 OMAHA WAY Fremont 40595845 6.77 1,200,000 $177,252.58
8100 MOWRY AVE W Newark 40599644 34.36 6,500,000 $189,173.46 4897 ST FRANCIS TE Fremont 81206823 6.19 1,200,000 $193,861.07 4700 HORNER ST Union City 40611674 1.7 480,000 $282,352.94 467 RIVIERA DR Union City 40600791 1.25 430,000 $344,000.00 71 MONTCL.AIRE DR Fremont 40593157 2.67 1,999,888 $749,021.72 36341 MISSION BLVD Fremont 40606221 0.79 1,050,000 $1,329,113.92 0 UNION CITY BLVD Union City 40430173 2 3,500,000 $1,750,000.00 37629 FREMONT BLVD Fremont 40586326 0.92 2,150,000 $2,336,956.52 Resolution No. 10,132

APPENDIX M
RESOLUTION NO. 10505
RESOLUTION NO. 105 0 5

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

NEWARK INCREASING THE PARKS IMPACT FEE UNDER
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001, REPEALING THE
FEE PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED IN RESOLUTION NO.
10132, AND AMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

TO REFLECT THESE CHANGES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newark, a general law city ("City"), is authorized to prescribe and establish fees in regard to services or functions performed by the City for the public in a governmental and proprietary capacity; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. allows local governments to impose impact fees on new development in order to recover the cost of improvements that are needed to serve that new development; and WHEREAS, the existing Parks Impact Fee is insufficient, outdated, and needs to be brought into conformity with current conditions in the City; and WHEREAS, the City desires to have an updated Parks Impact Fee that will ensure that all new development pays the cost to continue the current parks standard; and WHEREAS, the City has retained Keyser Marston Associates to prepare the Parks and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee Study, dated May 2016, which establishes a reasonable relationship between the parks fee and the purpose of the fee, which study is incorporated herein and attached as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City has duly noticed, advertised, scheduled, and held a Public Hearing on June 9, 2016; and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2016, the City Council reviewed material presented in the staff report including the Parks and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee Study, concerning the purpose of the fee and the relationship between the fee and its purpose; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newark which hereby finds, declares, and resolves that:
1) The City herby receives and approves the Parks and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee Study ("Fee Study"), which is attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution.
2) In adopting this Resolution, the City Council is exercising its powers under Article XI, Sections 5 and 7 of the California Constitution, Chapter 5 of Division 1 of the Government Code ("Mitigation Fee Act"), commencing with Section 66000, collectively and separately.
3) After considering the Fee Study, this Resolution, and the testimony received at a public heating, the City Council hereby makes the following findings:
a) In accordance with Section 66001, subdivision a, paragraph 1 of the Mitigation Fee Act, the purpose of the fees set forth in this Resolution, as specified in Exhibit A, is to provide for an expansion in parks and recreation capital facilities in the City as new growth occurs; b) In accordance with Section 66001, subdivision a, paragraph 2 of the Mitigation Fee Act, the fees collected pursuant to this Resolution, as specified in Exhibit A, shall be used to acquire land for parks and to construct improvements, such as playing fields, a skate park, or dog park, and other recreational uses and facilities for the City, and shall be used to fund any administrative cost associated with the park impact fee program;
c) In accordance with Section 66001, subdivision a, paragraph 3 of the Mitigation Fee Act, there is a reasonable relationship between the fees use (to pay for the acquisition of park and recreational facilities) and the type of development for which the fees are imposed in that the fees will be applied to residential development in the City, which will generate demands for park and recreational facilities;
d) In accordance with Section 66001, subdivision a, paragraph 4 of the Mitigation Fee Act, the Fee Study demonstrates that there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the Park Impact Fees and the cost of park facilities attributable to the development upon which the fee is proposed. Since the need for park and recreation facilities is inherently population-driven associated park facility costs are assessed based on average household population; and
e) In accordance with Section 66001, subdivision b of the Mitigation Fee Act, there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fees and cost of providing the parkland and park and recreational facilities attiibutable to the development in the City upon which the fees are imposed in that the fees have been calculated by apportioning the cost of parkland acquisition and park facilities construction to the number of residents attached by each type of new residential unit. 4) The City finds pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") this action is not a "project" because the Resolution provides a mechanism for funding the acquisition and development of parks but does not involve a commitment to any specific project for such purposes that may result in a potential significant impact on the Environment (CEQA guidelines Section 15378, Pub. Res. Code Section 21080(b)(8)(D)).

Resolution No. 10505 2
5) The cost estimates set forth in the Fee Study are reasonable estimates for acquiring parkland and constructing park and recreational facilities and the fees expected to be generated by future development will not exceed the future projected cost of acquiring parkland and constrncting park and recreational facilities.
6) The method of allocation of the fees to particular development bears a fair relationship and is roughly proportional to each development's burden on and benefits from the park and recreational facilities to be funded by the fees, in that the fees are calculated based on the number of residents each particular development will attract.
7) The Fee Study is a detailed analysis of how parks and recreational services will be affected by development in the City and the parks and recreational facilities necessary to accommodate that development.
8) The fees are consistent with the General Plan and, pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.2, the City Council has considered the effects of the fees with respect to the City's housing needs as established in the housing element of the General Plan.
9) The fee amounts set forth in this Resolution include the fair and reasonable costs of administration of the fee programs and are within the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act and other applicable law.
10) The fees are subject to adjustment, which approximate the fluctuation in market costs, and shall be adjusted annually in accordance with the Engineering News Record Constrnction Cost Index, San Francisco, California. Additionally, seeing that land acquisition costs are an important component of the fee, the City shall review land acquisition costs every two years. 11) The City does hereby approve the following park impact fees on new residential development for park land acquisition and development of park and recreational facilities as follows:

Type of Unit Fees for Projects that Do Not Fees for Projects that Dedicate Adequate Land for Dedicate Adequate Land for
Parks Parks
Single Family Unit $25,000 $7,500
Multiple Family Units $18,000 $5,300
(The fees shall be adjusted annually in accordance with the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index, San Francisco, California.) Resolution No. 10505 3
12) The Park Impact Fees shall not apply to approved projects that have a Development Agreement or Vesting Tentative Map unless the provisions of the document allow the application of such fees.
13) Residential Developers shall be given a credit against this fee for the actual cost of public parks included in their developments.
14) Resolution No. 10,132, which established the previous Park Impact Fee, is hereby rescinded.
15) The Master Fee Schedule is hereby amended to reflect the Park Impact Fees as set forth in this Resolution.
16) Effective Date: This resolution shall be effective upon date of adoption of this Resolution. In accordance with Government Code Section 66017, the fees set by this Resolution shall be effective 60 days from the effective date of this Resolution.
17) Severability. Each component of the fees and all portions of this Resolution are severable. Should any individual component of the fees or other provisions of this Resolution be adjusted to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining component or provisions shall be and continue to be fully effective, and the fees shall be fully effective except as to that component which has been judged to be invalid.

