Agenda packet — Newark City Council, January 8, 2026 (part 3 of 6)

Cost Burdened Households in Alameda County
*City of Oakland’s minimum wage as of January 2021. California minimum wage as of January 2022 is $14.00~$15.00/hour. *
37 Draft for County Review
Lower Income Households at Risk of Displacement
Changes in Household Income Distribution
Lower income households, defined in this study as those with incomes of $75,000 and below, are typically unable to afford to rent the average apartment in the City of Newark and Alameda County Over the past decade, the number of lower income households in the City and County has declined, which is partially attributable to wage growth but also reflective of a high-cost housing environment that makes it difficult for many lower income households to find housing that they can afford in the City or County.

Lack of supply and increasing housing costs intensify displacement risks for lower income households, and the risk of displacement is particularly acute for lower income renter households. The City of Newark currently has about 1,500 lower income renter households with incomes at or below $75,000, a 32% decline compared to 2010.

Source: American Community Survey 2010, 2019, 5-Year Estimate, US Census Bureau 2,259
597 600
136
1,527
787
1,153
911
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Below $75,000 $75,000 - $100,000 $100,000 - $150,000 Above $150,000 Total HHs
Household Income
City of Newark Renter Household Income Distribution
2010 2019
176,618
26,064 24,432
11,635
144,558
35,393
44,443 43,892
0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
Below $75,000 $75,000 - $100,000 $100,000 - $150,000 Above $150,000 Total HHs
Household Income
Alameda County Renter Household Income Distribution
2010 2019
38 Draft for County Review
Negative Impacts from Displacement
Research from Urban Displacement Project and Others
Research compiled and undertaken by the Urban
Displacement Project and other researchers has shown
that displacement negatively affects the health, quality of life, and economic outlook for households, often with longterm consequences. As indicated in a Berkeley IGS Research Brief on Displacement in San Mateo County, not only does displacement disrupt the stability of a household, it also affects neighborhood stability.

Displaced residents face a dangerous combination of
limited opportunity and urgency to find housing, forcing them to make compromises that could be personally
painful, socioeconomically limiting, and detrimental to their health. Those who must move away from their
neighborhoods often face longer, more costly commutes
and reduced access to public transit. When forced to pay more for housing and/or transportation, they are more likely to forego other household expenses like food, medications, or childcare. Homelessness and marginal housing were
startlingly common among displaced households. These
living conditions compromise households’ safety, social networks, and health.

Source: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/resources#section-57 39 Draft for County Review
Impacts on Health and Welfare From Displacement
Research from Urban Displacement Project and Others
As shown by the Urban Displacement Project and other researchers, displacement itself can be deeply traumatic, which can compromise the health and welfare of households immediately and for years after they are forced to move. The graph below demonstrates the potential health impacts on long-term “legacy” residents who are displaced to a new neighborhood, as well as those who stay despite displacement pressures. As further described in this report, residents and households are likely to experience negative impacts in terms of disrupted social networks, access to employment, medical and social service providers, education, and other community services. Children are particularly at risk because research has shown that a move can disrupt academic performance even when children do not switch schools.

Source: Gentrification and the Health of Legacy Residents.” 2020. Ellen, Ingrid Gould and Alexis Captanian.

Potential Pathways
Through Which
Gentrification (and
Related Displacement
Pressures) May Affect
Health of Long-Term,
Legacy Residents
40 Draft for County Review
Finding 2 Supporting Data
Jobs and Demographic Changes
An increase in higher income households and jobs in high wage industries has occurred, leading to increased competition for limited housing stock. Between 2010 to 2019, the number of households in the City grew by about 1,200 households. However, during that time, the number of lower income households (under $75,000) declined by about 2,000 households, while households with incomes over $75,000 increased by about 3,200 households. Most of the new jobs added in the City of Newark have also been in industries where the average wage is above $75,000. At the same time, about 40% or 7,900 primary jobs in the City have wages $40,000 or less. Lower wage jobs and lower income households still exist in the City of Newark; however, the growth in higher income households means lower income households face increased competition for housing. 41 Draft for County Review
Increasing Commuter Residents
Top Employment Destinations
Employment in the Bay Area is heavily
concentrated in business nodes around the region
such as Silicon Valley. Concentrated employment
growth coupled with the lack of new housing
development in surrounding cities has resulted in
changing commuter patterns as employees live in
different areas from where they work.

From 2010 to 2019, the City of Newark witnessed
a 57% (467) increase in residents who commuted
to Santa Clara for their work. An increasing
number of City residents commuted to
employment nodes in Alameda and San Mateo
Counties. While the City maintains a strong
employment base, these changing commuter
patterns likely indicate that workers are moving to
the City of Newark in search of housing.

The movement of higher income wage earners to
the City increases displacement pressures on
lower income households who cannot afford the
increasing cost for housing in the City and County.

Source: OnTheMap 2019, United States Census Bureau
17 24
31 42
72 122
445
1,024
1,660
2,480
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
Napa County, CA
Stanislaus County, CA
Marin County, CA
Orange County, CA
San Joaquin County, CA
Contra Costa County, CA
San Francisco County, CA
San Mateo County, CA
Alameda County, CA
Santa Clara County, CA
Change in Commuters from City of Newark to Select
Counties (2010-2019)
42 Draft for County Review
High Proportion of Lower Wage Workers
Annual Salary Levels and Housing Affordability
About 7,900 of the City of Newark’s jobs pay wages of $40,000 and below, which represents about 40% of primary jobs in the City compared to 36% in the Alameda County in 2019.
! A household with one lower-wage worker earning $40,000 or less would be considered very low income and would not be able to afford a typical market-rate apartment in the City. ! Similarly, households with two lower-wage workers would not be able to afford a typical apartment or purchase a home in the City.
! Low-wage workers thus experience severe displacement
pressure and are likely forced to live farther away from their job to find more affordable housing options.

Source: OnTheMap 2010-2019, United States Census Bureau 13% 12%
28% 24%
60% 64%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
City of Newark Alameda County
2019 Annual Earnings of Primary Jobs
$15,000 or less $15,000 to $40,000 More than $40,000
2010 & 2019 Annual Earnings of Primary Jobs
Newark City Alameda County
Annual Earnings 2010 2019 Change 2010 2019 Change
# Jobs % # Jobs % # Jobs % # Jobs % # Jobs % # Jobs %
$15,000 or less 3,074 22% 2,480 13% (594) (19%) 94,420 16% 87,185 12% (7,235) (8%) $15,000 to $40,000 5,100 36% 5,405 28% 305 6% 174,427 29% 175,703 24% 1,276 1% Subtotal 8,174 57% 7,885 40% (289) (4%) 268,847 45% 262,888 36% (5,959) (2%) More than $40,000 6,066 43% 11,591 60% 5,525 91% 331,663 55% 473,809 64% 142,146 43% Total 14,240 100% 19,476 100% 5,236 37% 600,510 100% 736,697 100% 136,187 23% 43 Draft for County Review
High Proportion of Industries With Lower Wage Jobs
Average Wages by Industry in Alameda County, 2019
Average wage levels vary significantly in Alameda County. Lower wage jobs of $40,000 or less are most prevalent in industries such as accommodation & food services, educational services, and retail trade. While the number of primary jobs in lower wage industries with average annual wages of $40,000 or less has declined, there are still over 260,000 of lower wage jobs in the County as of 2019, indicating a continuing need for affordable housing.

Source: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, California Economic Development Department $0
$25,000
$50,000
$75,000
$100,000
$125,000
$150,000
$175,000
$200,000
$225,000
Accommodation and Food Services
Retail Trade
Educational Services
Other Services, Except Public Administration
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
Administrative And Waste Services
Health Care and Social Assistance
Transportation and Warehousing
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Wholesale Trade
Construction
Manufacturing
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction
Finance and Insurance
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Management of Companies and Enterprises
Utilities
Information
Alameda County Average Wages by Industry (2019)
Industries sorted by wage, from low to high
44 Draft for County Review
High Proportion Industries With Lower Wage Jobs
Top Industries in the City of Newark and Alameda County Many of the City’s jobs are in the lower wage industries of accommodation, food services and retail trade. Around 20% of the City’s jobs are in these two lowest-paying industries, compared to 16% in the County, and Amazon is a major retail trade employer in Newark. The City also has a high proportion of jobs in manufacturing compared to the County, which includes most of the City’s major private employers– Aspire Bakeries, FreeWire, KNT Manufacturing, Logitech, Lucid Motors, and SAS Automotive.

Source: US Census OnTheMap 2019; industries sorted by average Countywide wage level. Other category to the far right includes Agriculture, Utilities, Mining, and Real Estate.
10% 10%
4%
3% 3%
7%
11%
0%
5% 4%
18%
1%
13%
8%
1% 1%
7%
9%
7%
3%
6%
14%
5%
2%
5%
7%
12%
2%
11%
2%
3%
2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
22%
Accomm oda tion
an d Fo od
Services
Re ta il Trad e Edu catio nal
Services
Oth er Services,
Excep t Pu blic
Administra tion
Administra tive
And Was te
Services
He alth C are an d
Social
Assistan ce
Transp ortatio n
an d
Wareh ou sing
Arts,
Entertainme nt,
an d Rec reatio n
Wholesa le
Trade
Co nstructio n Man ufacturing Fina nce a nd
Insura nce
Profession al,
Scie ntific, and
Techn ica l
Services
Man age men t of
Co mpan ie s a nd
Enterp rise s
Information Oth er
Percent of Total Jobs
Proportion of Jobs by Industry (2019)
City of Newark Alameda County
Industries sorted by wage, from low to high
45 Draft for County Review
High Proportion of Industries With Lower Wage Jobs
Jobs Growth by Wage Level
The City of Newark has grown its job base by 37% since 2010, significantly outpacing the County’s job growth, which was also strong. While the City has a higher share of job growth in high-paying industries compared to the County, over 40% of the City’s job growth still came from lower wage industries paying less than $75,000 a year.

Source: US Census OnTheMap 2010-2019, US Census Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, California Economic Development Department -1%
43%
19%
21%
18%
9%
40%
30%
15%
6%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Under $50,000 $50,000-$75,000 $75,000-$100,000 $100,000-$150,000 $150,000+ Share pf Total Job Growth
Share of Total Job Growth by Wage Level (2010-2019)
City of Newark Alameda County
46 Draft for County Review
Median Household Income Trends
Alameda County and City of Newark Median Household Incomes A look at historical median incomes in Alameda County shows that median income in Alameda County remained relatively the same between 2010 and 2015. Median household income in Alameda County began to show a significant increase in 2016, where income increased by 6% compared to 2015. Since then, median household income has been increasing, reaching $99,406 in 2019. As will be described in this study, much of the recent income growth is attributable to growth in higher-income households.

The City of Newark’s median income growth has seen similar trends to Alameda County. Median household income in the City and County both increased by slightly above 43% between 2010 and 2019. However, median household income has always been higher in the City compared to the County. As of 2019, the median household income in the City of Newark is $116,856 or 18% higher compared to Alameda County.

Source: American Community Survey 2010-2019, 5-Year Estimates $0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Median Income
Historical Median Household Income
City of Newark Alameda County
47 Draft for County Review
Significant Portion of Households at Risk of Housing Displacement Income Distribution of the City of Newark
Households in Newark and the County have experienced dramatic shifts in incomes as the result of regional economic growth. Higher income households from the broader region - in response to the region’s housing affordability challenges - have moved into areas with relatively lower housing costs like the City of Newark, contributing to income inequality and increasing displacement risks, particularly among lower income households.

In 2010, households earning less than $75,000 made up 45% of all households in Newark, but this percentage had declined to 27% by 2019, indicating displacement pressures on lower-income households. In contrast, highest income households (with incomes above $150,000) in both the City and County have more than doubled between 2010 and 2019. In addition, all of the City’s net growth in households has come from households earning over $100,000.These changes alongside the insufficient new housing permits have significantly affected the City’s housing market.

Source: American Community Survey 2019, 5-Year Estimate, US Census Bureau 0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
Below $25,000 $25,000 -
$35,000
$35,000 -
$50,000
$50,000 -
$75,000
$75,000 -
$100,000
$100,000 -
$150,000
Above
$150,000
City of Newark Household Income Distribution
2010 2019
0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
Below
$25,000
$25,000 -
$35,000
$35,000 -
$50,000
$50,000 -
$75,000
$75,000 -
$100,000
$100,000 -
$150,000
Above
$150,000
Alameda County Household Income Distribution
2010 2019
48 Draft for County Review
Loss of Low/Moderate Income Renter Households
Changes in Renter Household Income Distribution
As described earlier, the risk of displacement
is particularly acute for lower income renter
households in the City of Newark with
incomes at or below $75,000 per year.

While the number of renter households in
Newark has grown from about 3,600 in 2010
to about 4,400 in 2019, the number of renter
households who made less than $75,000
has declined by 732 households (from 2,259
to 1,527 lower income renter households).

While this could be attributable to
households earning higher incomes, it could
also be an indication of lower income renter
households being replaced by higher income
renter households.

Unless additional housing, especially
affordable housing is built, lower-income
Newark residents will have to compete with
higher-income newcomers for existing
housing and face further displacement risks.

Source: American Community Survey 2010, 2019, 5-Year Estimate, US Census Bureau 0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Below $25,000 $25,000 -
$35,000
$35,000 -
$50,000
$50,000 -
$75,000
$75,000 -
$100,000
$100,000 -
$150,000
Above
$150,000
Total Renter HHs
Household Income
City of Newark Renter Household Income Distribution
2010 2019
2,259
597 600
136
1,527
787
1,153
911
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Below $75,000 $75,000 - $100,000 $100,000 - $150,000 Above $150,000 Total Renter HHs
Household Income
City of Newark Renter Household Income Distribution
2010 2019
Decrease of 732 lower
income renter households
49 Draft for County Review
Finding 3 Supporting Data
Significant Increase in Rents and Home
Prices
Rents and home prices have increased significantly in Newark over the last decade, which has been exacerbated by the jobs housing imbalance. From 2010-2019, twobedroom rents increased by around 45% in Newark and 41% in Alameda County, while two-bedroom home prices have increased by 122% in Newark and 98% in the Alameda County. As housing costs continue to increase across the City and incomes do not keep pace with the growth in market rent, lower income households will face increased housing pressure, putting them at a risk of displacement. As of April 2022, very few rental units are affordable to lower income households. 50 Draft for County Review
Household Income Trends
Current Alameda County Incomes
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) establish areawide median incomes (AMI) for each County in California. The Alameda County AMI for a four-person household was $100,550 in 2019 and increased by 12.4% to $113,500 in 2021.

According to Plan Bay Area 2040, the average household size in the Bay Area is about 2.8 persons per household, and Alameda County is reported to have about the same average household size.

Based on State standards, a typical three person household would occupy a two bedroom unit, and a 3-person household is assumed to receive 90% of the income of a 4-person household.

HUD also defines several income categories for affordable housing as shown on the graph to the right. According to HUD, a typical low income, three person household in Alameda County had an income of about $89,000 in 2019 and $99,000 in 2021.

For purposes of this study, low income households in the City and County of Alameda are defined as those households with incomes at $75,000 and below, according to the defined income tiers in the US Census and ACS. In 2019, about 3,742 households in the City of Newark had a household income of $75,000 or below.

Affordable rents are established based on these different income level tiers and are defined to be equal to 30 percent of income before consideration of utility costs.

Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, California Department of Housing and Community Development 2019 and 2021 Income Limits
$33,450
$55,800
$88,700
$100,550
$120,650
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
Extremely
Low
Very Low
Income
Low Income Median
Income
Moderate
Income
Alameda County 2019 HUD/HCD Income Limits for
Three Person Household
$37,000
$61,650
$98,650
$113,050
$135,650
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
Extremely
Low
Very Low
Income
Low Income Median
Income
Moderate
Income
Alameda County 2021 HUD/HCD Income Limits for
Three Person Household
51 Draft for County Review
The average household size in the City of Newark is 3.36, higher compared to the 2.87 average household size in the County. This suggests that on average, a household in the City has 3 or more people. Based on State standards, a three-person household would occupy a two-bedroom unit, and shown in the chart below, two-bedroom units are the most commonly occupied rental unit type in the City and County.

In order to compare like-to-like over time while meaningfully addressing the City’s housing needs, two-bedroom units will be used for the following slides on rents and home prices.

Typical Housing Sizes in the City of Newark
Distribution by Household Size and Bedrooms
12%
27%
61%
13%
33%
53%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
One-Person Two Persons Three Persons+
Share of Total Households
City Household Size by Tenure (2019)
Renter Households Owner Households
1%
14%
44%
30%
9%
2%
9%
30%
38%
17%
5%
1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Studio One
Bedroom
Two
Bedroom
Three
Bedroom
Four
Bedroom
Five
Bedroom+
Share of Total Renter
Bedroom Types of Units Occupied by Renter Households
(2019)
City of Newark Alameda County
Source: American Community Survey 2019, 5-Year Estimate 52 Draft for County Review
Rapid Increase in Market Rents in the City of Newark and Alameda County Two-Bedroom Rents
Institutional grade apartments are typically larger buildings managed by a management company rather than an individual or smallscale owner. Most new construction, which will be the source of new inclusionary units, falls within this category.

While average asking rents for two bedroom, institutional grade apartments in Newark have been consistently lower than the County since 2010, this is not unexpected because other cities in the County have higher-quality buildings (e.g., Oakland and Berkeley), which increases average countywide rent. While rents in Newark are lower than the County, the cumulative rent growth since 2019 in the City is than the County, increasing by 45% in Newark , compared to 41% in the County. In 2020, average rents in both the City and County temporarily declined due to the pandemic but recovered in 2021, exceeding 2019 levels.