Resolution No. 10505 4
I HEREBY CERTIFY the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newark held on June 9, 2016, by Council Member Bucci, who moved its adoption and passage, which motion was carried after being duly seconded, and passed by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

SECONDED:

Council Members Hannon, Collazo, Bucci, Vice Mayor Freitas, and Mayor Nagy
None
None
Vice Mayor Freitas
APPROVED:
a_,,,/-11�
D
z
's/SHEILA�
City lerk
s/ ALAN L. NA
v
G'I
Mayor
Resolution No. 10505 5

APPENDIX N

PARK AND RECREATION

FACILITY

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT

FEE STUDY
Resolution No. 10505
Exhibit A

KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES

PARK AND RECREATION FACILITY DEVELOPMENT

IMPACT FEE STUDY
Prepared for:

City of Newark
Prepared by:

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

May 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION, SUMMARY OF CURRENT PROGRAM, RESULTS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 1 A. Summary of Current Program and City Objectives for Impact Fee ............................... 1 B. Report Background and Legal Context ........................................................................ 1 C. Facility Standards and Cost Allocation Approach ......................................................... 2 D. Maximum and Recommended Fee Schedules ............................................................ 3 II. MITIGATION FEE ACT NEXUS FINDINGS ...................................................................... 5 A. Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 5 B. Use of Fee ................................................................................................................... 5 C. Relationship ................................................................................................................. 5 D. Need ............................................................................................................................ 5 E. Proportionality ............................................................................................................. 6 Ill. DEMAND FOR NEW PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES AND SUPPORTED IMPACT FEE AMOUNTS .................................................................................................. 7 A. Service Population ....................................................................................................... 7 B. Average Household Size ............................................................................................. 7 C. Parks and Recreation Facility Inventory and Standards ............................................... 7 D. Parkland Development Costs ...................................................................................... 8 E. Park and Recreation Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Residential Development ............................................................................................................... 9 F. Maximum Impact Fees Supported by Nexus Analysis ................................................. 9 IV. USE OF FEE REVENUE .................................................................................................. 11 V. IMPACT FEES IN NEIGHBORING CITIES, MAXIMUM SUPPORTED FEES, AND RECOMMENDED FEES .................................................................................................. 12 A. Park and Recreation Fees in Neighboring Jurisdictions .............................................. 12 B. Maximum and Recommended Impact Fees ................................................................ 12 VI. FEE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION ....................................... 14

1. Credits, Reimbursement, and Exemptions .................................................................. 14

2. Securing Supplemental Funding ................................................................................. 14

3. Annual Review and Periodic Study Update ................................................................. 15 I. INTRODUCTION, SUMMARY OF CURRENT PROGRAM, RESULTS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS
This Parks and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee nexus analysis provides the City of Newark (the City) with the necessary technical documentation to support updating its current Park Impact Fee. This nexus analysis has been prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA).

A. Summary of Current Program and City Objectives for Impact Fee The City currently levies a park impact fee of $7,460 per unit. The impact fees are used to acquire land and construct parks to meet the City's per capita parks service standard of 3 acres of parks per 1,000 residents. The City's per capita park standards and service park standards are contained in the City's General Plan.

The City's park impact fee is an "all-inclusive" park fee that addresses the impacts of new residential development on all types of recreational facilities including parks, playfields, aquatics and recreation centers. Although some cities have fees that are targeted to particular uses, the all-inclusive strategy is preferable because it provides the City with a greater degree of flexibility.

B. Report Background and Legal Context
The Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600 et seq.) permits cities to adopt parks and recreation development impact fees on new development to fund the associated, additional costs of providing parks and recreation capital facilities. Unlike the City's current land dedication requirement, which was established in conformance with the Quimby Act, the Mitigation Fee Act allows for fees to be charged to all new development that increases the need for capital facilities, including in-fill projects. 1
This Report provides the necessary technical analysis to support a schedule of fees to be established by an Impact Fee Ordinance and Resolution. The Mitigation Fee Act allows the City to adopt by Resolution a fee schedule consistent with the supporting technical analysis and findings provided in this Report. The Resolution's approach to setting the fee allows periodic adjustments of the fee amount as may be necessary over time, without amending the enabling Ordinance.

The technical analysis in this Report estimates the parks and recreation facility fee schedule that will fund new development's "fair share" contribution to future City investments in parks.

The key requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act that determine the structure, scope, and amount of the proposed Fee Program are as follows:
1 Quimby Act fees under the Subdivision Map Act can only be charged on new, subdivided residential development.

Quimby Act fees would not apply to projects that do not require a subdivision map, such as infill projects.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\SF-FS2\wp\ 16\ 16090\002\001-001.docx

• Collected for Capital Facility and Infrastructure Improvements. Development impact fee revenue can be collected and used to cover the cost of capital facilities and infrastructure required to serve new development and growth in the City. However, impact fee revenue cannot be used to cover the operation and maintenance costs of these or any other facilities and infrastructure.
• Cannot Fund Existing Needs. Impact fee revenue cannot be collected or used to cover deficiencies in existing City capital equipment and facilities. The portion of capital costs required to meet the needs of the City's existing population must be funded through other sources. Capital facility investments that increase service standards for existing and new development must be split on a "fair share" basis according to the proportion attributable to each.
• Must be Based on a Rational Nexus. An impact fee must be based on a reasonable nexus, or connection, between new growth and development and the need for a new facility or improvement. As such, an impact fee must be supported by specific findings that explain or demonstrate this nexus. In addition, the impact fee amount must be structured such that the revenue generated does not exceed the cost of providing the facility or improvement for which the fee is imposed.

The City can choose to charge parks and recreation development impact fees below the maximum, supportable fee schedule. Such downward adjustments in the fee schedule, if selected, are typically based on policy considerations related to considerations of development feasibility and fee levels in peer cities.

C. Facility Standards and Cost Allocation Approach
A facility standard is a policy that indicates the amount of facilities required to accommodate service demand. Examples of facility standards include building square feet per capita and park acres per capita. Standards may also be expressed in monetary terms such as the replacement value of facilities per capita. The adopted facility standard is an important component in determining development's need for new facilities and the amount of the supported fee.

Standards determine new development's fair share of planned facilities and ensure that new development does not fund deficiencies associated with the existing city infrastructure.

The City has a long established a standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents. This standard was reaffirmed in the updated General Plan that was approved in 2013 after significant community input. The parks and recreation facilities fees calculated in this report uses the City's stated service standard and the cost of developing new parks to estimate the cost of maintaining the existing level of service to new residents through the buildout of the General Plan. New development will be required to fund the expansion of facilities at the same rate that existing development has provided to date. Thus, new development will not be funding any existing deficiency.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\SF-FS2\wp\16\16090\002\001-001.docx

Excluding school-owned parks, there is currently approximately 3.01 acres of parks per 1,000 residents, which is equivalent to the City's stated per capita service standard.

The City has identified some, but not all of the planned new parks to potentially be funded by the fee (and other sources, as necessary) through the 2035 planning horizon of the General Plan. 2 The City is in the process of preparing a Park Master Plan, which will prioritize future park development.

D. Maximum and Recommended Fee Schedules
Table 1 shows the City's maximum supportable parks and recreation fee schedule as well as the recommended fee schedule. The maximum fee schedule is based on the nexus findings and technical analysis contained in this Report and represents the maximum parks and recreation fees the city could charge consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act. The calculation of the fee is presented in Section Ill of this report. The recommended fee schedule reflects a downward adjustment from the maximum supported fee. The recommendations are based on the fee levels being charged by surrounding communities. While we have identified a recommended fee range, the City has the discretion to adopt any fee amount up to the maximum amount supported by the nexus analysis.

Consistent with the City's current fee structure, we are recommending that the impact fee remain an "all-inclusive" park fee that addresses the impacts of new residential development on all types of recreational facilities including parks, playfields, aquatics and recreation centers. Although some cities have fees that are targeted to particular uses, the all-inclusive strategy is preferable because it provides the City with a greater degree of flexibility.

The parks and recreation development impact fees will apply to new residential development to fund a share of future parks and recreation capital facilities investments in the City. The fee estimates include a 2 percent (2%) fee program administration fee, consistent with other Mitigation Fee Act program administrative costs in many other California jurisdictions. 3 2 Appendix Table A-3
3 The 2 percent administration cost allowance is designed to cover the costs of preparing the development impact fee as well as the required reporting, auditing, collection and other annual administrative costs involved in overseeing the program. Development impact fee programs throughout California have applied similar administrative charges.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\SF-FS2\wp\16\16090\002\001-001.docx

Table 1: Maximum and Recommended Park Fees
Maximum Supported Fees4
Fee for Projects that Fee for Projects
Do Not Dedicate that Dedicate
Land for Parks Land for Parks
Single Family Units $31,000 $7,700
Multi Family Units $31,000 $7,700
Recommended Fees
Fee for Projects that Fee for Projects
Do Not Dedicate Land that Dedicate
for Parks Land for Parks
$6,500 to
$22,000 to $25,000 $7,500
$4,500 to
$15,000 to $18,000 $5,300
As shown in Table 1, the estimated maximum parks and facilities impact fee to fund both land acquisition and the construction of parks improvements that could be levied approximates $31,000 per dwelling unit. For projects that dedicate land, a fee is only needed to fund facilities.

The maximum facility fee amount is $7,700 per dwelling unit.

Fee comparisons with surrounding cities indicate that at these maximum levels, the City would be adopting parks and recreation fees that exceed the amounts being levied in surrounding cities. Given this consideration as well as the consideration that the City levies other impact fees, we are recommending that the adopted fees be less than the maximum fee levels. We are also recommending reduced fee levels on multi-family construction because of the reduced capacity of multi-family developments to absorb the same level of per unit costs as single family developments. While we have identified a recommended fee range, the City has the discretion to adopt any fee amount up to the maximum amount supported by the nexus analysis.

As shown in Table 1, the recommended fee to cover both land acquisition and facilities costs is $22,000 to $25,000 per unit for single family units and $15,000 to $18,000 per unit for multifamily units. For developments that dedicate sufficient land for park development the recommended fee range would be $6,500 to $7,500 per unit for single family units and $4,500 to $5,300 per unit for multifamily units.

E. Fee Indexing
Since land and construction costs continue to rise, it is important that the cost be indexed to inflation. The fee should be adjusted annually by a construction cost index, such as the Engineering News Record. Furthermore, land acquisition costs, which are an important component of the total fee and actual construction costs should be reviewed by the City at least every two years.
4 The calculation of the maximum fee levels is presented in Section Ill of this report.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\SF-FS2\wp\ 16\ 16090\002\001-001.docx

11. MITIGATION FEE ACT NEXUS FINDINGS
This chapter describes the necessary "nexus" between new development in Newark and the proposed capital facilities investments, as required under the Mitigation Fee Act - Government Code Section 66000 (AB1600). The new parks and recreation development impact fees will fund the investments in parks and recreation facilities, improvements, and land acquisitions required to maintain existing levels of park facilities service in the City - the "fair share" contribution of new development.

Nexus findings address: (1) the purpose of the fee and a related description of the facility for which fee revenue will be used, (2) the specific use of fee revenue, 3) the relationship between the facility and the type of development, (4) the relationship between the need for the facility and the type of development, and (5) the relationship between the amount of the fee and the proportionality of cost specifically attributable to new development. The subsections below describe the nexus findings for the Parks and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee.

A. Purpose
The fee will ensure an expansion in parks and recreation capital facilities in the City of Newark as new growth occurs.

B. Use of Fee
Fee revenue will be used to acquire land for parks and to construct improvements, such as playing fields, a skate park, or dog park, etc.

C. Relationship
New residential development in the City of Newark will increase the demand for and use of parks and recreation facilities. Fee revenue will be used to help fund new parks and recreation facilities in response to the increased demand.

0. Need
Each new residential project will bring new residents to the City and will generate incremental, new demand and use of the City's parks and recreation facilities. New revenues to fund investments in additional parks and recreation capital improvements are necessary to maintain the City's parks and recreation capital facilities service standards.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\SF-FS2\wp\ 16\ 16090\002\001-001 .docx

E. Proportionality
The maximum, supportable parks and recreation fee schedule has been based on a parks and recreation capital facilities cost estimate derived by applying the proportionate increase in residential population associated with new development to the existing operative service standard/value of parks and park improvements. As a result, the fee program cost estimates are directly proportional to the relative increase in new development.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\SF-FS2\wp\ 16\16090\002\001-001.docx

Ill. DEMAND FOR NEW PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES AND SUPPORTED IMPACT

FEE AMOUNTS
A. Service Population
The City's General Plan has established the City's standard for functional public parkland at 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents. Therefore, under the City's policy, new residents are the determining driver/service population for new park and recreation facilities. As shown in Table 2, the City's population totaled approximately 43,342 in 2013 at the time that the General Plan was prepared. By 2035 the population is anticipated to reach 60,510, reflecting an increase of 17,168 people over roughly the next 20 years.

Table 2: Service Population
2013 Population
New Development (through-2035)
Total, 2035
Source: General Plan
B. Average Household Size
Residents
43,342
17,168
60,510
Service Population
43,342
17,168
60,510
Since residential park impact fees are often levied per residential unit, the average household size is needed to convert the demand of new residents into the demand of new residential units.

The residential occupant density factors for both single-family and multi-family units are derived from data from the US Census' American Community Survey. As shown below, the average household size is 3.23 persons per household.