Source: CoStar, Institutional Grade Multifamily Apartment Developments (April 2022). Institutional grade apartments are located within developments that attract investment or acquisition by institutional investors. These units are typically larger apartment developments, which contain newer or renovated buildings typically classified as Class A or B.

CoStar data downloaded in April 2022, which included updated data for 2019. $1,573 $1,638
$1,753
$1,861
$2,031
$2,166 $2,152 $2,207 $2,268 $2,287 $2,244 $2,300
$1,835 $1,893
$1,979
$2,090
$2,206
$2,376 $2,426 $2,487 $2,553 $2,580 $2,509
$2,613
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
$2,000
$2,200
$2,400
$2,600
$2,800
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Average Asking Rent
Historical Two Bedroom Rent - City of Newark vs. Alameda County City of Newark Alameda County
53 Draft for County Review
Rapid Increase in Market Rents in the City of Newark and Alameda County Two-Bedroom Rents
From 2010 to 2019, average rents for two bedrooms units in the City of Newark increased to $2,287 per unit (over $700 higher compared to 2010). Although rents declined in 2020 due to the pandemic, rents have recovered and surpassed the 2019 level by 2021. Due to rapid growth in rents, most institutional grade apartments have been and will continue to be unaffordable to the lower income renter households in Newark. Assuming 30% of income is spent on rent, the affordable rent for a lower income household (under $75,000 in income) is $1,875 (before consideration of utility costs). Thus, the affordable rent for a lower income household is about $400 or 18% lower than the average rent for a two bedroom institutional grade apartment of about $2,300.

CoStar data downloaded in April 2022, which included updated data for 2019. $1,573
$1,835
$2,287
$2,580
$2,300
$2,613
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
City of Newark Alameda County
Average Asking Rent
Asking Rents (Two Bedroom Institutional Grade Apartments) 2010 2019 2021
54 Draft for County Review
Growth in Rent Outpaced Growth in Median Household Income Two-Bedroom Rents
As the study utilizes socioeconomic data from the 2019 ACS, 2019 rent levels are primarily used to evaluate housing needs in the City and County. While median household incomes have increased in both the City and County from 2010 to 2019, rents have increased faster than median incomes in the City and County. (As shown below, twobedroom rents increased by 45% in the City compared to 41% in the County, while incomes grew at 44% and 41% respectively.) As discussed earlier, the overall increase in median income is likely related to the addition of higherincome households, as median household incomes stagnated during the recession after taking into account inflation.

The upward trajectory of rents and incomes in the City will continue to put pressure on lower income residents in the City and put them at a higher risk of displacement as higher income earners “price-out” lower income earners.

Source: Costar (April 2022), 2010 and 2019 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates 44% 43%
45%
41%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
City of Newark Alameda County
Percent Change
Growth in Rent and Median Incomes for Renters from 2010 to 2019 Median Income Change Two Bedroom Average Rent Change
55 Draft for County Review
Affordable Rents Compared to Market Rents of New Apartments City of Newark and Alameda County
Monthly Affordable Housing Cost for Three-Person Household As indicated earlier, the State of California and and Two Bedroom Units Federal government recognize that different
sized households need different housing sizes
and measure affordability based on household
size standards. State affordability standards
assume that a three person household would
occupy a two bedroom unit, although smaller
or larger households could live there.

Based on a typical housing affordability
standard of 30% of income spent on housing, a
low income household in Alameda County and
the City of Newark with an income of about
$75,000 could afford rent of $1,875 before
consideration of utility costs. As shown in the
chart, asking rents for market rate apartments
in both the City and County are significantly
higher than what lower income households can
afford, and a household income of $100,000 is
needed to afford the typical market rent in the
City and to pay for monthly utility costs.

Note: Housing cost is assumed to be 30% of household income. Monthly affordable rents are before consideration of utility costs.

Source: Costar (April 2022), TCG, Seifel Consulting Inc. $1,250
$1,875
$2,500
$3,750
$2,287
$2,580
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
$50,000
Household
Income
$75,000
Household
Income
$100,000
Household
Income
$150,000
Household
Income
2019
Asking
Rents
(City of
Newark)
2019
Asking
Rents
(Alameda
County)
56 Draft for County Review
The City of Newark has about 14,000 households, including about 4,440 renter households. The majority of these renters (62%) live in single-family or 2-4 unit buildings. As for-sale homes increase in value due to lack of supply, mortgage interest rates increase, and other market pressures occur, renters of these homes may face increasing displacement pressure as landlords are motivated to sell their units or increase rents to make an equivalent return.

Intensifying Housing Conditions
Housing Types in the City of Newark and Alameda County
Source: American Community Survey 2019, 5-Year Estimates, United States Census Bureau 51%
30%
11%
18%
38%
52%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
City of Newark Alameda County
Building Structure Occupancy Type for Renter Households (2019) 1 Unit Structure 2-4 Unit Structure 5+ Unit Structure
57 Draft for County Review
Limited Rental Units Affordable to Lower Income Households Market Rate Rental Options for City of Newark Residents As described earlier, over 60% of renters in the City of Newark rent units in single-family or small buildings, often listed by individual owners on Zillow and referred to as non-institutional buildings. Out of 44 Zillow rental listings available in the City as of April 2022, only 4 units (9%) are affordable to households with incomes below $75,000, and no listings are affordable to households with incomes below $50,000.

Source: Zillow April 2022 Listings of Units not Owned or Operated by Large Institutional Property Managers/Investors, The Concord Group $1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
$4,500
$5,000
$5,500
$6,000
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
Monthly Rent
Size (Square Feet)
City of Newark Rent Listings for Non-Institutional Buildings as of April 2022 Affordable to
$75,000
Incomes
58 Draft for County Review
Limited Rental Units Affordable to Low Income Households Market Rate Rental Options for City of Newark and Alameda County Residents The same lack of affordable rental supply holds true in Alameda County as a whole. Only 11% of non-institutional rental listings in Alameda County are affordable to households with incomes below $75,000, but the County has a higher percentage than the 9% share in the City of Newark.

Very few rentals are currently available for a low or very low-income households in Alameda County. Furthermore, as higher-income households are unable to afford housing in more expensive markets in Alameda County, some will likely choose to live in City of Newark and compete for the limited supply of market-rate units, driving up rents in ways that existing lower-income residents will not be able to afford.
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
Monthly Rent
Size (Square Feet)
Alameda County Rent Listings for Non-Institutional Buildings as of April 2022 Affordable to
$75,000
Incomes
Source: Zillow April 2022 Listings of Units not Owned or Operated by Large Institutional Property Managers/Investors), The Concord Group 9%
11%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
City of Newark Alameda County
Share of Rent Listings
Affordable to Lower Income Households
in Non-Institutional Buildings
59 Draft for County Review
Rapid Increases in Home Prices Since 2010
Median Home Prices
According to Zillow, median home prices in Newark increased by about 115% between 2010 and 2019, representing more than a $515,000 increase as shown in the chart below. In comparison, the median home price in Alameda County increased by about 89% during the same period. In the past, median home prices in Newark were slightly below the median home prices in the County.

However, in recent years, growth in home prices in the City has outpaced the County, and since 2017 home prices in the City have been higher than median home prices in the County. The recent growth in the citywide median home prices is likely due to higher home prices from newly built homes.

As shown on later slides, the prices for a subset of homes (two-bedroom units typically occupied by three persons) have similarly increased. While two-bedroom units are used in this analysis to correlate with typical household sizes in the City and County, the majority of homes available in the City have three or more bedrooms. Therefore, median home price trends for all homes are also analyzed as these trends indicate what has typically been sold or are available for sale in the City of Newark.

Source: Zillow (April 2022). Zillow Home Value Index is a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value. It reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. Zillow data downloaded in April 2022, which included updated data for 2019. $476,480 $438,709 $432,392
$544,201
$628,313
$690,398
$761,027 $808,415 $907,074 $900,468 $929,538
$1,100,776
$449,064 $418,000 $407,121
$515,939
$614,278
$685,409
$763,084
$824,371
$977,242 $964,093 $968,481
$1,147,940
$250,000
$400,000
$550,000
$700,000
$850,000
$1,000,000
$1,150,000
$1,300,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Median Home Price
Historical Median Home Price Comparison - City of Newark vs. Alameda County Alameda County City of Newark
60 Draft for County Review
Rapid Increases in Home Prices Since 2010
Two-Bedroom Home Prices
As with apartments, two-bedroom home prices in
the City have also seen significant growth since
2010. Historical growth in home prices has followed
the same trajectory as Alameda County. Between
2010 and 2019, home prices in Newark increased
by 122%, compared to 98% in Alameda County.

Home prices saw a significant increase in 2021 in
both the City and County. As home prices become
less affordable, more households will have to
transition into rentership.

Source: Zillow (April 2022). Zillow Home Value Index is a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value, which reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. Zillow data downloaded in April 2022, which included updated data for 2019. $332,876 $300,338 $286,536
$362,200
$435,214 $481,792
$544,851 $584,194
$657,348 $658,060 $670,049
$763,769
$272,736 $245,212 $236,040
$316,691
$382,188 $430,837
$484,416 $523,782
$617,249 $605,497 $584,143
$655,635
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Median Home Price
Historical Two Bedroom Home Price Comparison - City of Newark vs. Alameda County Alameda County City of Newark
$272,736
$332,876
$605,497 $655,635 $658,060
$763,769
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
City of Newark Alameda County
Median Home Price
Median Home Price (Two Bedrooms)
2010 2019 2021
61 Draft for County Review
Home Prices Increasing Faster Than Incomes
Two-Bedroom Home Prices
The growth in median income has been much slower than the growth in prices for two-bedroom homes in both the City of Newark and Alameda County. While two-bedroom home prices have increased by close to 100% in the County since 2010, median incomes have only grown by 43% and 44% in the County and City, respectively. Due to the rapid escalation of home prices since the recession, for-sale homes have quickly become unaffordable to lowand moderate-income households in both the County and the City.

43.6% 43.3%
122.0%

97.7%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
City of Newark Alameda County
Percent Change
Growth in Median Income vs. Growth in Two-Bedroom
Median Home Price (2010 & 2019)
Median Income Change Two Bedroom Home Price Change

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0

8.0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Home Price to Income Ratio
Historical Home Price to Median Income Ratio
City of Newark Alameda County
Source: Zillow. Zillow Home Value Index is a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value. It reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range.

Zillow data downloaded in April 2022, which included updated data for 2019. 62 Draft for County Review
Affordable Home Prices Compared to Market Rate Home Prices City of Newark and Alameda County
Affordable and Market Rate Two Bedroom Home Prices (2019) The cost of homeownership varies depending on
mortgage interest and property tax rates, how
much down payment buyers have saved, how
much equity they may have in an existing home,
and other costs, like insurance and utilities.

The State of California uses different affordability
standards for homeownership ranging from 30%
to 40% of income. Assuming a household would
spend 35% of their income on a home, could
make a 20% down payment and has minimal
homeownership costs other than property taxes,
$432,000 is about the maximum home price that
a typical lower income household (with $75,000
in income) could afford to pay at a mortgage
interest of 4.5%. However, many households may
not be able to make a 20% down payment or
could have substantially higher ownership costs.

Only households with incomes of about $125,000
could afford the typical home price in Newark as
of 2019, and home prices have significantly
increased since then.

Note: The calculation of affordable home price is based on 20% down payment and minimal homeownership costs other than property taxes.

Source: Zillow (April 2022), TCG, Seifel Consulting Inc. $284,000
$432,000
$579,000
$727,000
$605,497
$658,060
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$50,000
Household
Income
$75,000
Household
Income
$100,000
Household
Income
$150,000
Household
Income
2019
Home Price
(City of
Newark)
2019
Home Price
(Alameda
County)
63 Draft for County Review
Limited For-Sale Homes Affordable to Low Income Households Market Rate For-Sale Options for City of Newark Residents As described earlier, lower income households could likely only afford homes priced below $432,000. None of the 280 homes sold in the City of Newark in the 6 months from November 2021 to April 2022 were below this affordable level, and only a few homes were sold at less than $500,000. Clearly, not enough homes or rental units are affordable to lower income households, which means that a high proportion of lower income households in Newark could be at risk of displacement.
$0
$250,000
$500,000
$750,000
$1,000,000
$1,250,000
$1,500,000
$1,750,000
$2,000,000
$2,250,000
$2,500,000
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000
Base Price
Size (Square Feet)
City of Newark Last 6 Months Resales (November 2021 to April 2022) Color-Coded by Year Built:

Solid = 2019+
Hollow = 2019 and before
Affordable to
$75,000 incomes
Source: Redfin. Resales data from the last six months, downloaded in April 2022, for transactions where both unit size and sale price were publicly available. 64 Draft for County Review
Limited For-Sale Homes Affordable to Low Income Households Market Rate For-Sale Options for the City of Newark and Alameda County Residents
Alameda County has a higher proportion of homes
available to households with incomes under $75,000, but only 223 homes (2.89% of resales) were under the
$432,000 threshold. On average these homes were around
835 square feet. Only two new homes were recently sold
at prices below $500,000 in the County in the last six
months as of April 2022.

Source: Redfin. Resales data from the last six months, downloaded in April 2022, for transactions where both unit size and sale price were publicly available. $0
$250,000
$500,000
$750,000
$1,000,000
$1,250,000
$1,500,000
$1,750,000
$2,000,000
$2,250,000
$2,500,000
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000
Base Price
Size (Square Feet)
Alameda County Last 6 Months Resales(November 2021 to April 2022) Color-Coded by Year Built:

Solid = 2019+
Hollow = 2019 and before
Affordable to
$75,000 incomes

0.0%

2.9%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%
City of Newark Alameda County
Percent of Home Sales Affordable to
Household Incomes Below $75,000
65 Draft for County Review
Significant increase in Monthly Owner Cost
Home price appreciation and increased in interest rates Interest rates have fluctuated over the past decade according to Freddie Mac. The thirty year conventional interest rate averaged about 4.7% in 2010 and then declined in late 2011 to range between

3.5% to 4% through late 2016 when interest rates rose again until they averaged 4.5% in 2018. In the past few years, mortgage rates declined but are currently increasing rapidly, averaging about 5% in April 2022.

The significant increase in home prices combined with higher interest rates are rapidly increasing homebuyer costs in Newark. High costs will lead middle-income households who would otherwise purchase a home to continue renting, possibly leading to displacement as higher income earners “price-out” lower income households.

Source: Zillow (April 2022) and Freddie Mac. Zillow Home Value Index is a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value, which reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. Monthly payment calculation assumes 20% down payment, 1.1% annual property tax rate and 30-year mortgage term. Annual interest rate represents the average rate for conventional, thirty-year fixed rate mortgages according to Freddie Mac. Current interest rate used in the monthly owner cost calculation is as of April 2022.

City of Newark Annual Monthly Owner Cost
2021 with
Year: 2010 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Current Interest Two Bedroom Home Prices $272,736 $430,837 $484,416 $523,782 $617,249 $605,497 $584,143 $655,635 $655,635 Chg/Yr (%) 9.6% 12.4% 8.1% 17.8% -1.9% -3.5% 12.2%
Mortgage Rate 4.7% 3.9% 3.7% 4.0% 4.5% 3.9% 3.1% 3.0% 5.0% Monthly Mort. Payment $1,130 $1,616 $1,773 $1,998 $2,514 $2,294 $1,999 $2,199 $2,809 Property Tax (mo.) $250 $395 $444 $480 $566 $555 $535 $601 $601 Ownership Housing Cost $1,380 $2,011 $2,217 $2,478 $3,080 $2,850 $2,535 $2,800 $3,410 Chg/Yr (%) 7.8% 10.2% 11.8% 24.3% -7.5% -11.0% 10.5%
$2,850
$2,535 $2,800
$3,410
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
2019 2020 2021 2021 with
Current Interest
Rate
City of Newark Average Monthly Owner Costs
for Two Bedroom Home
66 Draft for County Review
$3,467 $3,412
$4,156
$6,264

3.1% 3.0%

5.0% 5.0%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
2020 2021 2022 2022 Redfin Estimate
30Y Mortgage Rate
Estimated Monthly Payment
Estimated Monthly Owner Cost for 6613 Dairy Ave
Monthly Payment Interest Rate
Impact of Increasing Interest Rates on Monthly Housing Cost Significant increase in monthly housing payments in the City The two bedroom home shown in the photo last sold in Newark for $799,000 in May of 2020. Redfin estimates that its home value in early 2022 is above $1.2M, which equates to a 50% increase in home value in less than two years.

When factoring in the rapid increase in mortgage interest rates alone, the monthly owner cost (mortgage plus property tax) would be 20% greater than the owner cost in 2020 ($4,156 versus $3,412) if this home sold at its 2020 sales price. When factoring in both home value appreciation and higher interest costs, the monthly mortgage payment would increase by 81% (from $6,264 to $3,412), putting this home further out of reach for more and more local households.

Light yellow: Monthly payment at last sold price ($799K) Orange: Monthly payment at redfin’s new estimated price ($1,204K) Source: Redfin. Monthly payment calculation assumed a 20% down payment, 1.1% annual property tax rate and 30-year mortgage term. The annual interest rate represents the average annual interest rate for conventional, thirty-year fixed rate mortgages according to Freddie Mac. 2022 interest rate is as of April 2022. 67 Draft for County Review
This chart compares home prices in the
City and County for a two bedroom home
in 2019 and 2021 with what households
can afford at various household income
levels assuming a 20% down payment and
an average mortgage interest rate of 4.5%
(based on recent historical average since
2010).

As described earlier, the upward trajectory
in home prices combined with significant
increase in mortgage rates are continuing
to drive up the monthly owner cost in
Newark to a level that is much higher than
in the prior years.