Table 3: Average Household Size Assumptions
I All Residential Units 3.23 I
Source: American Community Survey 2010 - 2014.

C. Parks and Recreation Facility Inventory and Standards As summarized in Table 4 and detailed in Appendix Table A-1, the City has a total inventory of 130.6 acres of existing parks. Of the existing acreage, approximately 44% are community parks, 45% are neighborhood parks, and 11 % are specialized parks. There are currently no parks under construction. The City is currently preparing a Parks Master Plan, which will detail the City's objectives for future park construction.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\SF-FS2\wp\ 16\16090\002\001-001.docx

Table 4: Existing and Under Construction City Park Acres Existing Acres Under Construction Total Acres
Community Parks 58.1 0 58.1
Neighborhood Parks 58.8 0 58.8
Specialized Recreation Areas 13.7 Q 13.7
All City Park Acreaqe 130.6 0 130.6
Source: Newark General Plan. Park Inventory is detailed in Appendix Table A-1.

The City is currently providing a service level of 3.01 acres per 1,000 residents. The current inventory of park acreage in Newark meets or exceeds the City's per capita service standard of

3.0 acres per 1,000 residents.

Table 5: Current Service Standard - Park Acres per 1,000 Residents City Park Acreage
Acres per 1,000 Residents
Existing Acres
130.6

3.01 General Plan Standard - Acres oer 1,000 Residents
D. Parkland Development Costs
Under Construction
0 Total Acres
130.6

3.01 3.00
Table 6 provides an estimate of the cost of developing new parks, including the cost of acquiring land for park development. Land acquisition cost estimates are based on recent land sales for residentially zoned property or commercial sites that are part of residential development, as provided in Appendix Table A-2. Given that the City intends to provide parks in proximity to residential neighborhoods, the cost of acquiring residential land is the appropriate indicator of park acquisition costs. Residential land acquisition costs generally range from $43 to $75 per square foot of land area. For purposes of this analysis, a land cost of $60 per square foot has been used, which reflects the average cost of sites of less than 20 acres.

The cost of developing park facilities varies significantly, depending on the nature of the facilities. Based on information provided by City staff, facility construction costs can range from approximately $12 per square foot up to $45 per square foot. For purposes of updating the City's park fee, a cost of $18 per square foot or $784,000 per acre has been assumed. As shown in Table 6, the cost to develop an acre of parkland is estimated to total $3,136,000 including land and park development costs or $784,000 excluding land acquisition costs.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\SF-FS2\wp\ 16\16090\002\001-001.docx

Table 6: Park Development Costs per Acre
Land Acquisition Costs per Acre1
Park Improvement Costs per Acre2
$2,352,000
$784,000
Total Park Development Cost Per Acre $3,136,000
1 Reflects average value of recent land sales in residential areas in Newark. Please see Appendix Table A-2. 2 Cost estimate reflects City staffs estimate of average park construction costs.

E. Park and Recreation Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Residential Development
Table 7 provides the estimate of the park acreage needed to accommodate the demand generated by new residents at the existing service level of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents. As shown, it is estimated that an additional 51.5 acres of improved parks will be needed to serve the needs of new residents through the General Plan buildout period of 2035. The cost of providing the needed parks is estimated to total approximately $164.7 million including the cost of acquiring land ($9,596 per additional new resident) and $41.2 million, excluding the cost of land ($2,399 per additional new resident).

Table 7: Park Land and Improvement Needs to Serve New Residents New Residents (through 2035) 17,168
Current General Plan Parks Service Standard 3.00 acres per 1,000 residents Additional Park Acres to Serve New Residents 51.504
Land+ Improvements
Improvements Only
Cost per Acre (Table 6) $3,136,000 $784,000
Administration Cost Allowance 2.00% $62,720 $15,680
Total Cost per Acre $3,198,720 $799,680
Additional Park Acres to Serve New Residents 51.504 51.504 Total Park Investment Required to Serve New Residents
Cost Per New Resident
$164,746,875 $41,186,719
F. Maximum Impact Fees Supported by Nexus Analysis
$9,596.16
As shown above, the cost to provide new facilities to serve the demand of new residents is estimated at $2,399 per resident excluding land acquisition costs and $9,596 per resident including land acquisition costs. By applying the average density of 3.23 residents per residential unit, it is estimated that the maximum supported parks and recreation impact fees is $7,700 per residential unit excluding land acquisition costs and $31,000 per residential unit including land acquisition costs.
$2,399.04
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\SF-FS2\wp\ 16\ 16090\002\001-001.docx

Table 8: Maximum Parks Fees Supported by Nexus Analysis Fee for Projects that Fee for Projects that
do not Dedicate Land Dedicate Land (Fee
(Fee Funds Land + Funds Improvement
Improvement Costs) Costs)
Maximum Fee per New Resident (Table 7) $9,596.16 $2,399.04 Maximum Fee per New Household 3.23 persons per hhld. $30,996 $7,749 Rounded $31,000 $7,700
In the simplest mathematical form, the equation for calculating the maximum fee per household is as follows:
(per capita park service standard) X (cost per acre) X (average household size per unit) = maximum fee per household
Incorporating the information specific to this analysis for Newark, the formula is as follows:
(3 acres/1000 residents) X ($3, 198,720/acre) X (3.23 residents/unit) = $30,996 per unit; and (3 acres/1000 residents) X ($799,680/acre) X (3.23 residents/unit)= $7,749 per unit.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\SF-FS2\wp\ 16\ 16090\002\001-001.docx

IV. USE OF FEE REVENUE
The City plans to use park impact fee revenue to acquire parkland and construct facilities to add to the system of park and recreation facilities. The park facilities that are planned at this time are listed in Appendix Table A-3.

The City is embarking on a comprehensive Citywide Park Master Plan to assess community needs, provide greater project detail, and prioritize projects. The outcome of the Master Plan should be used to review the fee and consider any appropriate modifications.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\SF-FS2\wp\ 16\ 16090\002\001-001.docx

V. IMPACT FEES IN NEIGHBORING CITIES, MAXIMUM SUPPORTED FEES, AND

RECOMMENDED FEES
A. Park and Recreation Fees in Neighboring Jurisdictions KMA surveyed the impact fees levied by the nearby cities of Union City, Fremont, Hayward, Dublin, Pleasanton and San Leandro. The park and recreation facility impact fees and total impact fees for these cities are presented in Appendix Table A-4. They are summarized in Table 9.

Table 9: Comparison of Fees1
Newark
Union City -Subdivision - Avg.

Union City - Non-subdivision
Fremont2
Hayward
Dublin
Pleasanton
San Leandro3
Per Unit Park Fees
Single Famill£ Multi Famill£
$7,460 $7,460
$28,193 $28,193
$2,746 to $3,096 $2,746 to $3,096
0 BR-$9,220 0 BR-$9,220
4 BR - $29,502 4 BR - $29,502
$11,953 $9,653
$19,227 $12,017
$9,709 $7,969
$16,079 $14,054
. . 1 excludes affordable housmg fees and fees charged on building permit valuations .

Total Per Unit Impact Fees
Single Famill£ Multi Famill£
$12,462 $12,045
$42,075 $38,138
$16,628 to $12,691 to
$16,978 $13,041
0 BR -$12,363 0 BR -$12,363
4 BR- $31,012 4 BR - $31,012
$11,953 $9,653
$30,197 $19,229
$22,206 $16,256
$17,416 to $15,891 to
$18,094 $16,069
2 for units with more than 4 bedrooms, additional park fee is $5,531 per bedroom. Total additional fee is $6,210 per bedroom. 3 Pertains to non-senior units.

As shown, Newark's existing parks fee at $7,460 per dwelling unit is the lowest among the surveyed cities. The second lowest parks fee is levied by Pleasanton, with a fee of $9,709 per unit. There is also a large disparity among the surveyed cities, ranging from $9,700 per unit in Pleasanton to $29,500 per unit5 in Fremont. Pleasanton and Hayward are at the lower end of the range, Fremont and Union City (up to $28,193 per unit) are at the high end, and San Leandro and Dublin are in the middle of the range.

B. Maximum and Recommended Impact Fees
We recommend that the adopted fees be set below the maximum in order to be consistent with the fees of other cities in the market area and to not overly burden the cost of new development, given that the City has other impact fees. Separate and reduced fee recommendations are 5 Fee amount varies by bedroom count. $29,502 is the fee for a four-bedroom unit.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\SF-FS2\wp\ 16\ 16090\002\001-001.docx

offered for multi-family units in recognition that multi-family units typically cannot bear the same level of impact fees as single family developments.

Table 10: Maximum and Recommended Park Fees
Maximum Supported Fees
Fee for Projects that
Do Not Dedicate
Land for Parks
Single Family Units $31,000
Multi Family Units $31,000
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\SF-FS2\wp\ 16\16090\002\001-001.docx
Fee for Projects
that Dedicate
Land for Parks
$7,700
$7,700
Recommended Fees
Fee for Projects that Fee for Projects that
Do Not Dedicate Dedicate Land for
Land for Parks Parks
$22,000 to $25,000 $6,500 to $7,500
$15,000 to $18,000 $4,500 to $5,300

VI. FEE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION
The Mitigation Fee Act includes a series of reporting requirements designed to ensure that development impact fee revenues are properly accounted for, used appropriately, and that, where funds are ultimately not used, are reimbursed. In addition, jurisdictions adopting fee programs should determine their preferred approach to updating the fee schedule and whether they intend to allow for exemptions, credits, and reimbursements (under any additional circumstances). The following fee program implementation and administration parameters are our standard recommendations. The City's existing program may already include some or all of these recommendations.

1. Credits, Reimbursement, and Exemptions
Under certain and limited circumstances, as determined by the City, the Impact Fee Resolution could allow developers subject to the fee to obtain credits, reimbursements, or exemptions. In cases of redevelopment, the demolition of space should provide a fee credit. In other words, the gross fee obligation should be calculated based on the scale of the proposed new development, with a fee credit to be applied for existing square footage to be removed (or retained) using the applicable fee for the existing square footage (land uses). Residential units that are being replaced due to a natural disaster are also exempt from the impact fees. And, units that are subject to the existing land dedication requirements will only be subject to the parks facility impact fee and not the entire fee that covers both land acquisition and park improvement costs.

All other fee credits and/or reimbursements should not be allowed by right but rather should be subject to review by City staff and Council to ensure that such credits or reimbursements are warranted and appropriate. Potential examples where fee credits and reimbursements might be considered include: (1) cases where a Development Agreement specifically envisions extraordinary, direct investments in parks and recreation facilities of equal to or greater value to the City than the applicable parks and recreation fees; and 2) exemptions where the City elects not to impose fees for certain categories of development, such as affordable developments, are also an option, though alternative funding sources to offset a loss in fee revenue would need to be provided.

2. Securing Supplemental Funding
The maximum, supportable development impact fee is set to cover the parks and recreation facilities investments that will maintain citywide capital facilities standards as new growth occurs. To the extent that the adopted fee is less than the maximum and/or the City's goals envision an overall increase in parks and recreation facilities and parkland standards, supplemental funding will be required to fund park facilities. In addition, to the extent that exemptions are provided for particular types of development, supplemental funding will be required to make up for this lost funding.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\SF-FS2\wp\ 16\16090\002\001-001.docx

3. Annual Review and Periodic Study Update
The Mitigation Fee AcU AB 1600 ( at Gov. C. §§ 66001 ( c ), 66006(b )( 1)) stipulates that each local agency that requires payment of a fee make specific information available to the public annually within 180 days of the last day of the fiscal year. This information includes the following:
■ A description of the type of fee in the account
■ The amount of the fee
■ The beginning and ending balance of the fund
■ The amount of fees collected and interest earned
■ Identification of the improvements constructed
■ The total cost of the improvements constructed
■ The fees expended to construct the improvement
■ The percentage of total costs funded by the fee
Because of the dynamic nature of growth and capital equipment requirements, the City should monitor inventory activity, the need for improvements, and the adequacy of the fee revenues and other available funding. To the extent particular issues are identified, adjustments to the fee program may be required.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\SF-FS2\wp\ 16\ 16090\002\001-001.docx

APPENDIX A: Park Inventory, Residential Land Sales, Park Construction Costs, and Impact Fees of Neighboring Cities
Appendix Table A-1
Newark City Park Inventory
Newark, CA
Park Name
Jerry Raber Ash Street Park
Susan Johnson Bridgepoint Park
Byington Park
Civic Center Park
Lakeshore Park
Mayhews Landing Park
Mirabeau Park
Musick Park
Total, Neighborhood Parks
Birch Grove Park
Community Park
Sportsfield Park/Silliman Center
Total, Community Parks
Shirley Sisk Grove
MacGregor Fields
Total, Special Use Parks
Total, City Parks
Source: Newark General Plan
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Acres Faciliites
Neighborhood Parks

6.1 play structures, softball fields, basketball
court, picnic, horseshoe pit

3.5 play structures, picnic facilities
3 play structures, picnic facilities

5.1 play structures, basketball court, par
course, picnic facilities
26 lawn, paths, par course. 16-acre water area
with fishing and boating

8.3 play structures, basketball court, picnic
facilities
6 play structures, paths, picnic facilities

0.8 play structures, picnic facilities

58.8 Community Parks

12.2 play structures, lighted softball, basketball,
tennis, picnic, restrooms, water feature
play structures, warm-up wall, basketball,

16.3 handball, lawn, paths, tennis, picnic,
community center
softball fields, soccer fields, aquatic center,