High owner costs will mean that many
middle income renters will remain in the
rental market who would otherwise
purchase homes, increasing displacement
pressures as higher income earners “priceout” lower income renter households. $284,000
$432,000
$579,000
$727,000
$605,497
$655,635 $658,060
$763,769
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
$50,000
Household
Income
$75,000
Household
Income
$100,000
Household
Income
$150,000
Household
Income
2019
Home
Price
(City of
Newark)
2021
Home
Price
(City of
Newark)
2019
Home
Price
(Alameda
County)
2021
Home
Price
(Alameda
County)
Affordable and Market Rate Two Bedroom Home Prices
(2019 and 2021)
Note: The calculation of affordable home price is based on 20% down payment and minimal homeownership costs other than property taxes.

Source: Zillow (April 2022), TCG, Seifel Consulting Inc.

Impact of Increasing Interest Rates on Monthly Housing Cost Significant increase in monthly housing payments in the City 68 Draft for County Review
Finding 4
Increase in Cost-Burdened and
Overcrowded Renter Households
Supporting Data
Thousands of lower-income residents in Newark, particularly lower income renter households, are vulnerable to being displaced. About 30% of all Newark households are cost-burdened, while about 10% are severely cost-burdened. This translates to over 4,200 households paying more than 30% of their income on housing, of which about 1,350 pay more than 50% of their income on housing as of 2019. From 2010 to 2019, the number of cost-burdened renter households in the City increased by 20%, indicating a lack of affordable rents. Increasing cost burden also indicates that households will be less likely to withstand rent increases or fluctuations in income that could lead to displacement.

Overcrowding is also increasingly becoming an issue for households in the City of Newark.

Over 1,700 Newark households live in overcrowded or severely overcrowded conditions.

The number of overcrowded renter households increased by over 300% from 2010 to 2019. Overcrowding in housing is a further indicator of high housing demand and lack of affordability as households often “double or triple up” to be able to afford housing. 69 Draft for County Review
Overall, about 40% or over 4,200 households in the City of Newark are cost-burdened (spending 30% or more of their incomes on housing). The two charts below compare the percent of cost-burdened households by AMI tranche in the City of Newark and Alameda County in 2018. Close to 70% of households earning <50% AMI in the City of Newark are cost-burdened, with the majority spending more than 50% of their income on housing. In comparison to Alameda County, a higher share of moderate-income households (80%-100% AMI) are costburdened (45% vs 42%).

Cost Burden by Income Level
Cost-Burdened Households in the City of Newark and Alameda County Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2014-2018 release 22% 26%
36%
42%
11%
45% 43% 20%
3%
1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
0-30% 30%-50% 50%-80% 80%-100% >100%
Percent of HHs
Household Income Tranche (% of AMI)
City of Newark Percent of Households Cost Burdened
by AMI Tranche
30%-50% (Cost-burdened) 50%+ (Severely cost-burdened)
14%
33%
40%
33%
12%
64%
40%
18%
9%
1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
0-30% 30%-50% 50%-80% 80%-100% >100%
Percent of HHs
Household Income Tranche (% of AMI)
Alameda County Percent of Households Cost Burdened
by AMI Tranche
30%-50% (Cost-burdened) 50%+ (Severely cost-burdened)
70 Draft for County Review
Renter households in the City of Newark are more likely to be cost-burdened compared to renter households in Alameda County for almost all income categories. As shown in the two charts below, the share of cost-burdened households and the subset of severely cost burdened households is much higher in Newark than the County for lower income households earning between 30%-50% AMI and between 50% - 80% AMI based on CHAS data.

Cost-Burdened Renters by Income Level
Cost-Burdened Renter Households in the City of Newark and Alameda County Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2014-2018 release 22% 28%
62%
53%
13%
53%
62%
13%
0%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0-30% 30%-50% 50%-80% 80%-100% >100%
Percent of Renter HHs
Household Income Tranche (% of AMI)
City of Newark Percent of Cost-Burdened Renter
Households by AMI Tranche
30%-50% (Cost-burdened) 50%+ (Severely cost-burdened)
14%
41%
49%
35%
10%
65%
40%
13%
4%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0-30% 30%-50% 50%-80% 80%-100% >100%
Percent of HHs
Household Income Tranche (% of AMI)
Alameda County Percent of Cost-Burdened Renter
Households by AMI Tranche
30%-50% (Cost-burdened) 50%+ (Severely cost-burdened)
71 Draft for County Review
Many lower-income residents in the City, particularly renters, are vulnerable to being displaced due to the high cost of housing. As of 2019, about 2,000 renter households, or around 44% of total renter households in the City were cost-burdened, paying more than 30% of their income on rent. This number has gone up by about 300 households, or 20% since 2010.

Increase in Cost-Burdened Renters
Cost-Burdened Renter Households in the City of Newark and Alameda County Source: American Community Survey 2010, 2019, 5-Year Estimate, US Census Bureau Note: American Community Survey did not record severely cost-burdened household figures by income range until 2014 1,026
1,299
568
618
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
2010 2019
City of Newark Overall Cost-Burdened Renter
Households (30%+ of Income to Housing)
50%+ (Severely cost-burdened) 30%-50% (Cost-burdened)
55,675 64,611
62,227
63,047
0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
110,000
120,000
130,000
2010 2019
Alameda County Overall Cost-Burdened Renter
Households (30%+ of Income to Housing)
50%+ (Severely cost-burdened) 30%-50% (Cost-burdened)
72 Draft for County Review
Intensifying Housing Conditions for Low Income Renters
Source: American Community Survey 2019, 5-Year Estimate, US Census Bureau Cost-Burdened Households in the City of Newark and Alameda County Currently, about 76% of low-income renter households (1,527) in the City of Newark are cost burdened, paying more than 30% of their income on rent. Even more significantly, 40% of these low-income cost-burdened households (618) are severely cost-burdened, paying more than 50% of their income on rent. In Alameda County, there is an even higher proportion of severely cost burdened households (43%) out of the 144,558 low-income renter households.
76% 75%
40% 43%
36% 32%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Newark City Alameda County
Percent of Households with Incomes Under $75K
Percent of Renter Households with Incomes Under $75K Who Are Cost-Burdened (2019) Cost Burdened Severely Cost Burdened
73 Draft for County Review
Increasing Numbers of Overcrowded Renter Households
Overcrowded Renter Households
Overcrowding, defined by more than 1.01 person per habitable room in a housing unit, is a measure that can be observed as an initial precursor to displacement. Households move from being able to afford market rents to either paying more than 30% of their income for housing or moving to an overcrowded housing situation before leaving the area in search of more affordable housing.

The City of Newark experienced an increase of 884 overcrowded units from 2010 to 2019, or overall increase of 300%.

Over the same period, Alameda County experienced a smaller percentage increase in overcrowding of about 83%. The number of severely overcrowded households in the City increased by more than 550% from 2010 to 2019, outpacing the County. As of the end of 2019, about 1,180 renter households or 27% of total renter households (4,378) in the City were overcrowded.

Source: American Community Survey 2019, 5-Year Estimate, US Census Bureau 233
773
61 405
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
2010 2019
City of Newark Overcrowded Renter Households
(2010-2019)
Severely Overcrowded Renter HHs Overcrowded Renter HHs
12,627
20,850
6,294
13,737
0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
2010 2019
Alameda County Overcrowded Renter Households
(2010-2019)
Severely Overcrowded Renter HHs Overcrowded Renter HHs
74 Draft for County Review
Wait List for Affordable Housing in Newark Indicating Housing Need Senior Housing Development Overview and Newark Station Seniors The City of Newark only has a few recently
developed affordable housing developments. The
two most recent developments are Newark Station
Seniors and Newark Gardens I and II, which are
both for seniors.

While the City does not maintain a wait list for
affordable housing units, the City obtained wait list
information from both developments.

Newark Station Seniors is a 75-unit affordable
apartment development for people aged 55 or
older. As of Spring 2022, 71 applicants are on the
wait list in Newark Station Seniors, with a typical
household size of 1-2 persons.

Source: City of Newark, USA Properties Fund, Inc.

Newark Station Seniors
75 Draft for County Review
Waitlists for Affordable Housing in Newark (Cont.)
Newark Gardens I and II Senior Community
Source: City of Newark, Satellite Affordable Housing Associates White Alone
26 10%
Other Races
231
90%
A two phased senior community has been developed by SAHA in the City consisting of Newark Gardens I, which provides 150 affordable senior units, and Newark Gardens II, which provides an additional 50 units of affordable senior housing. These properties share many amenities including a library and a recreation center and dining hall with a commercial-sized kitchen.

Currently 257 residents live in this community. Approximately 90% of these residents are residents of color.

As of Summer 2022, Newark Garden I has 221 applicants on its waitlist, and Newark Garden II has 243 applicants on the waitlist.

These waitlists are currently closed as Newark Gardens I is 97% occupied (four vacant units), and Newark Gardens II is about 94% occupied (three vacant units).

Residents of Newark Gardens I
and Newark Gardens II by Race
76 Draft for County Review
Housing Choice Vouchers in Tri-City and Newark
City of Newark Affordable Housing Needs
The Tri-City Subregion Residential Displacement Study Report (Tri-City Report) was prepared for the City of Fremont by BAE Urban Economics (BAE) in 2021. The Tri-City Report analyzed historical data regarding the number of housing choice vouchers from the Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA) from cities within its jurisdiction. According to the Tri-City Report, the number of voucher holders in the Tri-City Subregion has declined since 2010, as have those in the City of Newark. As of March 2020, 231 voucher recipients were living in Newark, a decline of 22% from the 296 recipients in March 2010. The Tri-City report also noted that the Tri-City Subregion accounts for a disproportionate share of the total decline in voucher recipients in the HACA jurisdiction since 2010, as shown below.

Total Housing Choice Vouchers (as of March in Each Year) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Newark 296 294 282 277 254 240 222 212 211 214 231
Fremont 1,441 1,423 1,420 1,331 1,259 1,147 1,069 1,067 1,061 1,054 1,102 Union City 706 712 768 854 824 768 730 751 731 705 691
Tri-City 2,443 2,429 2,470 2,462 2,337 2,155 2,021 2,030 2,003 1,973 2,024 Other Areas 4,696 4,864 5,067 5,101 5,015 4,789 4,519 4,460 4,532 4,470 4,413 HACA Total 7,139 7,293 7,537 7,563 7,352 6,944 6,540 6,490 6,535 6,443 6,437 Note: HACA's jurisdiction excludes the cities of Alameda, Berkeley, Livermore and Oakland.

Sources: Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA); BAE, 2020. 77 Draft for County Review
Housing Choice Vouchers in Newark
City of Newark Affordable Housing Needs
The Tri-City report also analyzed and compared the monthly Fair Market Rents that voucher holders are allowed to pay with market rents in the Tri-City Subregion and found that average market rents were significantly higher for studios, one bedroom and two bedroom units. As described in the Tri-City Report, high market rate rents combined with a limited supply of housing choice voucher-eligible units have made voucher recipients in the Tri-City Subregion particularly vulnerable to displacement from future rent increases. Significantly, the Tri-City Subregion accounted for 60% of the decline (net change) in total HACA vouchers, despite making up just 34% of all HACA vouchers in 2010.

Source: City of Newark, USA Properties Fund, Inc.
0 -14 27 19
-106
-288 -422 -413 -440 -470 -419
0 154
398 424
213
-195
-599
-649 -604
-696 -702
-800
-600
-400
-200
0 200
400
600
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Change in Number of Housing Choice Vouchers Since March 2010 Tri-City Subregion Total (All HACA Jurisdictions)
78 Draft for County Review
Finding 5 Supporting Data
Intensifying Displacement Pressures
for Senior Households
The City of Newark experienced a significant increase senior population between 2010 and 2019. While the total population in the City only increased by 12% during that period, the total senior population increased by about 47%. In comparison, the senior population in Alameda County increased by 39% between 2010 and 2019. Over 50% of all senior households in the City are lower income households, making them vulnerable to significant changes in housing costs. In addition, overcrowding among senior households had also increased significantly in the City. The number of overcrowded senior households increased from 1 in 2010 to 110 in 2019. This is an indicator of high housing demand and lack of affordable housing options, especially for lower income senior households.
79 Draft for County Review
Significant Increase in Senior Population
Senior Population in the City of Newark and Alameda County Note: Senior Population is defined as people aged 65 and over. Source: American Community Survey 2019, 5-Year Estimate As of 2019, the City of Newark has over 6,000 seniors aged 65 or older who live in about 3,160 households, which represents about 13% of the City’s total population. Similarly, Alameda County’s senior population (220,000 seniors) represents around 14% of the County’s total population in 2019. The City’s senior population increased faster than the County between 2010 to 2019, growing by 47% while the County’s senior population only increased by 39%. Notably, all of the City’s growth in senior households are attributable to owner households who are seniors, indicating that senior owner households may be aging in place in their homes. While senior owner households increased by about 51% in the City between 2010 and 2019, the City’s senior renter households declined by around 8%, indicating displacement pressures on senior renters who typically have lower incomes. 4,114
2,275
6,038
3,162
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
Population Household
City of Newark Senior Population and Household
2010 2019
161,100
92,685
224,026
126,240
0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Population Household
Alameda County Senior Population and Household
2010 2019
80 Draft for County Review
Senior Household by Tenure
Renter vs Owner Senior Households in the City of Newark and Alameda County Note: Senior Population is defined as population age 65+. Source: American Community Survey 2019, 5-Year Estimate 20%
14%
80%
86%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2010 2019
City of Newark Senior Household by Tenure
Renter Owner
30% 30%
70% 70%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2010 2019
Alameda County Senior Household by Tenure
Renter Owner
The City of Newark has a higher share of owner senior households compared to Alameda County. About 85% of senior households in the City of Newark are owner households (2,700 households). In comparison, about 70% of senior households in Alameda County are owners. While the split between owner and renter senior households in the County has remained the same between 2010 and 2019, the share of renter senior households in the City has declined. As mentioned previously, this is largely due to the loss of renter senior households in the City. While total senior households in the City increased by around 880, total renter households declined by around 40 households. 81 Draft for County Review
Senior Household by Income
Senior Household Income Distribution in City of Newark and Alameda County Note: Senior Population is defined as population age 65+. Source: American Community Survey 2019, 5-Year Estimate 72%
9% 10% 8%
57%
10%
14%
18%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Below $75,000 $75,000 - $100,000 $100,000 - $150,000 Above $150,000 Share of Senior HHs
Household Income
Alameda County Senior Household Income Distribution
2010 2019
77%
9% 9%
5%
53%
14% 13%
20%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Below $75,000 $75,000 - $100,000 $100,000 - $150,000 Above $150,000 Share of Senior HHs
Household Income
City of Newark Senior Household Income Distribution
2010 2019
While the number of senior households in the City of Newark has grown from about 2,300 in 2010 to 3,150 in 2019, the number of senior households who made less than $75,000 in 2019 has declined. In 2010, senior households earning less than $75,000 made up 77% of all senior households in the City, but by 2019 that percentage had declined to 53%, indicating displacement pressures on lower-income senior households. Similar trends are also observed in Alameda County. All of the City’s and County’s net senior household growth is attributable to households making over $75,000.
82 Draft for County Review
Significant Increase in Overcrowding Among Senior Households Overcrowded Senior Households in the City of Newark and Alameda County Note: Senior Population is defined as population age 65+. Source: American Community Survey 2010 & 2019, 5-Year Estimate 100
1 10
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
2010 2019
City of Newark Overcrowded Senior Households
Overcrowded (not Including Severely) Severely Overcrowded 738
1,430
424
1,276
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
2010 2019
Alameda County Overcrowded Senior Households
Overcrowded (not Including Severely) Severely Overcrowded In the past decade, the number of overcrowded senior households in the City has increased 100-fold.

In 2010, only one senior household was considered overcrowded. By 2019, 110 senior households were overcrowded, with 10 households reported to be severely overcrowded. In Alameda County, the number of overcrowded senior households more than doubled to about 2,700 in 2019. 83 Draft for County Review
Cost-Burdened Senior Households by AMI Tranche
Cost-Burdened Senior Households in the City of Newark and Alameda County 41% 36%
100%
50%
41%
24%
57%
18%
22%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0-30% 30%-50% 50%-80% 80%-100% >100% Total
Share of Senior Renter HHs
Income Tranche (% of AMI)
City of Newark Cost-Burdened Senior Renter Households
30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing 18%
34%
50%
23%
14%
24%
51%
39%
18%
10%
2%
33%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0-30% 30%-50% 50%-80% 80%-100% >100% Total
Share of Senior Renter HHs
Income Tranche (% of AMI)
Alameda County Cost-Burdened Senior Renter Households
30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2014-2018 release In addition to overcrowding, senior households in the City of Newark are also faced with high housing cost burden. Around 63% of senior renter households in the City used more than 30% of their incomes on housing, compared to 57% in Alameda County. The share of cost-burdened senior households varies greatly between different income groups. About 57% of senior households earning 30-50% AMI in Newark are severely cost- burdened, and 100% of senior renter households earning 80%-100% AMI are cost-burdened. While the share of cost-burdened households is highest for renters earning 80%-100% AMI, only 15 senior renter households are in this income group. The small sample size and associated higher margin of error are likely responsible for strong variation in the share of cost-burdened senior renter households among different income groups. 84 Draft for County Review
Significant Increase in Senior Households of Color
Senior Households by Race in the City of Newark
Note: Hispanic category is not exclusive of other categories.

Source: American Community Survey 2019, 5-Year Estimate 1,842
48 28
815
12 365
52 634
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
White Alone Black or African
American Alone
American Indian and
Alaska Native Alone
Asian Alone Native Hawaiian and
Other Pacific Islander
Other Race Alone Two or More Races Hispanic or Latino
City of Newark Senior Household by Race & Ethnicity
Of the 3,162 senior households in Newark, about 58% identify as White Alone. Around 26% or 815 senior households in the City identify as Asian. While White households still account for the majority of senior households in the City, households of color are most responsible for the growth in the City’s total senior households.

Between 2010 and 2019, the number of senior households of color in the City increased by 79% (from 730 to 1,320 households), compared to 20% (from 1,537 to 1,842 households) for White senior households.
20% 26%
79%
53%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
City of Newark Alameda County
Change in Senior Households by Race
(2010-2019)
White Alone All Other Races
85 Draft for County Review
Increased in Lower Income Senior Households of Color
Lower Income Senior Households in the City of Alameda by Race and Ethnicity White Alone, -26%
White Alone, -3%
All Other Races, 51%
All Other Races, 23%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
City of Newark Alameda County
Change in Lower Income Senior Households earning $75,000 or Less by Race (2010-2019) White Alone All Other Races
As mentioned previously, the number of lower income senior households earning $75,000 or less has declined in both the City and the County. When observing the change in lower income senior households, grouped by race, the number of lower income senior households of color actually increased between 2010 and 2019. Senior households of color earning $75,000 or less increased by 51% from 480 in 2010 to 723 in 2019.

Source: American Community Survey 2019, 5-Year Estimate 86 Draft for County Review
Finding 6 Supporting Data
Housing for Households with Special
Needs
Households with special housing needs are particularly vulnerable to displacement and experience significant difficulties when they can no longer access services or their children can no longer continue their education in local schools. The City of Newark has thousands of residents with special housing needs, including many large families, seniors, and persons with disabilities. As of 2019, the City had over 3,000 senior households (with individuals aged 65 years or older), over 1,600 single female householders, and over 5,500 large households (4+ persons per household). 87 Draft for County Review
Significant Housing Challenges for Special Needs Groups Population and Households with Special Needs
In addition to the larger number of senior households (with individuals aged 65 or older), the City has more than 1,500 single female householders with children and about 5,500 large households (4+ persons per household).

Additionally, more than 3,500 persons in the City have one or more disabilities, of whom more than half are seniors. Senior population with disabilities represent around 30% of all seniors living in the City of Newark. All of these residents have special housing needs and are at risk of displacement. Households with special housing needs are particularly vulnerable to displacement and experience significant difficulties when they can no longer access services or their children can no longer continue their education in local schools.

Persons and Households with Special Needs (2019)
Note: These graphs reflect the special needs population or households regardless of income. Senior population with a disability is a subset of the overall population with a disability.

Large household is defined as household with 4+ people. Source: American Community Survey 2019, 5-Year Estimate 5,524
1,654
3,162
3,561
1,823
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
Large
Household
Single Female
Head of
Household
Senior
Households
Population w/
Disability
Senior
Population w/
Disabilities
City of Newark
157,543
64,165
126,240
151,368
70,766
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
Large
Household
Single Female
Head of
Household
Senior
Households
Population w/
Disability
Senior
Population w/
Disabilities
Alameda County
88 Draft for County Review
Residents with Special Needs in the City of Newark and Alameda County Higher Proportions of Special Needs Residents
The City of Newark has a significantly higher proportion of large households compared to the County and a slightly higher proportion of single female headed households and senior households, while the County has a higher proportion of persons with disabilities including seniors.

Note: Population refers to total civilian non-institutionalized population (excluding those in prisons or active-duty military), households excludes those in group quarters, neither are broken down by income. Senior population with a disability is a subset of the overall population with a disability.

Source: American Community Survey 2019, 5-Year Estimate

7.6%

3.9%

9.2%

4.3%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
Population w/ Disability Senior Population w/ Disabilities Proportion of Population with Disabilities (2019)
City of Newark Alameda County

39.3%

11.8%

22.5%

27.3%

11.1%

21.9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Large Household Single Female Head of
Household
Senior Households
Proportion of Households with Special Needs (2019)
City of Newark Alameda County
89 Draft for County Review
The City has a growing need for special needs housing, as the City has experienced significant growth in large households, senior households, persons with disabilities, and seniors with disabilities. Between 2010 to 2019, the number of large households increased almost by 2,000, and the number of senior households increased by about 900. Only single female head of households declined during the same period, a decline of 145 households. The County has experienced similar trends in special needs households and persons.

Increasing Housing Needs for Special Needs Groups
Change in Households with Disabilities and Special Needs (2010-2019) Note: Population refers to the total civilian non-institutionalized population (excluding those in prisons or active-duty military), households excludes those in group quarters, neither are broken down by income. Senior population with a disability is a subset of the overall population with a disability. Data for population disability and senior population with disability for Newark are only available from 2012.

Source: American Community Survey 2010, 2012, & 2019, 5-Year Estimate 1,196
1,116
-145
887
166
391
(300)
(100)
100
300
500
700
900
1,100
1,300
Total
Households
Large
Household
Single Female
Head of
Household
Senior
Households
Population w/
Disability
Senior
Population w/
Disabilities
City of Newark Change in Households with Disabilities
and Special Needs (2010-2019, 2012-2019)
45,151
24,004
-2,338
33,135
13,227 11,132
(6,000)
(1,500)
3,000
7,500
12,000
16,500
21,000
25,500
30,000
34,500
39,000
43,500
48,000
52,500
57,000
Total
Households
Large
Household
Single Female
Head of
Household
Senior
Households
Population w/
Disability
Senior
Population w/
Disabilities
Alameda County Change in Households with Disabilities
and Special Needs (2010-2019, 2012-2019)
90 Draft for County Review
Increasing Housing Needs for Special Needs Groups
Change in Households with Disabilities and Special Needs (2010-2019) The City has a growing need for special needs housing, as the City has experienced significant growth in large households and senior households. Between 2010 and 2019, large households in the City increased by almost 2,000 households, reflecting a citywide growth rate of 56% compared to 50% in the County. Senior households in the City likewise increased significantly by almost 1,000 households, an overall change of about 40%. Single female households have declined since 2010, but only by a small amount.

Note: Population refers to total civilian non-institutional population (excluding those in prisons or active-duty military), households excludes those in group quarters, neither are broken down by income.

Senior population with a disability is a subset of the overall population with a disability.

Source: American Community Survey 2019, Five Year Estimate, 9%
56%
-8%
39%
5%
27%
8%
50%
-4%
36%
10%
19%
-15%
-5%
5%
15%
25%
35%
45%
55%
65%
Total Households Large Household Single Female Head of
Household
Senior Households Population w/ Disability Senior Population w/ Disabilities
City of Newark and Alameda County Change in Households with Disabilities and Special Needs (2010-2019) City of Newark
Alameda County
91 Draft for County Review
Population with Disabilities in the City and County
Wide Array of Disabilities and Need for Specialized Housing More than 4,000 persons in the City have one or more disabilities. Some people have multiple disabilities which would mean they are included in two or more groups. Each type of disability contributes to a special need for housing to accommodate and support these persons.

Displacement is extremely difficult for residents with disabilities (especially seniors) when they are forced to relocate out of their community due to housing costs. Service providers emphasize the importance of keeping residents with special needs close to their support networks of caregivers, neighbors and local friends. If forced to move out of the area, everyday tasks (taking the bus, grocery shopping and getting to work or a day program) become particularly challenging for a person with disabilities to re-learn and adapt to new changes.

Source: American Community Survey 2019, Five Year Estimate, Civilian Non-Institutionalized Population 993
525
1,366
1,703
788
1,558
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
Hearing
Difficulty
Vision
Difficulty
Cognitive
Difficulty
Ambulatory
Difficulty
Self-Care
Difficulty
Independent
Living
Difficulty
City of Newark Population with a Disability (2019)
37,320
26,917
54,302
69,193
34,190
60,241
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
Hearing
Difficulty
Vision
Difficulty
Cognitive
Difficulty
Ambulatory
Difficulty
Self-Care
Difficulty
Independent
Living
Difficulty
Alameda County Population with a Disability (2019)
92 Draft for County Review
Population with Disabilities in the City and County
Wide Array of Disabilities and Need for Specialized Housing More than 4,000 persons in the City of Newark, or approximately 8.2% of the population, have one or more disabilities. In comparison, 8.6% of the population in Alameda County have one or more disabilities. Those with ambulatory difficulties represent the highest share of the disabled population in both the City and County. The next most populous group are those with independent living difficulties.

2.0%

1.1%

2.8%

3.5%

1.6%

3.2%

2.2%

1.6%

3.3%

4.2%

2.1%

3.6%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%
Hearing Difficulty Vision Difficulty Cognitive Difficulty Ambulatory Difficulty Self-Care Difficulty Independent Living Difficulty Share of Population with a Disability (2019)
Newark City Alameda County
Source: American Community Survey 2019, Five Year Estimate, Civilian Non-Institutionalized Population 93 Draft for County Review
Source: https://www.zipdatamaps.com
Newark Unified School District (NUSD) Boundaries City of Newark Boundaries The City is served by Newark Unified School District (NUSD), which is a K-12 public school district. This study refers to all public school students in the City of Newark as NUSD students.

As presented in the maps below, except for the inclusion of Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge area southwest of the City by, the City boundaries and NUSD boundaries are consistent.

City of Newark and Newark School District Boundaries
Newark Unified School District Boundaries
94 Draft for County Review
Student Enrollment Trends in Newark
NUSD Public Schools and Private Schools
Student enrollment in NUSD has declined
by more than 500 students since 2015-16
to 5,507 students in 2021-22. During this
period, Hispanic or Latino students have
continued to represent the largest share of
NHUSD students.

While NHUSD’s decline in enrollment has
likely been exacerbated by challenges
related to the COVID pandemic, enrollment
has also been affected by the City’s rapidly
increasing cost of housing for families and
its aging population.

Student enrollment in Newark’s private
schools has fluctuated over the past few
years. With public and private schools
together, student enrollment in Newark has
been declining since 2017-18.

Source: California Department of Education (ED-Data).
2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
NUSD Public Schools 5,913 5,758 5,669 5,507 5,173
Change (%) -2.6% -1.5% -2.9% -6.1%
Private Schools in Newark
New Horizons School - - - - 93
Young Champions - - - 37 15
St. Edward Parish 222 215 206 189 194
Stellar Academy for Dyslexics 18 24 29 17 24
Challenger School – Ardenwood 749 773 830 743 734
Challenger School - Newark 51 58 42 23 33
Private Schools Subtotal 1,040 1,070 1,107 1,009 1,093
Change (%) 2.9% 3.5% -8.9% 8.3%
Total 6,953 6,828 6,776 6,516 6,266
Change (%) -1.8% -0.8% -3.8% -3.8%
Student Enrollment in Newark
Public and Private Schools
95 Draft for County Review
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged and FRPM/EL/Foster Students Newark Unified School District and Alameda County School Districts Source: California Department of Education (ED-Data). Description of students with special needs is from California School Dashboard Technical Guide (Updated March 2017), California Department of Education.

The State of California maintains and analyzes student enrollment data in order to understand the special needs and characteristics of students.
1 According to State student enrollment data, significant numbers of households with children enrolled in the Newark Unified School District (NUSD) are likely experiencing the pressures of housing displacement given their socioeconomic characteristics.

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged and FRPM/EL/Foster Students Newark Unified School District and Alameda County School Districts (2020-21)
About 54% of students in Newark in
FY 2020-21 were considered eligible
for the free and reduced-price meal
(FRPM), English learners (EL) or
foster students, and a higher
percentage (55%) are categorized as
socioeconomically disadvantaged
(SED) students.2
NUSD has a substantially higher
average percentage of
FRPM/EL/Foster students and SED
students than Countywide averages.

Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged
Students
Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged
Students
FRPM/EL/Foster
Unduplicated
FRPM/EL/Foster
Unduplicated
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Newark Unified School District Alameda County
96 Draft for County Review
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged and FRPM/EL/Foster Students Newark Unified School District (NUSD)
Note: The 2020-21 data is for School Year 2020-21.

Source: California Department of Education (ED-Data). Description of students with special needs is from California School Dashboard Technical Guide (Updated March 2017), California Department of Education.

As of FY 2020-21, over 2,900 students in NUSD are
homeless, foster youth, English learners (EL) or are
receiving free and/or reduced priced meal
(FRPM).3 These students are collectively referred to as students with special characteristics, which corresponds with the category “FRPM/EL/Foster Unduplicated” in
State data sources.

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
and FRPM/EL/Foster Students
Newark Unified School District (2020-21)
Over 3,000 NUSD students are considered to be
socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED), and
notably, 92% of these students are reported to be
persons of color (about 2,800 students).

The number of SED and FRPM/EL/Foster students
indicates that significant numbers of families with
children enrolled in NUSD may be at risk of
displacement given their lower incomes and
socioeconomic characteristics.

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Students
3,025 2,956 Newark Unified School District (2020-21)
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Students
FRPM/EL/ Foster Unduplicated
White Alone
197
7%
Other Races
2,789
92%
Not Reported
39 1%
97 Draft for County Review
High Portion of Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Students of Color NUSD and Alameda County School Districts
Source: California Department of Education (ED-Data). Description of students with special needs is from California School Dashboard Technical Guide (Updated March 2017), California Department of Education.

Percentage Comparison of Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Students by Race and Ethnicity (2020-21) About 92 percent of socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED) students are reported to be students of color in NUSD, with 71% of SED students being Hispanic or Latino. NUSD has a higher proportion of Hispanic or Latino, Filipino and Pacific Islander students compared to School Districts countywide. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
African
American
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native
Asian Filipino Hispanic
or Latino
Pacific
Islander
White Two or
More
Races
Not
Reported
Newark Unified School District
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
African
American
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native
Asian Filipino Hispanic
or Latino
Pacific
Islander
White Two or
More
Races
Not
Reported
Alameda County
98 Draft for County Review
High Portion of Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Students of Color NUSD and Alameda County School Districts
Source: California Department of Education (EDData). Description of students with special needs is from California School Dashboard Technical Guide
(Updated March 2017), California Department of
Education.

Number of Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Students
by Race and Ethnicity
(2020-21) As indicated previously,
about 2,800 SED students
are reported to be students of
color in NUSD. About 2,000
SED students are Hispanic or
Latino students, and the
remaining SED students of
color primarily have Asian,
Filipino and African American
racial backgrounds.
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
African
American
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native
Asian Filipino Hispanic
or Latino
Pacific
Islander
White Two or
More
Races
Not
Reported
Newark Unified School District
99 Draft for County Review
Ethnicity of Homeless Students
NUSD School Year– 2021-22
Enrollment of Homeless Students
(NUSD 2021-22)
In the most recent school year (2021-22), NUSD had 251 students that were homeless (about 5% of all students), which further indicates the lack of affordable housing. Notably, about 96% of homeless students in Newark are students of color, with over 167 of these students being Hispanic or Latino. While NUSD has only small number of Pacific Islander students (98 students), about 28% of them are homeless.

The proportion of students that are homeless in NUSD is higher than the countywide average of students who are homeless (1%). The prevalence of homeless students in NUSD further indicates the housing challenges that Newark families face.

White Alone
10 4%
Other Races
241
96%
Not Reported
0 0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
African
American
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native
Asian Filipino Hispanic
or Latino
Pacific
Islander
White Two or
More
Races
Not
Reported
Total
Homeless Students Other Students
Source: California Department of Education (ED-Data).

Percent of Homeless Students Out of Total
Student Enrollment by Ethnicity
(NUSD 2021-22)
100
Draft for County Review
Endnotes to Finding 6

1. The State of California Department of Education maintains student enrollment data by a variety of student and family characteristics as further described in the California School Dashboard Technical Guide 2016–17 School Year, Updated March 2017, California Department of Education.

2. For FY 2020/21, students from household with annual income below $40,182 for household size of three and $48,470 for household size of four are eligible to reduced-price for meals and snacks called Free and Reduced-Price Meal (FRPM). Students from household incomes below $28,236 for household size of three and $34,060 for household size of four are eligible to free meals and snacks. Socio-economically disadvantaged students are defined as those who qualify for FRPM, both parents have not received a high school diploma, or students are migrant, homeless, or foster youth.

3. The McKinney-Vento Act defines homeless children and youths as individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence. This definition also includes:
• Children and youths who are sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason
• Children and youths who may be living in motels, hotels, trailer parks, shelters • Children and youths who have a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings • Children and youths who are living in cars, parks, public spaces, abandoned buildings, substandard housing, bus or train stations, or similar settings, or
• Migratory children who qualify as homeless because they are children who are living in similar circumstances listed above. 101 Draft for County Review
Finding 7 Supporting Data
Displacement Pressures on Households
of Color
Overall, around 27% of all households in the City of Newark earn less than $75,000 annually. Some racial groups, however, have a much higher proportion of households earning below $75,000. Close to 35% of Black or African American, American Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Hispanic or Latino households are considered lower income households. In addition, households of color are more likely to be cost-burdened and live in overcrowded housing, which has negative implications for racial inequality. While the share of overcrowded White households in the City had increased slightly from 3% to 5% between 2010 and 2019, the share of overcrowded households of color increased from 6% to 17%. 102 Draft for County Review
Proportion of Households of Color with Low Income
Population and Income by Race and Ethnicity
Source: American Community Survey, 2019, 5-Year Estimate Households of Color are more likely to have incomes below $75,000 than White households in Alameda County, while Newark has about the same proportion for both types of households.