29.6 gymnasium, showers, locker room, dance
studio, fitness center, teen room, children's
room, meeting room, childcare

58.1 Special Use Parks

3.2 open space for summer concerts

10.5 soccer and baseball practice fields

13.7 130.6
\\SF-FS2\wp\16\16090\002\Newark parks analysis 05 0416; 5/10/2016 Appendix Table A-2
Recent Land Sales in Residential Areas
Newark, CA
Address Date Price Sq. Ft.
1 8400 Enterprise Drive 1/21/2016 $39,650,000 929,135
2 37521 Willow Street 11/16/2015 $14,930,000 198,634
3 8375 Enterprise Drive 9/25/2015 $5,500,000 93,218
4 36120 Ruschin Drive 5/15/2015 $19,250,000 442,134
5 38945 Timber Street 1/29/2015 $7,360,000 100,188
6 5655 Mowry Avenue 1/29/2015 $44,032,000 673,220 (Mowry Crossings) Average $130,722,000 2,436,529
Average of sites less
than 20 acres $91,072,000 $1,507,394
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\ \SF-FS2\wp\16\16090\002\land sales OS 16; 5/4/2016
Price per SF
$42.67
$75.16
$59.00
$43.54
$73.46
$65.41
$53.65
$60.42
Proposed Use
Single family
Entitled for town homes
Approved for 27 homes. It is part of
the Dumbarton Transit-Oriented
Development. Other note indicates
that site will be used to construct a
34,000 sf industrial bldg.

Single family
Commercial to serve new residential
development or part of residential
Investment - 147 townhomes, 93
condos and 42 detached sf
Current use Buyer
industrial land Trumark
residential land Lennar Homes
Buyer is Honeywell
International, Inc. Seller
is Trumark.

Newark school Classic Communities bldg.
commercial land DR Horton
vacant Mervyn's; DR Horton Motel 6
Appendix Table A-3
Potential Additional Park Improvements
Newark, CA
Facility
Skate Park
Dog Park
New Turf Fields
Cedar Blvd Linear Park
Dumbarton TOD to Wildlife Refuge; Refuge Connection Trail RR Overcrossing Sisk Grove lmprovments: Ampitheater, Conncession Area & Bathrooms Silliman Picnic Area
Aquatic Area Replacment
Birch Grove Undeveloped Area
New 6 acre park in the TOD
Bocce Ball Courts
Birch Grove Park Softball Field Night Lighting
Bridgepointe Park Path Completion
Byington Park Security Lighting
Civic Center Park Completion
Community Park Group Picnic Facility
Jerry Raber Ash St. Park - Remaining Phases
Mayhews Landing Park Completion
Mirabeau Park Security Lighting
Senior Center Community Garden
Silliman Complex - Remaining Phases
Silliman Complex - Maintenance/Restroom Facility
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\ \SF-FS2\wp\16\16090\002\potential parks; 5/25/2016
Location
Undetermined
Undetermined
Sportsfield Park
Northwest Newark
Dumbarton TOD
Shirley Sisk Grove
Adjacent to Silliman Center
Community Park
Birch Grove Park
Enterprise and Hickory
Undetermined
Birch Grove Park
Bridgepointe Park
Byington Park
Civic Center
Community Park
Jerry Raber Ash St. Park
Mayhews Landing Park
Mirabeau Park
Jerry Raber Ash St. Park
Silliman/Sportsfield
Silliman/Sportsfield
Orifil!!LStatus
CIP
CIP
City Staff
General Plan
Specific Plan
New Park Master Plan
City Staff
City Staff
City Staff
Specific Plan
CIP
CIP
CIP
CIP
CIP
CIP
CIP
CIP
CIP
CIP
CIP
CIP
APPENDIX TABLE A-4

COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEES, EXCLUDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEES

NEWARK AND NEIGHBORING JURISDICTIONS

CITY OF NEWARK
Impact Fees/ du' Newark Dublin
Arts Requirement $270 See Below
Fire Impact Fee None SF: $870, MF: $544
Park Facilities / Parkland $7,460 SF/MF: $18,646
Dedication Fee2
Public Facility Impact Fee' Public Safety MF: $2,079, SF/MF: $5,798 SF: $1,989
Comm. Service MF: $1,596
SF: $1,942
Transportation MF: $460,
SF: $801
Tota/ MF: $4,135,
SF: $4,732
Traffic Impact Fee Included in None
Public Facility Fee
Tri-Valley Transportation None SF: $3,060
Development Fee 4 MF:$2,108
Total Fees / du SF: $12,462 SF: $28,374
MF: $11,86S MF:$27,096
Fees as % of BPV
Arts Reauirement See Above > 20 du: 0.5% BPV
General Plan Cost Recoverv .5% BPV None
Total % of BPV .5% BPV 0.5% BPV
Fees PSF Building (Partial}
Fire Equipment Acquisition None See Above
Fees as % of Building and Plan
General Plan Cost Recovery See Above None
Fremont
None
0BR: $143
lBR: $214
2BR: $300
3BR: $371
4BR: $457
+BR: +$86/BR
0BR: $9,220
lBR: $13,830
2BR: $19,362
3BR: $23,971
4BR: $29,502
+BR: +5,531/BR
0BR: $988
lBR: $1,483
2BR: $2,076
3BR: $2,569
4BR: $3,163
+BR: +$593/BR
0/lBR: $2,012
2/3BR: $2,247
4+BR: �3 421
None
0BR: $12,363
lBR: $17,539
2BR: $23,985
3BR: $29,158
4BR: $31,012
+BR: $6,210/BR
None
None
None
See Above
15% of Building and Plan
Check Permits
Notes: This chart presents an overview and terms may be simplified. Consult code and City staff for more information. 1 Excludes on-site inclusionary requirements. See Table 2.

Hayward
None
None
SFD: $11,953
SFA: $11,395
MF: $9,653
None
None
None
SFD: $11,953
SFA: $11,395
MF: $9,653
None
None
None
None
12% of Building and Plan
Check Permits
Milpitas Pleasanton San Leandro Union City
None None None See Below
None None None See Below
Varies by pop. density SF: $9,709, MF: $7,969 SF: $16,079; Subdivision:

SFD: $44,673 MF: $14,054 Varies by pop. density
SFA: $35,438 $28,193 (avg.)
MF (2-4 du): $36,131 Non-Subdivision:

MF (5+ du): $29,089 $2,466 plus $280 (0-lBR),
$455 {2BR), $630 {3+BR)
None SFD: $4,730 None SF: $12,231, MF: $8,624
SFA: $3,532
MF: $2,885
None SF: $4,707 $1,337-$2,015; SF: $1,651; MF: $1,321 6 MF: $3,294 senior: $667-$897 5
None SF: $3,060 None None
MF: $2,108
Varies by pop. density SFD: $22,206 Non-Senior Subdivision SFD: $44,673 SFA: $20,056 SF: $17,416-$18,094 SF: $42,075 SFA: $35,438 MF: $16,256 MF: $15,391-$16,069 MF:$38,138 MF (2-4 du): $36,131 Senior: Non-Subdivision
MF (5+ du): $29,089 SF: $16,746-$16,976 SF
MF: $14,721-$14,951 0-lBR: $16,628
2BR: $16,803
3BR: $16,978
MF
0-lBR: $12,691
2BR: $12,866
3BR: $13,041
None None None 1%BPV
None None None None
None None None 1% BPV
None None None $1.40 PSF occupiable space
above 2nd storv
None None None None
Abbreviations: SF= Single Family SFA = SF Attached
MF= Multi-Family BPV = Building Permit Value
PSF = Per Square Foot
BR= bedroom
SFD = SF Detached
du;; Dwelling unit
2 For Milpitas and Union City, fee is estimated based on population densities derived from Census and DOF data. In Milpitas, developer may submit alternative population estimate. 40% of Milpitas fee may be met through the provision of private open space. 3 Generally supports such facilities as libraries, parks and other community buildings. Newark fee includes transportation facilities. 4 Regional fee collected on behalf of the Tri-Valley Transportation Development District. s Fees vary by zone.
6 Traffic signalization fees.

Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

FIiename: C:\Users\kfeeney\Desktop\Newark A-4 A-5;4l18l2016;hgr APPENDIX TABLE A-5

COMPARISON OF INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAMS

NEWARK AND NEIGHBORING JURISDICTIONS

CITY OF NEWARK
Newark
Minimum Project Sizel
For In-lieu/Impact Fee1 FS/R: 1 unit
For Build ReQuirement no build rea.

Onsite Requirement
Percent of Total Units2 n/a
Income Level (% AMI) n/a
Impact / In-Lieu Fee Levels
Fee Level $20/sf first 1,000 SF/unit;
$8/SF above 1,000 SF/unit
Alternatives to Onsite Provision3
Fee Option - for projects over n/a
min.size
Dublin Fremont
FS/R: 20 units FS/R: 2 units
FS/R: 20 units (oartiall no build rea.

7.5%, plus fee Attached 3.5% plus $18.50/sf
(12.5% without fee) Detached 4.5% plus $17.50/sf
FS: 40% @ 80%, 60% at 120% 80-110%AMI
AMI (120% w/approval)
R: 30% @ 50% AMI, 20% @
80% AMI, 50% @ 120% AMI.
$130,276 per aff unit owed FS:
(in addition to on-site) Attached $18.50 w/ aff units;
$27.00 no units
Detached $17.50 w/ aff units;
$26.00 no units
R: $17.S0 no map; $27.00 w/
map4
No yes (Developer)
Note: This chart presents an overview and terms have been simplified. Consult code and City staff for more information.

Abbreviations: R = Rental
du:;; Dwelling Unit

1. In Union City , single-unit, owner-occupied projects exempt.

FS = For Sale
Ac= Acre

2. In Dublin, 40% of the on-site requirement is covered through an impact fee. sq ft= Square Feet
AMI =Area Median Income
Havward
FS/R: 20 units
no build rea.

Attached: 7.5%
Detached: 10%
80-110%AMI
FS:

Attached: $3.24/sf
Detached: $4/sf
R: $3.24/sf
yes (Developer)
MF= Multi-Family
Req. = Requirement
Miloitas
FS/R: 5 units
no build rea.

5.0%
Up to 80%AMI
5% building permit value5
yes (Developer)
Pleasanton
FS/R: 15 units
no build rea.

MF: 15%
SF: 20%
SF: 80%AMI
MF: 120%AMI
MF: $2,783/du;
SF:
<l,500 sq ft: $2, 783/du
>1,500 sq ft: $11,228/du
yes (Developer)
SF= Single Family
BP = Building Permit

3. All cities that do not allow fee payment by right allow developers to seek Council approval of fee payment instead of on-site units. Also, all cities with on-site reqs. provide options for off-site construction and land dedication.

4. Rental projects with a subdivision map allowing conversion to condominiums

5. In-lieu/impact fee introduced as temporary measure while City prepares formal nexus study. Fee has not yet been assessed. Average residential building permit value is reported to be$ __ .

6. Fee calculated based on current median sales price for individual projects. No fees have been owed since 2008.

Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Filename: C:\Userslkfeeney\Desktop\Newark A-4 A-5; A5 Incl Programs Desc; 4/18/2016:hgr San Leandro Union Citv
FS: 2 units n/a
FS: 7 units FS: 1 unit
15% 15%
60%@ 80-120% AMI; 10%@ 50-80%AMI;
40% @ 50-80% AMI 30%@ 80-100% AMI;
60%@ 100-120% AMI
(Median Sale Price - <7 units: $160,000 /du owed;
Affordable Price) x units 7+ units: $180 /sf owed
owed6
yes (City) yes (City)
Item  D. 6.

DATE 12/12/2024
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Sheila Harrington, City Clerk
SUBJECT    Adopt resolutions establishing the City Council meeting calendar for 2025 and authorizing the City Manager to take administrative actions during the August Recess
Newark Municipal Code Section 2.08.010 requires the City Council to set the day and time of regular City Council meetings via resolution.  A resolution with the proposed meeting dates and times for calendar year 2025 has been drafted for City Council consideration. If approved, meetings will continue to be held on the second and fourth Thursday of each month beginning at 7 p.m. The resolution authorizes the Annual August Meeting Recess and cancels the second meeting in the months of November and December due to holidays.

The City Council has continuously approved an August Recess (no regular meetings during the month of August) since 1994. City staff also seeks authorization for the City Manager, or designee, to approve administrative matters that might occur during the August Meeting Recess that cannot be deferred until the September 11, 2025, City Council meeting. The general types of administrative matters that might require action are:

Acceptance of completion of work on City Projects
Approval of agreements as needed for budgeted projects and services Approval of plans and specifications
Award of contracts for budgeted projects
Denial of claims
The City Manager or designee will provide a staff report on all actions taken during the August Recess at the September 11, 2025, City Council meeting.

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt resolutions to establish the dates and times for regular City Council meetings for the calendar year 2025 and authorize the City Manager, or designee, to act upon certain administrative matters on behalf of the City of Newark during the City Council Summer Meeting Recess August 2025.