Nonetheless, more than a quarter of all non-White households (26%) in the City have incomes below $75K. These households, especially if they have multiple children, will be limited in their selection for housing in the City and will most likely have to pay over 30% of their income to live in a reasonably sized home/townhouse/apartment.
28%
26%
34%
42%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
White Alone All Other Races
Households with Incomes Below $75,000 As a Percentage of All Households of That Race (2019) City of Newark Alameda County
103 Draft for County Review
Higher Proportion of Low-Income Households of Color when Excluding Asian Population Population and Income by Race and Ethnicity
Source: American Community Survey, 2019, 5-Year Estimate Both White and Asian households tend to have higher incomes than other households of color.

Households of color in the City are more likely to have incomes less than $75,000, with one in three households of color excluding the Asian households having incomes of less than $75,000 in 2019.

This means that Black, American Indian, Native Hawaiian / Other Pacific Islander, Other Race, and Two or More Race individuals are at a greater risk of displacement in the City. Out of the 2,240 households of color with less than $75K incomes, 941 are Asian Alone, which is still a significant number.

Add Asian Alone
to graph as
separate bar.

Relabel All Other Households of
Color Without Asian Alone
28%
20%
33% 34%
31%
55%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
White Alone Asian Alone All Other Households of Color Without Asian Alone Households with Incomes Below $75,000 As a Percentage of All Households of That Race (2019) City of Newark Alameda County
104 Draft for County Review
Higher Proportion of Households of Color with Low Income Population and Income by Race and Ethnicity
Source: American Community Survey, 2019
Note: Any household counted on the left category (race) may also be counted as Hispanic or Latino (ethnicity, and asked in a separate question).

Overall, around 27% of all households in the
City of Newark earn less than $75,000 annually.

Some racial groups, however, have a much
higher proportion of households earning below
$75,000. Close to 35% of Black or African
American, American Indian, Native Hawaiian,
and Hispanic or Latino households are
considered lower income households.

40.1% 38.5%

59.9% 61.5%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%
100.0%
Households less than $75k All Households
Percent of Households
City of Newark Percent of Households by Income
Category and Race (2019)
White Alone All Other Races
28%
35% 32%
20%
34% 34%
27% 26%
34% 34%
63%
52%
31%
41%
51%
39%
33%
48%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
White Alone Black or African
American Alone
American Indian
and Alaska Native
Alone
Asian Alone Native Hawaiian
and Other Pacific
Islander
Other Race Alone Two or More Races White Non
Hispanic Latino
Hispanic or Latino
Percent of Households with Incomes Below $75,000 By Race and Ethnicity (2019) City of Newark Alameda County
Ethnicity
105 Draft for County Review
Significant Number of Low-Income Households of Color
Low Income Households in the City of Newark by Race and Ethnicity Of the approximately 3,742 households in the City with incomes below $75,000, about 1,300 are Hispanic/Latino households and about 2,240 households identify as non-White households. As described in the previous slides, nonWhite households are more at risk of displacement, due to them being more prevalent, proportionally, in the sub-75K income group. Around 20% of Asian households in the City are lower income households, the lowest share compared to all other racial and ethnic groups.

Source: American Community Survey, 2019
Note: Any household counted in the race categories to the left may also be counted as Hispanic or Latino (ethnicity, and asked in a separate question). 210
37 941
42 853
157
1,164
1,300
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Black or African
American Alone
American Indian and
Alaska Native Alone
Asian Alone Native Hawaiian and
Other Pacific Islander
Other Race Alone Two or More Races White Non Hispanic
Latino
Hispanic or Latino
Non-White Households with Incomes Below $75,000 By Race and Ethnicity (2019) 35% 32%
20%
34% 34%
27% 26%
34%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Black or African
American Alone
American Indian and
Alaska Native Alone
Asian Alone Native Hawaiian and
Other Pacific Islander
Other Race Alone Two or More Races White Non Hispanic
Latino
Hispanic or Latino
Share Non-White Households with Incomes Below $75,000 By Race and Ethnicity (2019) 106 Draft for County Review
Loss of Low-Income Households by Race
Change in Low Income Households by Race and Ethnicity (2010-2019) Source: American Community Survey, 2010, 2019.

Note: Hispanic/Latino category is not exclusive of other categories.

While the total number of households grew in the City of Newark from 2010 to 2019, the number of households with incomes under $75,000 decreased by about 2,022. By 2019, the City had about 430 fewer lower income households of color and about 1,600 fewer White households than in 2010. Similar to Newark, while the total number of households increased by around 50,000, the number of lower income households in the County declined by more than 60,000. The loss in White lower income households is also higher compared to non-White households. (40,124)
(20,247)
(45,000)
(40,000)
(35,000)
(30,000)
(25,000)
(20,000)
(15,000)
(10,000)
(5,000)
0 White Alone All Other Races
Alameda County Population Change in Households With
Incomes <$75,000 by Race and Ethnicity
(2010-2019)
(1,596)
(426)
(1,800)
(1,600)
(1,400)
(1,200)
(1,000)
(800)
(600)
(400)
(200)
0 White Alone All Other Races
City of Newark Population Change in Households With
Incomes <$75,000 by Race and Ethnicity
(2010-2019)
107 Draft for County Review
Loss of Low-Income Households by Race
Change in Low Income Households by Race and Ethnicity (2010-2019) Source: American Community Survey, 2010, 2019.

Note: Hispanic/Latino category is not exclusive of other categories.

When observing the percent change in low-income households, grouped by Race, the City clearly saw a greater proportion of White individuals leaving during the nine-year period, a nominal decrease of about 1,600 individuals or around a 52% decrease compared to 2010. Households of Color lost about 430 households which equated to a 16% decrease. The lower share of lower income Households of Color lost during the nine-year span reflects the increase in higher income Asian households. As described in the previous slide, Asian households have the lowest share of lower income households. At the same time, Asian households are one of the fastest growing groups in the City, with over 1,600 or 70% of new Households of Color added between 2010 and 2019 being Asians. (30.1%)
(13.5%)
(55%)
(50%)
(45%)
(40%)
(35%)
(30%)
(25%)
(20%)
(15%)
(10%)
(5%)
0%
White Alone All Other Races
Alameda County Population Change in Households
With Incomes <$75,000 by Race and Ethnicity
(2010-2019)
(51.5%)
(16.0%)
(55%)
(50%)
(45%)
(40%)
(35%)
(30%)
(25%)
(20%)
(15%)
(10%)
(5%)
0%
White Alone All Other Races
City of Newark Population Change in Households With
Incomes <$75,000 by Race and Ethnicity
(2010-2019)
108 Draft for County Review
Households of Color More Likely to Be Cost-Burdened
Housing Cost Burden by Race in the City of Newark
Households of color in the City of Newark are more likely to be cost-burdened than White households, and thereby face increased displacement pressures. About 21% of White households in the City of Newark were cost-burdened, while more than 40% of American Indian or Alaska Native, Black or African American, and Hispanic or Latinx households were cost-burdened. Around 27% of Asian households were cost-burdened, which is lower compared to other races, but still higher compared to White households.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release Note: Hispanic category is not exclusive of other categories. 54%
72%
52%
78%
54% 53%
46%
18%
28%
14%
28% 25%
9%
13%
7%
18% 22%
6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
American Indian or Alaska
Native, Non-Hispanic
Asian / API, Non-Hispanic Black or African American,
Non-Hispanic
White, Non-Hispanic Other Race or Multiple
Races, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic or Latinx
Percent of Households
City of Newark Cost-Burdened Households by Race
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing Cost Burden Not computed 109 Draft for County Review
Households of Color More Likely to Be Overcrowded
Overcrowding by Race in City of Newark and Alameda County Households of color in the City of Newark and Alameda County are also more likely to live in overcrowded housing than White households. About 5% of White households in the City of Newark are overcrowded, while all other races were around 17% overcrowded. In comparison to 2010, the share of overcrowded households in the City of Newark has increased significantly higher compared to the share of overcrowded households in the County. The increase in overcrowding is especially high among households of color. In 2010, the share of overcrowded households among households of color was 6% in the City and 7% in the County. By 2019, the share has increased to 17% in the City and 11% in the County.
3%
6%
5%
4%
7%
5%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
White Alone All Other Races Total
Share of Overcrowded Households by Race (2010)
City of Newark Alameda County
5%
17%
12%
4%
11%
8%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
White Alone All Other Races Total
Share of Overcrowded Households by Race (2019)
City of Newark Alameda County
Source: American Community Survey, 2010, 2019.

Note: Hispanic/Latino category is not exclusive of other categories. 110 Draft for County Review
Senior Households of Color
2019 Senior Household by race
Out of about 8,600 households of color in the City of Newark, around 15% or about 1,300 are senior households.

As discussed previously in Finding 5, while White households still account for the majority of senior households in the City, households of color are responsible for most of the growth in the City’s total senior households between 2010 and 2019.

Source: American Community Survey 2019, 5-Year Estimate 1,842
1,320
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
White Alone All Other Races
City of Newark Senior Household by Race (2019)
72,236
54,004
0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
White Alone All Other Races
Alameda County Senior Household by Race (2019)
111 Draft for County Review
Finding 8 Supporting Data
Housing Affordability Challenges
and Homelessness
Service providers across the County are responding to requests for housing assistance as the cost of housing increases and is out of reach for many lower income households. Housing and homeless support is the most prevalent service request for Newark callers to the countywide 2-1-1 referral service, representing about 42% of all service requests, and 74% of callers are people of color. Across Alameda County, the number of persons experiencing homelessness has increased significantly from 2015 to 2022 according to the 2022 Point In Time survey results. As Newark does not have many shelter options, the homelessness count did not increase from 2019 to 2022, although risk of homelessness remains a critical challenge. 112 Draft for County Review
For more than four decades, Eden I&R has successfully performed its mission of “linking people and resources and operates a free confidential, 3-digit phone number (211) and website service that provides easy access to information and referrals to service agencies and programs. The 211 helpline operates 24/7 with multilingual capabilities across Alameda County.

As no other centralized source for health, housing and human services information exists anywhere else in Alameda County, Eden I&R has become a critical resource for thousands of at-risk individuals, such as youth, non-English speakers, the economically disadvantaged, people living with HIV/AIDS, domestic violence survivors, the elderly, disabled, the homeless, and human service agencies seeking services or housing for their clients.

The graphic to the right indicates that the 211 helpline referred people to 1,004 agencies and 2,558 programs during FY 2019/20, and all of the top 10 website search items are related to housing.

These search terms reflect the types of housing information that people are seeking both online and by phone.

The graphic to the right indicates the number of calls and texts that were received during FY 2019/20, indicating the significant need for housing assistance. It also shows a 17% increase in calls or texts from the prior year, many of which are referrals related to housing.

Significant Need for Housing Countywide
Eden I&R Referral Service (Call 211)
Source: Eden I&R 2020 Annual Report (July 1, 20190 – June 30, 2020) Fiscal Year (FY) 2019/20
211 Inquiries and Referrals
113
Draft for County Review
Caller Demographics and Needs
Eden I&R Referral Service (Call 211)
As shown in the graphic below, 100% of those who call 211 are lower income, and 92% are extremely low income. About 68% of callers are female, and 52% of callers are living with a disability.

During FY 2020/21, housing and shelter continued to be the top need identified by callers, with 4,178 callers transferred to a Housing Resource Center for assistance.

Source: Eden I&R 2021 Annual Report (July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021) FY 2020/21
211 Inquiries and Referrals
114 Draft for County Review
City of Newark Service Calls and Referrals in Recent Years Eden I&R Referral Service (Call 2-1-1) From January 2020 to March 2022 City of Newark 2-1-1 Service Calls and Referrals
(January 2020 through March 2022)
Eden I&R provided data on calls and
inquiries from Newark residents during the
most recent 27-month period when data
was available (January 2020 through
March 2022).

As graphically shown to the right, 1,652
calls for service were received from
Newark residents, and Eden I&R provided
2,361 referrals during this period as further
described on the following pages.

More than three-quarters of the calls were
from households with 2 or more persons,
and callers indicated that their households
included 732 children, with most of the
children aged 5 through 12.

Source: Eden I&R Data, January 2020 to March 2022
115 Draft for County Review
Newark Resident Referral Needs by Service Category
Eden I&R Referral Service (Call 2-1-1) From January 2020 to March 2022 Newark Resident Referral Needs by Service Category
(January 2020 through March 2022)
Eden I&R’s referral service received
785 service requests from residents
or households from Newark in search
of housing and homeless support
services (including transitional
housing), as shown on the graphic to
the right.

Housing and homeless support is the
most prevalent service request for
local callers, representing about 42%
of all service requests which is
consistent with countywide
experience during recent years.

Similar to callers countywide, Newark
residents are seeking referrals for low
cost rental listings, rent payment
assistance, homeless and emergency
shelter, transitional housing, among
other housing needs. Source: Eden I&R Data, January 2020 to March 2022 Housing/Homeless
Support
785
42%
Other Services
336
18%
Health and Counseling
Support
203
11%
Legal and Public
Safety Assistance
168
9%
Public Benefit/Financial
Assistance
152
8%
Food
107
6%
Information Services
80 4%
Transportation
25 1%
Disaster Services
15 1%
116 Draft for County Review
Newark Resident Service Requests by Race and Ethnicity
Eden I&R Referral Service (Call 2-1-1) From January 2020 to March 2022 City of Newark 2-1-1 Service Inquiries by Race and Hispanic Origin of Caller According to the data provided by Eden I&R, 74% of service requests from Newark residents were made by persons of color, and 45% of all inquiries were made by Hispanic persons as illustrated below. As the referral service data indicates, many Newark residents are seeking assistance with housing and homelessness support, and about three-quarters are persons of color.

Source: Eden I&R Data, January 2020 to March 2022
Other Multirace
30%
White
26%
Black.African
American
26%
Asian
12%
American Indian/Alaskan
Native
3%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific
Lsiander
3%
Non-Hisoanic
55%
Hispanic
45%
117 Draft for County Review
Homeless Services and Needs
City of Newark and County of Alameda
According to the City of Newark, the City’s homeless services are led at the County level through the Continuum of Care (CoC) program, and the City is an active member of the countywide CoC program called EveryOne Home.

EveryOne Home has conducted countywide bi-annual Point In Time (PIT) surveys since 2009 except that the most recent PIT survey was not conducted in 2021 given the pandemic. Instead, this survey was conducted in February 2022, and the graphics below summarize data from this 2022 PIT survey for the City and County.

According to prior PIT surveys, many factors contribute to homelessness, and the number of individuals experiencing homelessness exceeds the capacity of the County’s system of care.

Factors Contributing to Homelessness in City of Newark
2022 PIT Survey
Source: 2022 Alameda County Homeless PIT Survey
Trends in Countywide Homelessness County
118 Draft for County Review
Countywide Homeless Data
Alameda County Homeless Survey
Homeless individuals face behavioral
health and physical health challenges
that inhibit their ability to obtain work or
housing. Many have a history of system
involvement in ERs, hospital beds, and
jail cells. While people are accessing
services and support, those services are
not ending their homelessness.

According to the 2022 survey, people of
color and men are overrepresented in
the homeless population.

Source: 2022 Alameda County Homeless PIT Survey
Homeless Population Characteristics in the City of Newark 2022 PIT Survey
119 Draft for County Review
Homelessness in Newark
Summary Results from 2022 PIT Survey
According to the 2017, 2019 and 2022 surveys, about 80 percent of the persons experiencing homelessness were living in Alameda County when they lost their housing. The 2022 PIT survey results indicate that 41% of 29 homeless individuals in the City of Newark consider Newark as their home.

Source: Alameda County Homeless Point in Time Survey 2022.

Prior Residence of Homeless Population in the City of Newark 2022 PIT Survey
120 Draft for County Review
City and Countywide Trends in Homelessness
Summary Results from 2022 PIT Survey
Based on the 2022 PIT results, the total number of
individuals experiencing homelessness countywide
increased 18% from 2019 to 2022. More than 900
individuals have been able to find shelter since 2019 in the County, representing a 35% increase in the sheltered
population. Newark does not have many shelter options,
so the number of sheltered individuals did not increase in the City from 2019 to 2022. As more individuals were able to find shelter elsewhere in the County, Newark’s
unsheltered population declined, although homelessness
remains a critical housing need.

Source: Alameda County Homeless Census and Point in Time Survey, 2015, 2017, 2019 and 2022.

Trends in City and Countywide Homelessness Count
City of Newark
2015 2017 2019 2022
Sheltered N/A 42 30 26
Unsheltered N/A 28 59 32
Total N/A 70 89 58
Alameda County
2015 2017 2019 2022
Sheltered 1,643 1,766 1,710 2,612
Unsheltered 2,397 3,863 6,312 7,135
Total 4,040 5,629 8,022 9,747
121
Draft for County Review
2022 Sheltered Homeless Population in Newark by Race/Ethnicity Summary Results from 2022 PIT Survey
Based on the 2022 PIT survey, 26 individuals were enrolled in sheltered services in Newark as of February 2022, as the City does not have many shelter options. Most of the sheltered individuals identified as White (58%), while about 27% identified as Black/African American, 12% of multiple races, and 4% American Indian/Alaskan Native. Of the sheltered population about 31% of identified as Latinx/Hispanic, which includes White and non-White individuals.

Trends in Countywide Homelessness Count
Source: Alameda County Homeless Point in Time Survey 2022. 122
Draft for County Review
2022 Unsheltered Homeless Population by Location in Newark Summary Results from 2022 PIT Survey
Based on the 2022 PIT survey, 32 individuals were unsheltered as of February 2022 in Newark. Most of the City’s unsheltered homeless population (about 58%) were living outside, on the street or in tents, which is significantly higher than what unsheltered individuals experienced countywide (44%). Other unsheltered individuals (about 42%) were living in RVs, cars or vans in Newark.