Attachments
Resolution 2025 Meetings
Resolution August Recess
RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

NEWARK ESTABLISHING THE DATES AND TIMES FOR

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS FOR THE
CALENDAR YEAR 2025
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newark adopted Ordinance No. 523 amending the Newark Municipal Code to provide that the City Council shall establish dates and times for regular City Council Meetings by resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt a resolution establishing dates and times for regular City Council Meetings for Calendar Year 2025.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newark that the regular City Council Meetings for Calendar Year 2025 shall be on the dates and times specified in this Resolution.
2025 Regular meeting dates, start time 7:00 p.m. from January to December:

January 9, 2025 June 12, 2025
January 23, 2025 June 26, 2025
February 13, 2025 July 10, 2025
February 27, 2025 July 24, 2025
March 13, 2025 September 11, 2025
March 27, 2025 September 25, 2025
April 10, 2025 October 9, 2025
April 24, 2025 October 23, 2025
May 8, 2025 November 13, 2025
May 22, 2025 December 11, 2025
2025 meetings canceled
August Recess August 8 and 22, 2025
Thanksgiving Holiday November 27, 2025
Winter Furlough December 25, 2025
RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

NEWARK AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, OR HIS

DESIGNEE, TO ACT UPON CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE

MATTERS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF NEWARK

DURING THE CITY COUNCIL SUMMER MEETING RECESS
AUGUST 2025
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newark will be in recess during the month of August 2025; and
WHEREAS, during said City Council recess, certain administrative matters require action.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newark hereby authorizes the City Manager, or his authorized designee, to act upon the following certain administrative matters during the City Council’s meeting recess August 2025, which should not be deferred until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council on September 11, 2025:

Acceptance of completion of work on City projects
Approval of agreements as needed for budgeted projects and services Approval of plans and specifications
Award of contracts for budgeted projects
Denial of claims
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all actions taken by the City Manager, or his authorized designee, pursuant to this resolution, shall be reported to the City Council after the recess.

Item  H. 1.

DATE 12/12/2024
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Sheila Harrington, City Clerk
SUBJECT    Motion appointing Vice Mayor and adoption of resolution authorizing the execution of financial documents
During the latter part of the calendar year, the City Council reorganizes by appointing one of its members to serve as Vice Mayor. The Vice Mayor performs the duties of the Mayor during the Mayor's absence. Staff recommends that the City Council select a member of the Council to serve as Vice Mayor for a one-year term and until a successor is selected.

After the Vice Mayor has been selected, a resolution authorizing the Vice Mayor to sign and endorse checks, warrants, and other instruments will need to be approved by the City Council.   Historically, the resolution has identified authorized signers by name and position title.  Staff has reviewed the process and is recommending that the resolution identify titles only - Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and Treasurer. This will streamline the process by allowing staff to update the Vice Mayor's name on an annual basis without returning to Council with a resolution to approve the specific name authorization (Council would still appoint the Vice Mayor every year by motion).  Many cities use the by title authorization and the Finance Director has verified that this is acceptable with the financial institutions listed in the resolution.

It is recommended that the City Council:  (1) by motion, appoint one of its members as Vice Mayor; and (2) by resolution, authorize the signing and endorsing of checks, warrants, and other instruments.

Attachments
Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

NEWARK AUTHORIZING SIGNING AND ENDORSING

CHECKS, WARRANTS, AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Newark maintains checking accounts with U.S. Bank and Fremont Bank as the depositories of the City’s funds; and WHEREAS, checks or warrants withdrawing funds requires City signatories.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that checks or warrants withdrawing funds from the financial institutions identified above must have signatures of any two of the following positions: Mayor; Vice Mayor; City Manager; Treasurer; or Assistant City Manager. Each such official shall be duly elected or appointed as stipulated in the Newark Municipal Code and a record of such appointment or election shall be maintained in the office of the City Clerk.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that U.S. Bank and Fremont Bank are authorized to honor and pay all the checks and warrants to the City of Newark, signed as provided herein, whether or not payable to the person or persons signing them; and that checks, warrants, drafts, bills of exchange and other evidence of indebtedness may be endorsed and deposited to the account of the City of Newark, by and of the foregoing or any other employee or agent of the City of Newark, and may be endorsed in writing or by stamp, with or without the designation of the person so endorsing.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Check Writing Devices signature impression of the above signatories shall be deemed their manual signatures for the purposes specified in this resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution supersedes all prior resolution regarding this subject matter.

Item  H. 2.

DATE 12/12/2024
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Sheila Harrington, City Clerk
SUBJECT    Adopt a resolution confirming the Mayor's appointments to various agencies, boards, commissions, and committees
On a yearly basis, the Mayor appoints City Council Members to various agencies, boards, commissions, and committees.  Staff is recommending the removal of three assignments due to lack of meetings: Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District Policy Advisory Committee, Dumbarton Rail Policy Advisory Committee, and Tri-City Waste Facility Financing.  Staff will return with a request for appointments should any of the dormant committees reactivate in the future. Mayor Hannon is the City’s representative on the Housing Commission of the Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (Housing Authority). This is not listed because the Alameda County Board of Supervisors is the appointing authority. The current appointments are listed for reference in the table below.

Alameda County Fire Advisory
Commission
Council Members Vacant and
Collazo – delegate and alternate
Alameda County Library Advisory
Commission
Council Members Collazo and
Jorgens – delegate and alternate
Alameda County Transportation
Commission
Council Members Freitas and
Collazo – delegate and alternate
Alameda County Waste
Management Authority
Board/Stopwaste.org
Mayor Hannon and Council
Member Freitas - delegate and
alternate
Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG)
Council Member Vacant and
Mayor Hannon - delegate and
alternate
Ava Community Energy
Council Member Jorgens and
Mayor Hannon – delegate and
alternate
Community Development
Advisory Committee
Mayor Hannon and Council
Member Freitas – delegates
Newark City Council – Board of
Education Liaison Committee
Council Members Collazo and
Jorgens – delegates
Tri-City Elder Coalition Mayor Hannon - delegate
Senior Advisory Committee Mayor Hannon delegate and
chairperson
Southern Alameda County
Geographic Information System
Authority
Mayor Hannon and Council
Member Jorgens - delegate and
alternate
.

The Mayor will announce his appointments during the City Council meeting. It is recommended that the City Council, by resolution, confirm the appointments to the various agencies, boards, commissions, and committees.

Attachments
Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWARK CONFIRMING THE MAYOR’S APPOINTMENTS

TO VARIOUS AGENCIES, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND

COMMITTEES
WHEREAS, the Mayor of the City of Newark has appointed representatives to the following agencies, boards, commissions, and committees:

Alameda County Fire Advisory
Commission
delegate and alternate
Alameda County Library Advisory
Commission
delegate and alternate
Alameda County Transportation
Commission
delegate and alternate
Alameda County Waste Management
Authority Board/Stopwaste.org
delegate and alternate
Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG)
delegate and alternate
Ava Community Energy Board of Directors delegate and alternate Community Development Advisory
Committee
delegates
Newark City Council –Board of Education
Liaison Committee
delegates
Tri-City Elder Coalition delegate
Senior Advisory Committee delegate and chairperson
Southern Alameda County Geographic
Information System Authority
delegate and alternate
.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newark hereby approves the Mayor’s appointments.