Source: Alameda County Homeless Point in Time Survey 2022. 123
Draft for County Review
Calls for Service to Unsheltered Transient Community
Newark Police Department
Newark’s Police Department published reports on the City’s Unsheltered Transient Community in 2021 and 2022.

According to the 2021 report, the Police Department received 145 “Transient” related calls for service, and 122 “Transient” related dispatch calls for service from January to March 2021. In 2022, the Police Department has continued to receive ongoing calls for service to the unsheltered transient community. According to four week surveys conducted by the Police Department in 2021 and 2022, the number of unsheltered persons has increase by 17% from 29 to 35 unsheltered community members.

Source: City of Newark Police Department
Calls for Service to Unsheltered Transient Community
City of Newark Police Department
Four Week Survey on Unsheltered Community Members
2021 2022
Total Unsheltered Community Members* 29 35
Male 24 27
Female 5 8
*In 2021, 3 Unsheltered Community Members died (Train, Car, Overdose) Drifters within Newark 7 10
Encampments in Newark 6 7
124
Draft for County Review
Finding 9 Supporting Data
Unmet Low Income Housing Needs
Multifamily housing development in the City of Newark has lagged behind job growth and household demand, especially for very low income and low income households.

Although the City of Newark has recently increased housing permits issued, it will be difficult to make up for years of lagging housing growth. As of 2019, the City has a remaining gap in housing permit issuances of about 572 units affordable to very lower income households and 268 units for lower income households. Lower income households will continue to be at risk of displacement without new affordable housing that addresses their special housing needs, including housing for large families, persons with disabilities, and those at risk of homelessness.
125 Draft for County Review
City of Newark Multifamily Housing Production
City Housing Permit Issuances (2000-2020)
Since 2000, the City of Newark has annually permitted around 130 housing units, and single-family homes have represented most of the City’s housing growth. Permit issuance indicates a lack of housing production, although actual housing growth may have been much lower as not every permitted unit gets built. This long-term trend shifted recently in 2015 when the City experienced a significant increase in multifamily housing permits.

However, the accumulated lack of housing supply over the last two decades, particularly for multifamily housing, has contributed to the City’s tight housing market.

Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development (SOCDS) 0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Permit Issuances
City of Newark Historical Housing Permit Issuances (2000-2020) Units in 5+ Unit Multi-Family Structures Units in Single-Family Structures 126
Draft for County Review
Between 2000 to 2020, the City’s housing production averaged around 130 units per year and only a small proportion of permits were for multifamily housing as indicated earlier. While housing production in the City has seen a rapid increase in permits since 2015, production is still behind the pace of housing growth in Alameda County, even though the City has experienced higher job growth compared to the County.

Slow Multifamily Housing Production
City of Newark and Alameda County Housing Permits
Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development
Note: Housing permits used to estimate housing production; in reality, not all permits may have resulted in new units completed. 0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Permit Issuances
City of Newark and Alameda County Historical Housing Permit Issuances (2000-2020) City of Newark Alameda County
127 Draft for County Review
Lack of Low and Very Low Income Housing Supply
City of Newark Housing Permits
When comparing the number of permits approved for housing of varying income levels with the City of Newark’s regional housing need allocation (RHNA), the only category where the City has met its RHNA goals as of 2020 is Above Moderate. A further look into the RHNA data by income categories shows an even greater imbalance between demand for housing for lower income households and supply. Between 2007 and 2020, the City issued 74 permits for housing affordable to Lower Income (LI) and Very Low Income (VLI) categories, or only 8.1% of its RHNA goals.

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, City of Newark Housing Element Progress Report (2021). 587
15 327
59 313
36 714
1,566
1,941
1,676
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
RHNA

PERMITS
RHNA

PERMITS

VLI LI MOD ABOVE MOD TOTAL

RHNA PERMITS RHNA PERMITS RHNA PERMITS RHNA PERMITS RHNA PERMITS City of Newark 587 15 327 59 313 36 714 1,566 1,941 1,676 City of Newark Housing Permits 2007 - 2020
Compared to RHNA Allocations for Housing Element Cycles 4 and 5 128 Draft for County Review
Lack of Low and Very Low Income Housing Supply
Alameda County Housing Permits
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Countywide housing production has also experienced significant shortfalls in production over the past decade.

The only category where the County has met its RHNA goals as of 2020 is the Above Moderate category. This lack of housing production countywide has widened the gap between housing supply and demand, particularly for housing affordable to very low and low income households. 19,929
5,775
14,220
3,467
17,002
2,351
37,822
49,368
88,973
60,961
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 RHNA

PERMITS
RHNA

PERMITS

VLI LI MOD
ABOVE

MOD TOTAL

VLI LI MOD ABOVE MOD TOTAL

RHNA PERMITS RHNA PERMITS RHNA PERMITS RHNA PERMITS RHNA PERMITS Alameda County 19,929 5,775 14,220 3,467 17,002 2,351 37,822 49,368 88,973 60,961 Alameda County Housing Permits 2007 - 2020
Compared to RHNA Allocations for Housing Element Cycles 4 and 5 129 Draft for County Review
Housing Production Gap for Lower Income Households
Regional Housing Need Allocation Versus Housing Permits Granted As of 2020, the City has a remaining gap in affordable housing production for VLI of 572 units, LI of 268 units, and Moderate of 277 units for Housing Element Cycles 4 and 5, totaling about 1,117 units. The County also has significant gaps in affordable housing production for VLI, LI, and Mod households. Lower income households will continue to be at risk of displacement without new affordable housing that addresses their housing needs, including housing for large families, persons with disabilities, and those at risk of homelessness.

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, City of Newark Housing Element Progress Report (2021). 15 59
572
268
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
VLI LI
Housing Units
City of Newark Permit Issuances Through 2020 vs.

State Housing Goals (2007-2023)
Remaining Units from RHNA Goal Permits
5,775 3,467
14,154
10,753
0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
VLI LI
Housing Units
Alameda County Permit Issuances Through 2020
vs. State Housing Goals (2007-2023)
Remaining Units from RHNA Goal Permits
130 Draft for County Review
Rising Development Costs Hinder Feasibility of New Apartments Realities of Development Costs
Given rising development costs in Newark and the County, new multifamily apartment development is difficult to develop and often is not as financially feasible as single family ownership housing that can command higher prices. This puts additional demands on existing multifamily rental housing as more
households are seeking housing in the City than may be
accommodated by new development.

While multifamily housing production increased in 2016, most of the City’s production has been in single family housing, and there are significant gaps between what lower income
households can afford to pay and new development costs.

The development feasibility analysis shown in this chart demonstrates that apartment developments are not financially feasible for developments that would be affordable to lower income households with annual incomes at $75,000 without substantial public funding. Furthermore, there can be significant gaps between what is feasible assuming the current average market rents in the City and County.

While higher density podium apartments are often a preferred infill development type given their capacity to produce 150 to 200 units on a smaller site, these developments typically have higher development costs, which increases this feasibility or affordability gap.
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
Garden
Apartment
Podium
Apartment
Illustrative Concept of
Development Feasibility
Land Building Construction
Construction Financing Other Soft Costs
Development Impact Fees Developer Margin/Return
Supportable Cost for Typical
Apartments in City of Alameda
Supportable Cost for Typical
Apartments in Alameda County
Supportable Development Costs
for Households at $75,000
Annual Income
131
Draft for County Review
Conclusion
Without additional affordable apartment developments being constructed in the City of Newark that are affordable to and prioritized toward lower income residents and workers in Newark, displacement pressures will inhibit the ability existing households to remain in the City.
• The City of Newark faces a significant jobs/housing imbalance and is especially behind in its production of housing that is affordable to lower and moderate income households. The City is also experiencing growing signs of severe displacement pressures, particularly for lower income households of color. • The live/work policy would provide local residents and workers with affordable housing options within Newark, where they have a social network and already have access to services and education. The policy would also provide greater access to housing in a supply constrained, highly competitive housing market to households of color who are often most affected by displacement pressures. • With a local resident and worker preference, lower income households with varied racial backgrounds, who will be applying for and most likely eligible for affordable rental housing funded by Measure A1, would be provided, and not denied, access to these limited affordable housing opportunities.
• As most low wage workers cannot afford rents in the City and likely commute long distances from outside the City, which increases greenhouse gas emissions.

Instituting a preference for those who work in the City would also provide housing near to where they work, allowing local workers to shorten their commutes and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
• Given the broad applicability of a local live/work policy to a diverse array of residents and workers, this study indicates that this policy appears unlikely to result in a disparate impact, especially as both current and future workers would be eligible for the preference.
• Consequently, civil rights concerns/discriminatory impacts in violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act and Title VI regulations may be minimized because the income- eligible population for affordable rental developments is more diverse in terms of race and ethnicity as compared to the City of Newark’s general population.

This study provides data and
findings to support the City of
Newark’s preference for local
residents and workers consistent
with Measure A1 implementation
policies:
…should a city wish to implement a
sub-regional live/work preference
policy for a portion of the units in a
project, the city must…complete a
study and one or more findings
which demonstrate city-level
residential displacement is
occurring and/or is at high risk of
occurring and a need for a subregional live/work preference is needed to respond to or prevent
displacement….
132 Draft for County Review
Appendix A
The following tables summarize key data used in the analysis. The analysis in this study was prepared based on data from a wide variety of well- respected sources. While the data has been obtained from sources that are believed to be reliable, and the consultants have made reasonable efforts to assure that the data and analysis are timely and accurate, the consultants make no warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy or completeness of the data or the analysis prepared in this study.
133 Draft for County Review
Appendix: Jobs to Housing Imbalance
Housing Permits Granted Compared to Job Growth, 2010-2019 Housing Permits 2010-2019 Jobs Added 2010-2019
Job Growth to Housing
Growth Ratio
City of Newark 2,005 5,726 2.9
Alameda County 47,672 145,493 3.1
9 County Bay Area 202,396 825,843 4.1
5+ Housing Permits 2010-
2019 Jobs Added 2010-2019
Job Growth to 5+ Housing
Growth Ratio
City of Newark 749 5,726 7.6
Alameda County 29,555 145,493 4.9
9 County Bay Area 128,231 825,843 6.4
Source: OnTheMap 2010 - 2019, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development City of Newark and Alameda County Housing Permits, 2007-2020 Compared to RHNA Allocations for Housing Element Cycles 4 and 5 Very Low Income Low Income Mod Above Mod Total
RHNA Permits RHNA Permits RHNA Permits RHNA Permits RHNA Permits Newark City 587 15 327 59 313 36 714 1,566 1,941 1,676
Alameda County 19,929 5,775 14,220 3,467 17,002 2,351 37,822 49,368 88,973 60,961 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, City of Newark 134 Draft for County Review
Appendix: Jobs and Wages
Top Industries by Job Growth in City of Newark 2010 - 2019 Average Wages
Alameda County
Industry $ # % # %
Transportation and Warehousing $65,988 1,825 556% 8,997 34% Manufacturing $96,512 1,382 62% 20,346 32%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services $123,448 1,179 94% 17,266 28% Management of Companies and Enterprises $158,600 1,023 210% 1,796 12% Health Care and Social Assistance $64,480 703 101% 25,068 32% Accommodation and Food Services $27,456 695 56% 14,614 40% Other Services, Except Public Administration $48,308 94 20% -4,486 -15% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing $68,484 56 72% 848 9% Information $206,700 12 12% 5,833 37%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting $53,560 3 13% -161 -24% Source: OnTheMap 2010 & 2019, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, California Economic Development Department Job Growth
Newark City Alameda County
Jobs by Annual Earnings, 2010 & 2019
2010 & 2019 Annual Earnings of Primary Jobs
Newark City Alameda County
Annual Earnings 2010 2019 Change 2010 2019 Change
# Jobs % # Jobs % # Jobs % # Jobs % # Jobs % # Jobs %
$15,000 or less 3,074 22% 2,480 13% (594) (19%) 94,420 16% 87,185 12% (7,235) (8%) $15,000 to $40,000 5,100 36% 5,405 28% 305 6% 174,427 29% 175,703 24% 1,276 1% Subtotal 8,174 57% 7,885 40% (289) (4%) 268,847 45% 262,888 36% (5,959) (2%) More than $40,000 6,066 43% 11,591 60% 5,525 91% 331,663 55% 473,809 64% 142,146 43% Total 14,240 100% 19,476 100% 5,236 37% 600,510 100% 736,697 100% 136,187 23% Source: onthemap.ces.census.gov
135 Draft for County Review
Appendix: Two-Bedroom Average Asking Rents
Historical Two-Bedroom Average Asking Rents
City of Newark Alameda County
Year $ % Change $ % Change
2000 $1,855 $1,836
2001 $1,645 -11% $1,846 1%
2002 $1,616 -2% $1,794 -3%
2003 $1,518 -6% $1,740 -3%
2004 $1,480 -3% $1,719 -1%
2005 $1,486 0% $1,736 1%
2006 $1,585 7% $1,807 4%
2007 $1,646 4% $1,904 5%
2008 $1,719 4% $1,933 2%
2009 $1,611 -6% $1,801 -7%
2010 $1,573 -2% $1,835 2%
2011 $1,638 4% $1,893 3%
2012 $1,753 7% $1,979 5%
2013 $1,861 6% $2,090 6%
2014 $2,031 9% $2,206 6%
2015 $2,166 7% $2,376 8%
2016 $2,152 -1% $2,426 2%
2017 $2,207 3% $2,487 3%
2018 $2,268 3% $2,553 3%
2019 $2,287 1% $2,580 1%
2020 $2,244 -2% $2,509 -3%
2021 $2,300 2% $2,613 4%
Source: Costar, Institutional Grade Multifamily Apartment Developments (April 2022) Note: Institutional grade apartments are located within developments that attract investment or acquisition by institutional investors.

These units are typically larger apartment developments, which contain newer or renovated buildings typically classified as Class A or B. 136 Draft for County Review
Appendix: Two-Bedroom Home Prices
Historical Two-Bedroom Home Prices
City of Newark Alameda County
Year $ % Change $ % Change
2000 $260,885 $240,966
2001 $313,068 20% $295,633 23%
2002 $325,541 4% $323,765 10%
2003 $345,545 6% $354,606 10%
2004 $384,716 11% $402,400 13%
2005 $465,867 21% $486,338 21%
2006 $503,680 8% $527,792 9%
2007 $481,855 -4% $510,674 -3%
2008 $410,541 -15% $440,610 -14%
2009 $308,637 -25% $343,356 -22%
2010 $272,736 -12% $332,876 -3%
2011 $245,212 -10% $300,338 -10%
2012 $236,040 -4% $286,536 -5%
2013 $316,691 34% $362,200 26%
2014 $382,188 21% $435,214 20%
2015 $430,837 13% $481,792 11%
2016 $484,416 12% $544,851 13%
2017 $523,782 8% $584,194 7%
2018 $617,249 18% $657,348 13%
2019 $605,497 -2% $658,060 0%
2020 $584,143 -4% $670,049 2%
2021 $655,635 12% $763,769 14%
Source: Zillow (April 2022)
Note: Zillow Home Value Index is a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value.

It reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. 137 Draft for County Review
Appendix: Household Summary Characteristics
City of Newark Alameda County
Household Characteristics 2010 2019 # Change % Change 2010 2019 # Change % Change General Characteristics
Total Households 12,851 14,047 1,196 9% 532,026 577,177 45,151 8% Total Population 41,981 47,171 5,190 12% 1,477,980 1,656,754 178,774 12% Total Renter Households 3,592 4,378 786 22% 238,749 268,286 29,537 12% Proportion of All Households 28% 31% 3% 12% 45% 46% 2% 4% Total Owner Households 9,259 9,669 410 4% 293,277 308,891 15,614 5% Proportion of All Households 72% 69% (-3%) (-4%) 55% 54% (-2%) (-3%) Median Age 35.3 37.1 1.8 5% 36.2 37.6 1.4 4%
Household Size 3.27 3.36 0.1 3% 2.78 2.87 0.1 3%
HHs Below $75K by Tenure
Total Households with Annual Household Income Below $75K 5,764 3,742 (2,022) (-35%) 283,690 223,319 (60,371) (-21%) Renter Households with Annual Household Income Below $75K 2,259 1,527 (732) (-32%) 176,618 144,558 (32,060) (-18%) Proportion of All Households With Household Income Below $75K 39% 41% 2% 4% 62% 65% 2% 4% Owner Households with Annual Household Income Below $75K 3,505 2,215 (1,290) (-37%) 107,072 78,761 (28,311) (-26%) Proportion of All Households With Household Income Below $75K 61% 59% (-2%) (-3%) 38% 35% (-2%) (-7%) Source: American Community Survey 2010 & 2019, 5-Year Estimates, United States Census Bureau 138 Draft for County Review
Appendix: Senior Households Summary Characteristics
City of Newark Alameda County
Senior Household Characteristics 2010 2019 # Change % Change 2010 2019 # Change % Change Total Population 41,981 47,171 5,190 12% 1,477,980 1,656,754 178,774 12% Total Senior Population (65+) 4,114 6,038 1,924 47% 161,100 224,026 62,926 39% Proportion of Total Population 10% 13% 3% 11% 14% 3%
Tenure
Total Household 12,851 14,047 1,196 9% 532,026 577,177 45,151 8% Total Senior Households (65+) 2,275 3,162 887 39% 92,685 126,240 33,555 36% Proportion of All Households 18% 23% 5% 17% 22% 4%
Renter Senior Household 465 427 (38) (-8%) 27,352 38,242 10,890 40% Proportion of All Senior HHs 20% 14% (-7%) 30% 30% 1%
Proportion of All Renter HHs 13% 10% (-3%) 11% 14% 3%
Owner Senior Household 1,810 2,735 925 51% 65,333 87,998 22,665 35% Proportion of All Senior HHs 80% 86% 7% 70% 70% (-1%)
Proportion of All Owner HHs 20% 28% 9% 22% 28% 6%
Source: American Community Survey 2010 & 2019, 5-Year Estimates, United States Census Bureau 139 Draft for County Review
Appendix: Senior Households by Income
City of Newark Alameda County
Senior Household Characteristics 2010 2019 # Change % Change 2010 2019 # Change % Change Senior HHs by Income
0-$19,999 557 401 (156) (-28%) 23,355 22,796 (559) (-2%) $20-$34,999 452 457 5 1% 16,972 18,414 1,442 8%
$35-$49,999 238 226 (12) (-5%) 12,040 13,210 1,170 10%
$50-$74,999 501 579 78 16% 14,646 17,969 3,323 23%
$75-$99,999 203 442 239 118% 8,369 12,948 4,579 55%
$100-$149,999 203 424 221 109% 9,586 18,046 8,460 88%
$150 or more 121 633 512 423% 7,717 22,857 15,140 196%
Total <$75K 1,748 1,663 (85) (-5%) 67,013 72,389 5,376 8% Proportion of All Senior HHs 77% 53% (-24%) 72% 57% (-15%) Source: American Community Survey 2010 & 2019, 5-Year Estimates, United States Census Bureau 140 Draft for County Review
Appendix: Overcrowding
City of Newark Alameda County
Household Characteristics 2010 2019 # Change % Change 2010 2019 # Change % Change Overcrowding
Total Overcrowded Households 603 1,714 1,111 184% 27,910 45,425 17,515 63% Severely Overcrowded Households 81 465 384 474% 8,212 16,418 8,206 100% Overcrowded Renter Households 294 1,178 884 301% 18,921 34,587 15,666 83% Overcrowded Renter Households (not Including Severely) 233 773 540 232% 12,627 20,850 8,223 65% Severely Overcrowded Renter Households 61 405 344 564% 6,294 13,737 7,443 118% Overcrowded Owner Households 309 536 227 73% 8,989 10,838 1,849 21% Overcrowded Owner Households (not Including Severely) 289 476 187 65% 7,071 8,157 1,086 15% Severely Overcrowded Owner Households 20 60 40 200% 1,918 2,681 763 40% Source: American Community Survey 2010 & 2019, 5-Year Estimates, United States Census Bureau City of Newark Alameda County
Senior Household Characteristics 2010 2019 # Change % Change 2010 2019 # Change % Change Overcrowding
Total overcrowded Senior HHs 1 110 109 10900% 1,162 2,706 1,544 133% Severely Overcrowded Senior HHs 1 10 9 900% 424 1,276 852 201% Overcrowded Senior Renter HHs 1 37 36 3600% 608 1,564 956 157% Overcrowded Renter Households (not Including Severely) 0 37 37 -- 327 633 306 94% Severely Overcrowded Renter Households 1 0 (1) (-100%) 281 931 650 231% Overcrowded Senior Owner HHs 0 73 73 -- 554 1,142 588 106% Overcrowded Senior Owner Households (not Including Severely) 0 63 63 -- 411 797 386 94% Severely Senior Overcrowded Owner Households 0 10 10 -- 143 345 202 141% Source: American Community Survey 2010 & 2019, 5-Year Estimates, United States Census Bureau 141 Draft for County Review
Appendix: Housing Cost Burden
City of Newark Alameda County
Household Characteristics 2010 2019 # Change % Change 2010 2019 # Change % Change Cost Burdened HHs
Total Cost Burdened Households 6,070 4,225 (1,845) (-30%) 244,028 214,197 (29,831) (-12%) Severely Cost-Burdened Households 2,389 1,355 (1,034) (-43%) 114,459 96,579 (17,880) (-16%) Cost Burdened Renter Households (including severely) 1,594 1,917 323 20% 117,902 127,658 9,756 8% Proportion of All Renter Households 44% 44% (-1%) (-1%) 49% 48% (-2%) (-4%) Severely Cost Burdened Renter Households 568 618 50 9% 62,227 63,047 820 1% Proportion of All Renter Households 16% 14% (-2%) (-11%) 26% 23% (-3%) (-10%) Cost Burdened Owner Households (including severely) 4,476 2,308 (2,168) (-48%) 126,126 86,539 (39,587) (-31%) Proportion of All Owner Households 48% 24% (-24%) (-51%) 43% 28% (-15%) (-35%) Severely Cost Burdened Owner Households 1,821 737 (1,084) (-60%) 52,232 33,532 (18,700) (-36%) Proportion of All Owner Households 20% 8% (-12%) (-61%) 18% 11% (-7%) (-39%) Cost Burdened Renters (including severely)
Less than $20K 360 321 (39) (-11%) 47,054 33,981 (13,073) (-28%) $20K-$35K 405 217 (188) (-46%) 34,432 27,334 (7,098) (-21%) $35K-$50K 403 315 (88) (-22%) 20,064 22,254 2,190 11%
$50K-$75K 370 320 (50) (-14%) 12,848 25,096 12,248 95%
$75K-$100K 56 525 469 838% 2,804 12,610 9,806 350%
$100K or more 0 219 219 -- 700 6,383 5,683 812%
Source: American Community Survey 2010 & 2019, 5-Year Estimates, United States Census Bureau 142 Draft for County Review
Appendix: Distribution of Households by Race
Distribution of Households by Race
City of Newark Alameda County
2010 2019
Increase
(Decrease) from
2010 % Change 2010 2019
Increase
(Decrease) from
2010 % Change
White Alone 6,573 5,405 (1,168) (-18%) 275,099 270,319 (4,780) (-2%) All Other Races 6,278 8,642 2,364 38% 256,927 306,858 49,931 19% Black or African American Alone 612 599 (13) (-2%) 79,630 71,818 (7,812) (-10%) American Indian and Alaska Native Alone 36 114 78 217% 2,816 3,835 1,019 36% Asian Alone 3,079 4,739 1,660 54% 119,343 157,678 38,335 32% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 178 124 (54) (-30%) 3,336 3,763 427 13% Other Race Alone 1,760 2,491 731 42% 35,689 44,913 9,224 26% Two or More Races 613 575 (38) (-6%) 16,113 24,851 8,738 54% Total 12,851 14,047 1,196 9% 532,026 577,177 45,151 8%
White Non Hispanic Latino 5,211 4,400 (811) (-16%) 233,355 228,800 (4,555) (-2%) Hispanic or Latino 3,482 3,791 309 9% 82,243 94,610 12,367 15% Total BIPOC Households 7,640 9,647 2,007 26% 298,671 348,377 49,706 17% Source: American Community Survey 2010 & 2019, 5-Year Estimates, United States Census Bureau Distribution of All Households by Race and
Ethnicity
143 Draft for County Review
Appendix: Distribution of Senior Households by Race
City of Newark Alameda County
Senior Household Characteristics 2010 2019 # Change % Change 2010 2019 # Change % Change Senior HHs by Race
White Alone 1,537 1,842 305 20% 57,448 72,236 14,788 26% All Other Races 738 1,320 582 79% 35,237 54,004 18,767 53% Black or African American Alone 84 48 (36) (-43%) 14,444 18,296 3,852 27% American Indian and Alaska Native Alone 0 28 28 --- 307 876 569 185% Asian Alone 518 815 297 57% 15,959 26,776 10,817 68%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 11 12 1 9% 382 656 274 72% Other Race Alone 97 365 268 276% 2,392 4,438 2,046 86%
Two or More Races 28 52 24 86% 1,753 2,962 1,209 69%
Total 2,275 3,162 887 39% 92,685 126,240 33,555 36%
White Non Hispanic Latino 1,207 1,627 420 35% 51,962 65,617 13,655 26% Hispanic or Latino 447 634 187 42% 8,392 12,224 3,832 46% Total BIPOC Households 1,068 1,535 467 44% 40,723 60,623 19,900 49% Proportion of All Senior HHs 47% 49% 44% 48%
Source: American Community Survey 2010 & 2019, 5-Year Estimates, United States Census Bureau 144 Draft for County Review
Appendix: Distribution of Lower Income Households by
Race
Distribution of Lower Income Households by Race (2010-2019) City of Newark Alameda County
2010 2019
Increase
(Decrease) from
2010 % Change 2010 2019
Increase
(Decrease) from
2010 % Change
White Alone 3,098 1,502 (1,596) (-52%) 133,208 93,084 (40,124) (-30%) All Other Races 2,666 2,240 (426) (-16%) 150,482 130,235 (20,247) (-13%) Black or African American Alone 342 210 (132) (-39%) 59,778 45,591 (14,187) (-24%) American Indian and Alaska Native Alone 26 37 11 42% 1,863 1,984 121 6% Asian Alone 1,041 941 (100) (-10%) 53,804 48,439 (5,365) (-10%) Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 70 42 (28) (-40%) 1,958 1,547 (411) (-21%) Other Race Alone 908 853 (55) (-6%) 23,918 22,906 (1,012) (-4%) Two or More Races 279 157 (122) (-44%) 9,161 9,768 607 7% Total 5,764 3,742 (2,022) (-35%) 283,690 223,319 (60,371) (-21%) White Non Hispanic Latino 2,205 1,164 (1,041) (-47%) 106,360 74,406 (31,954) (-30%) Hispanic or Latino 1,949 1,300 (649) (-33%) 53,693 45,257 (8,436) (-16%) Total BIPOC Households 3,559 2,578 (981) (-28%) 177,330 148,913 (28,417) (-16%) Source: American Community Survey 2010 & 2019, 5-Year Estimates, United States Census Bureau Distribution of Households with Incomes Below
$75,000 by Race and Ethnicity
145 Draft for County Review
Appendix: Distribution of Lower Income Senior
Households by Race
City of Newark Alameda County
Senior Household Characteristics 2010 2019 # Change % Change 2010 2019 # Change % Change Lower Income Senior HHs (<$75K) by Race
White Alone 1,268 940 (328) (-26%) 38,901 37,736 (1,165) (-3%) All Other Races 480 723 243 51% 28,112 34,653 6,541 23% Black or African American Alone 37 8 (29) (-78%) 12,204 12,775 571 5% American Indian and Alaska Native Alone 0 15 15 --- 250 598 348 139% Asian Alone 351 429 78 22% 11,879 16,214 4,335 36%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 11 0 (11) (-100%) 349 282 (67) (-19%) Other Race Alone 81 228 147 181% 2,041 2,825 784 38%
Two or More Races 0 43 43 --- 1,389 1,959 570 41%
Total 1,748 1,663 (85) (-5%) 67,013 72,389 5,376 8%
White Non Hispanic Latino 947 789 (158) (-17%) 34,533 33,583 (950) (-3%) Hispanic or Latino 402 411 9 2% 6,855 7,784 929 14%
Total BIPOC Households 801 874 73 9% 32,480 38,806 6,326 19% Proportion of All Senior HHs 46% 53% 48% 54%
Source: American Community Survey 2010 & 2019, 5-Year Estimates, United States Census Bureau 146 Draft for County Review
Appendix: Special Needs and Disabilities
Special Needs Households 2010 2019
Increase
(Decrease)
from 2010 % Change 2010 2019
Increase
(Decrease)
from 2010 % Change
Householder Living Alone 2,069 1,831 (238) (12%) 150,031 141,077 (8,954) (6%) Family Households 10,204 11,409 1,205 12% 339,965 384,676 44,711 13% Family Households with Children Under 18 5,295 5,480 185 4% 181,953 191,793 9,840 5% Single-Parent Households 2,544 2,565 21 1% 93,105 92,597 (508) (1%) Female Headed Family Households 1,799 1,654 (145) (8%) 66,503 64,165 (2,338) (4%) Large Households* 4,408 5,524 1,116 25% 133,539 157,543 24,004 18% Senior Households 2,275 3,162 887 39% 93,105 126,240 33,135 36% (*) Large Households consists of 4+ people.

City of Newark Alameda County
Population with a Disability 2012 2019
Increase
(Decrease)
from 2012 % Change 2012 2019
Increase
(Decrease)
from 2012 % Change
Total Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population 42,672 47,144 4,472 10% 1,502,185 1,647,749 145,564 10% Persons with Disabilities 3,395 3,561 166 5% 138,141 151,368 13,227 10% Senior Population (65+) 4,573 6,038 1,465 32% 165,914 219,889 53,975 33% Seniors with Disabilities 1,432 1,823 391 27% 59,634 70,766 11,132 19% Source: American Community Survey 2010, 2012 & 2019, 5-Year Estimates, United States Census Bureau City of Newark Alameda County
147 Draft for County Review
Appendix: Enrollment of Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged Students
Note: The 2020-21 data is for School Year 2020-21.

Source: California Department of Education (ED-Data).
2020-21 Enrollment of
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
Students by Ethnicity
Newark Unified
School District
All Alameda County
School Districts
African American 102 3.4% 13,894 15%
American Indian or Alaska Native 5 0.2% 273 0%
Asian 332 11.0% 13,878 15%
Filipino 166 5.5% 2,560 3%
Hispanic or Latino 2,012 66.5% 51,444 55%
Pacific Islander 67 2.2% 1,234 1%
White 197 6.5% 5,866 6%
Two or More Races 105 3.5% 3,230 3%
Not Reported 39 1.3% 1,204 1%
Total 3,025 100.0% 93,583 100%
148 Draft for County Review
Appendix: Enrollment of Homeless Students
Note: The 2020-21 data is for School Year 2020-21.

Source: California Department of Education (ED-Data).
2020-21 Enrollment of Homeless
Students by Ethnicity
Newark Unified
School District
All Alameda County
School Districts
African American 11 4.4% 530 18.5%
American Indian or Alaska Native 1 0.4% 17 0.6%
Asian 16 6.4% 97 3.4%
Filipino 13 5.2% 70 2.4%
Hispanic or Latino 167 66.5% 1,818 63.4%
Pacific Islander 27 10.8% 39 1.4%
White 10 4.0% 128 4.5%
Two or More Races 6 2.4% 132 4.6%
Not Reported 0 0.0% 36 1.3%
Total 251 100.0% 2,867 100.0%
149 Draft for County Review
C25062
1 INDEMNITY AGREEMENT
This Indemnity Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into effective as of September 25, 2025, by and between the County of Alameda, a political subdivision of the State of California ("County"), and the City of Newark, a municipal corporation ("City"). The City and the County are collectively referred to herein as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
A. Timber Street Investors, L.P., a California limited partnership (“Developer”) is the owner of that certain real property located at 37660 Timber Street in the City of Newark, County of Alameda, known as Alameda County Assessor’s Parcel No. 92A-2125-010-02 (the "Property").

B. The City has agreed to provide a construction/permanent loan to Developer in the amount of Two Million Seven Hundred Sixty-Five Thousand Dollars ($2,765,000) (the “City Loan”) for development of a 79 unit affordable multi-family residential development on the Property (the “Project”). In connection with the City Loan, City and Developer executed and recorded an Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants with the effective date of February 1, 2024 (“City Regulatory Agreement”).

Among other provisions, to the extent permitted by law and consistent with the program regulations for funding sources used for development of the Project, the City Regulatory Agreement requires Developer to provide a preference in leasing the residential units in the Project to households that include a member that lives or works in the City of Newark (the “City Preference”).

C. The County has agreed to provide a construction/permanent loan to Developer using Measure A1 bond proceeds (“Measure A1 Funds”) in the amount of Eight Million Six Hundred Eighty-Five Thousand Two Hundred and Fourteen Dollars ($8,685,214) for development of the Project. The County’s Implementation Policies for Measure A1 Funds in Rental Housing Development Fund Policies, Part III, sub-section E-Fair Housing, provide that if a city wishes to use a sub-regional live/work preference policy for projects financed with Measure A1 Funds, the city must satisfy specified criteria (“County Requirements”), including:
(i) the completion of a study that demonstrates the occurrence of residential displacement within the city and that a sub-regional live/work preference is needed to respond to or prevent displacement, and (ii) the city must enter into an agreement obligating the city to defend and indemnify the County against claims or litigation that may arise in connection with such preference.

D. To satisfy the County Requirements, the City commissioned the preparation of the City of Newark Policy Study – Evaluation of the Need for a Local Affordable Housing Live/Work Preference Given Displacement Risks, dated as of August 2022, and prepared by Seifel Consulting, Inc. and the Concord Group (the “Displacement Report”). The Displacement Report demonstrates that: (i) the City of Newark has experienced and is at risk for experiencing continued significant displacement of lower-income households, (ii) a City of Newark preference

C25062
2 is necessary to prevent additional displacement of lower-income households, (iii) a City of Newark preference will not result in limits to access to housing by any individual protected class, and (iv) the lower-income population that will be eligible for residency in affordable housing developments is more racially and ethnically diverse than the general population in the study area.

E. This Agreement is intended to satisfy the County Requirements for indemnification of the County against claims or litigation arising in connection with a City of Newark preference.

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

AGREEMENT

1. Displacement Report. The City commissioned the preparation of the Displacement Report that meets the County Requirements to complete a study that demonstrates the occurrence of residential displacement within the City of Newark and that sub-regional live/work preferences are needed to respond to or prevent displacement.

2. Cooperation in Event of Legal Challenge. In the event of an administrative, legal or equitable action or other proceeding instituted by a third party challenging the validity of the use of Measure A1 Funds for the Project , the City shall cooperate with the County in the County’s defense of such action or proceeding, including in any settlement negotiations; provided that the City shall not be obligated to expend any out-of-pocket costs therefor except as provided in Paragraph 3 below.

3. Indemnification by the City. The City agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend (by counsel selected by City and reasonably satisfactory to County) the County and its elected and appointed officers, officials, employees, agents, and consultants from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, liabilities, fines, penalties, charges, administrative and judicial proceedings and orders, judgments, and expenses (including without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses) arising in connection with any claim or legal action alleging that the City of Newark preference or the application thereof by the City violates applicable state, federal, or local law, including but not limited to federal housing law.

4. Due Authorization. The City represents and warrants that: (i) all actions necessary to authorize the execution of this Agreement and to undertake the actions contemplated hereby have been undertaken, and (ii) the person(s) executing this agreement on behalf of the City have been duly authorized to do so.

5. Waiver. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be deemed to have been made unless set forth in writing and signed by the party making the waiver.

6. Modifications in Writing. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by an instrument in writing signed by the Parties.

C25062
3 7. Notices. Any notice to be delivered to the Parties pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered by personal, overnight express, or courier service, with a written receipt, or sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed as follows, or to such other address as a Party may specify in written notice delivered to the other Party in accordance with this Section.

County: County of Alameda
Housing and Community Development Department
224 West Winton Ave., Room 108
Hayward, CA 94544-1215
Attention: Director
City: City of Newark
37101 Newark Boulevard
Newark, CA 94560
Attention: City Manager

8. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the final understanding and agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior written or oral negotiations, understandings and agreements between the Parties with respect thereto.

9. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall be deemed severed from this Agreement, and the remainder of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect as though such invalid or unenforceable provision had not been part of this Agreement.

10. Interpretation and Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be construed as though prepared by both Parties. This Agreement shall be construed, interpreted, and governed by the laws of the State of California.

11. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original, and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, a political
subdivision of the State of California
By:__________________________
Print Name: Michelle Starratt
Title: Director, Housing and Community
Development
ATTEST: ____________________
By:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Donna R. Ziegler, County Counsel
By: _________________________
Caitlyn M. Gulyas
Deputy County Counsel
CITY OF NEWARK, a municipal
corporation
By:__________________________
David Benoun, City Manager
ATTEST:

By:

Kathy Slafter, Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:_________________________
Kristopher Kokotaylo, City Attorney

bae urban economics
San Francisco Sacramento Los Angeles Washington DC Atlanta New York City www.bae1.com
Memorandum

To: Steven Turner, Community Development Director, City of Newark From: Paul Peninger, Principal
Date: July 11, 2024
Re: Local Preferences Policy Update
The purpose of this memo is to provide an overview of efforts to-date to establish a policy for providing Newark residents and workers with a preference when applying for new affordable housing opportunities.

Background
To ensure the availability of affordable housing opportunities to lower-income Newark residents and workers, the Affordable Housing Workplan adopted by the City Council in 2021 established the development of Local Preferences Policy for affordable housing as a key City priority. Housing Element Policy H4.1 (Develop programs that support homeowners and tenants remain in their homes and communities with a focus on low- and moderate-income residents and BIPOC Households) further carries forward the City’s commitment to developing a local preferences policy as an immediate implementation action in Program 4.1.

City staff have been working under this policy direction to complete the necessary studies and inter-agency coordination to establish an implementable local preferences policy.

Disparate Impact and Displacement Study
As an initial step in the development of a Local Preferences Policy and consistent with legal precedent and best practices in other jurisdictions1, Newark commissioned a consulting team led by Seifel Consulting to prepare a Live/Work Policy Study examining the need for such a policy based on displacement pressures affecting lower-income households, and also showing that the adopting of a policy would not have a disparate impact on protected classes of individuals under applicable Fair Housing laws and regulations.

This Study was completed in 2022 and showed clearly that lower-income Newark households may be subject to displacement pressures based on an examination of housing need and 1 See, for example, Redwood City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance and related study prepared by Seifel Consulting and the Concord Group:
2 housing costs. In addition, the Study showed that the adoption of a local tenant preferences policy would not have a disparate impact in terms of denying housing opportunities to particular protected classes of residents or workers.

Federal, State and Local Review of Proposed Policy
The Federal Government through the Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD), the State of California Housing and Community Development Department (CA HCD) and the Alameda County Housing and Community Development Department (County HCD) all have distinct roles in providing oversight and guidance on the adoption of local preferences policies, both as potential partners in funding and as regulatory agencies with a fair housing oversight and enforcement function.

City Staff have consulted with representatives from HUD and the County HCD regarding the Draft Seifel Study. CA HCD has not reviewed the Study but has reviewed and certified the City’s Housing Element, including the relevant policy and program as noted above.

HUD Comments. While stating that HUD does not have a formal approval role in reviewing local preference policies, HUD staff expressed concern that a policy in Newark might trigger fair housing concerns since a large percentage of the City’s residents are people of color and a local preferences policy might tend to promote the overconcentration of lower-income households in affordable housing. City staff and made the point that Newark is a diverse community with a range of household incomes across racial and ethnic groups. Moreover, the need for affordable housing to ameliorate displacement pressures on lower-income households is also clearly demonstrated in the Study.

Other jurisdictions in Alameda County have received similar comments, and in some cases have developed strategies for segmenting HUD funding sources in new affordable housing development otherwise subject to local preferences. HUD will not provide a formal endorsement or rejection of a local policy, but efforts should continue to be made to inform relevant HUD regional representatives of the City’s efforts around creating and implementing a local preferences policy.

State of CA HCD Oversight. The State has not reviewed or commented on the Seifel Study, but as noted above is aware of the City’s intent to create a local preferences policy through the adopted Housing Element. Per SB 649, effective January 1, 2023, local governments adopting a tenant preference are required to create a webpage on their internet website containing authorizing local ordinance and supporting materials, no more than 90 days after the ordinance becomes operational2. In addition, local governments are required to inform HCD 2 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fairhousing/tenant-preference-policies 3 about any local tenant preference ordinance the local government maintains when the jurisdiction submits their annual progress report (APR) on housing approvals and production3.

As the City moves forward with creating a local tenant preference, the requirements of SB 649 must also be followed, including creating a website, informing HCD and APR reporting., County of Alameda HCD Coordination. Separately from HUD and CA HCD, Alameda County HCD published guidelines around developing the policy justification for developing a local preferences policy. Staff shared the Draft Study with County HCD in late 2022 and discussed the Study findings with County HCD staff, and after a lengthy review process the City received written confirmation from the County on 7/25/24 that the Study has satisfactorily demonstrated the need for a local preference policy. Specifically, the letter states:

The study submitted made a finding that demonstrates residential displacement is occurring and/or is at high risk of occurring and that a need for a sub-regional live/work preference is needed to respond to prevent displacement.

With the letter, the County has provided approval for Newark to move forward with crafting a local preferences policy, provided as well that the City agrees to enter into an agreement to indemnify the County in a form approved by the County before the preference may be implemented
Next Steps
Staff and consultants will prepare a draft policy for Council review and comment. Once this is completed, Staff and consultants will develop a full policy for review by the Council and public comment, The final policy and adopting ordinance will be prepared consistent with the requirements of SB 649 and all other applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations. 3 See text of SB 649: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB649/id/2609435 Newark Inclusionary Housing - April 2025 1
DRAFT Residential Inclusionary Housing Program
for the City of Newark
Feasibility Study & Recommendations
TO: City of Newark
FROM: Community Planning Collaborative
SUBJECT: Residential Inclusionary Housing Program for the City of Newark Feasibility Study & Recommendations
DATE: April 15, 2025

0. Executive Summary Community Planning Collaborative (“CPC”) and Century Urban, LLC (“Century | Urban”) have been retained by the City of Newark (the “City”) to assist with evaluating a potential inclusionary housing requirement for new residential development, with the goals of maximizing production of new housing, with an emphasis on new affordable housing, and increasing access to affordable housing opportunities across the city and in high opportunity areas.

The City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element includes Policy H5.4 to amend the City’s existing ordinance to require residential developers to build affordable housing units rather than pay a fee. The City requested a residential feasibility analysis to evaluate the potential effect of implementing an inclusionary housing program to replace the City’s residential housing impact fee. No nexus study is associated with this analysis since the City specifically requested study of a “build first” inclusionary requirement rather than a fee. This report summarizes the approach to performing the feasibility analysis, the findings, and recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION:

The consultant team recommends the City consider adopting an inclusionary housing ordinance that requires 10% of new residential development to be affordable to lower income households (Very Low Income households in rental development and Moderate Income households in forsale development).

Newark Inclusionary Housing - April 2025 2

1. Background: Inclusionary Housing & Housing Impact Fees Inclusionary housing and housing impact fee policies connect the creation of affordable housing for low- and moderate income households to the construction of new market-rate residential or commercial development. Inclusionary housing policies were originally created to counteract exclusionary zoning policies that segregated communities, but today they serve many different purposes.

Inclusionary Housing is a policy that aims to increase the availability of affordable housing within a jurisdiction by requiring residential developers to include a certain percentage of affordable units within new residential developments alongside market-rate housing. “Affordable” in this context typically means units would be restricted to households with incomes at or below 120 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI), although jurisdictions may establish their own maximum and minimum AMI targets depending on their existing housing needs and market.

Housing Impact Fees are imposed on new residential or commercial real estate development to collect funds to build affordable housing. In the case of commercial development, fees are assessed based on the assumption that new commercial developments will employ or generate jobs for low- or moderate-income individuals. Because a jurisdiction does not currently have enough homes affordable to these employees, a commercial developer should pay a fee to support building affordable homes for the new workforce, thereby reducing the shortage of affordable homes.

Similarly, new market-rate residential developments create new households that generate demand for services. Those services create jobs for lower-wage employees who also need housing. Again, an impact fee imposed on these residential developments provides funds to build new affordable housing for this workforce.

There are pros and cons to each approach. Inclusionary housing policies tend to integrate affordable housing units with market-rate units, within the same neighborhood if not the same buildings. In addition, inclusionary affordable units are often delivered on the same schedule as the market-rate component.

On the other hand, while housing impact fees may take longer to deliver units since sufficient funding may need to accumulate over the course of multiple market-rate projects, they tend to support the development of 100% affordable housing projects that serve households with lower incomes and greater need. These 100% affordable housing projects may also leverage additional subsidy from other sources and may offer more comprehensive services targeted to their residents. Housing impact fees may also be preferable for small projects to make the long-term compliance and oversight responsibilities easier for the jurisdiction.

Both inclusionary housing requirements and housing impact fees need to be set carefully, to both enable as much affordable housing as possible and to ensure these requirements do not stymie overall development. Requirements set too low will leave affordable housing opportunities on Newark Inclusionary Housing - April 2025 3
the table; set too high, and new development becomes infeasible and no market-rate or affordable housing will be produced.

1.1 Existing Conditions in Newark
The City of Newark has had various affordable housing requirements (either inclusionary build requirements or housing impact fees) in place continuously since adopting its first inclusionary policy in 2004. Since 2015, the City of Newark has charged new development residential and commercial linkage impact fees on a per square foot basis. These funds contribute to the City’s Affordable Housing Impact Fee Fund, which has also been supported by federal and regional funding initiatives such as Alameda County Measure A1 and the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). Residential developers can request an Alternative Means of Compliance to payment of housing impact fees by providing affordable units on-site through an inclusionary program. While Resolution No. 10,184 establishes minimum percentages of on-site inclusionary affordable housing to be eligible for Alternative Means of Compliance, approval is still subject to a discretionary recommendation by the Planning Commission and acceptance by City Council.

The City's Affordable Housing Fund has financed 263 affordable homes in the last three years.

This compares to 208 inclusionary affordable units approved over the last 11 years through Alternative Means of Compliance instead of payment of the Affordable Housing Impact Fee. Of these inclusionary affordable units, 166 have been entitled or constructed as stand-alone affordable housing communities in two separate projects. The remaining 42 affordable units are entitled as integrated units within the Lepakshi Homes and NewPark Place Phase A projects.

Table 1: Affordable Housing Production under Newark’s Existing Housing Policy Affordable Housing Fund
● Cedar Community Apartments (Allied/Abode)*
● Timber Senior Housing (Eden Housing)*
● Thornton Avenue Apartments (SAHA)
TOTAL
Units
125 units
79 units
59 units
263 units
On-site Inclusionary (Alternative Means of Compliance)
● Newark Station Senior (SHH, Torian and Atrium Projects)* ● Terracina (FMC Willow and Harbor Pointe Projects)
● Newpark Mall Phase A
● Lepakshi Homes
TOTAL
Units
75 units
91 units
29 units
13 units
208 units
*Projects that have been built or which are under construction.

Newark Inclusionary Housing - April 2025 4
The Affordable Housing Impact Fee Fund has been very successful at generating funding for affordable housing in Newark, but there has been sustained City Council interest in implementing a “build-first” inclusionary requirement and streamlining approvals for on-site affordable housing. This analysis is intended to examine the feasibility of converting the existing residential impact fee into a requirement for developers to include affordable units within new developments.

1.2 Newark Stakeholder Engagement
Stakeholder Interviews
In August 2024 Community Planning Collaborative conducted interviews with affordable housing stakeholders, primarily affordable housing developers and advocates that operate in or near Newark. These included staff from Eden Housing, USA Housing, MidPen Housing, SAHA, and East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO, a policy advocacy organization).

All affordable housing stakeholders emphasized the importance of offering flexibility to developers by providing multiple alternatives for meeting Inclusionary Housing requirements and separating the affordable component from the market-rate component as much as possible (e.g., separating entitlements and financing paths), recognizing that jurisdictions need to maintain some leverage. Several stakeholders also noted that stand-alone affordable projects are often the most effective way to maximize affordable housing production, since affordable developers can leverage additional (federal, state, regional) funding sources and then provide more affordable units and deeper affordability than would be provided if a market-rate developer were to build the affordable units within a market-rate development.

In addition, all stakeholders reported high development costs, especially for affordable projects.

Total development costs for affordable projects in the Bay Area can range from $500,000 - $1,000,000 per unit with hard costs ranging from $300,000 - $600,000 per unit.

Overall, the affordable stakeholders interviewed believe that inclusionary housing policies should be structured to result in a range of choices by developers – with some affordable units integrated on-site, some built in a standalone project on-site or nearby, and other projects providing fees that fund 100% affordable projects to be developed by partners. They suggested that more flexibility and multiple alternatives allow projects to be more cost-effective while also streamlining the production of both market-rate and affordable units.

During a similar time frame, Century | Urban completed interviews with six additional members of the residential market-rate developer community, both rental and for-sale developers, that are or have recently been active in Newark. The purpose of these interviews was more technical in nature, to gather information regarding inputs for the feasibility analysis.

Newark Inclusionary Housing - April 2025 5
Development Community Outreach
The consultant team met twice with a set of developer stakeholders identified by City staff. At the initial meeting in November 2024, the team presented the methodology and discussed the development prototypes that would be studied. The developers offered feedback on the development prototypes, market conditions in Newark, data sources, potential additional interviewees, and approaches to the research.

The consultant team also presented the draft assumptions they were planning to use in the feasibility analysis models. The developers did not have many comments regarding specific assumptions, but offered general feedback that while the model outputs were not identical to their projections, directionally the model was on target.

The developer community also struck a cautionary note. They worried about the cumulative burden of all city requirements, including fees (see Appendix B for list of impact fees). They also felt strongly that it was important to provide as much flexibility as possible.

At the second convening of developer stakeholders in April 2025, the consultants presented draft results and recommendations. The developers who participated reiterated the importance of flexibility, including in design, product type, and parking standards. Other points included allowing for a reduction and/or deferral of fees, interest in the alternative means of compliance, and caution around implementation (standards for lease-up and marketing, compliance, etc.).

The developers also warned that the City should not expect development anytime soon with the current development environment.

2. Feasibility Analysis

2.1 Data Analysis
The goal of the feasibility analysis is to evaluate how new affordable housing requirements might affect the financial feasibility of housing development. Based on the data gathered, the consultant team built pro-formas (projections of costs and revenue) and estimated the minimum profit threshold for projects to be viable. They then modeled how profitability changed based on new affordable housing requirements.

In addition to stakeholder interviews, the consultant team reviewed city records including pipeline reports, information about recent developments, and the impact fee schedule. They analyzed both public and private databases, which informed inputs like rental rates and sale prices, and reviewed financial reports from a variety of sources.

2.2 Development Prototypes
To prepare the feasibility analysis, Century | Urban worked with the City and CPC to establish six Newark Inclusionary Housing - April 2025 6
residential development prototypes:
● Multifamily Rental
This prototype assumes a 7-story mid-rise Type III
over Type I construction project with a parking ratio
of 1.6 stalls per unit provided in a podium garage.
● Multifamily Infill Rental
This prototype assumes a 4-story Type V
construction project with a parking ratio of 1.5 stalls per unit provided through surface parking.
● Townhome Rental
This prototype assumes 3-story Type V construction
townhomes with a parking ratio of 2.5 stalls per unit
provided through surface parking and in-unit
garages.
● Condominium For-Sale
This prototype assumes a 5-story Type V over Type I
construction project with a parking ratio of 1.6 stalls per unit provided in a podium garage.

Newark Inclusionary Housing - April 2025 7
● Townhome For Sale
This prototype assumes 3-story Type V construction
townhomes with a parking ratio of 2.5 stalls per unit
provided through surface parking and in-unit
garages.
● Single Family Home For Sale
This prototype assumes 2-story Type V construction
detached homes with a parking ratio of 2.7 stalls per
unit provided through surface parking and in-unit
garages.

The prototype parameters were informed by development pipeline activity in the City. The parameters of each prototype are summarized in the table below.

Table 2: Prototype Parameters
Multifamily
Rental
Multifamily
Infill Rental
Townhome
Rental
Condo
For Sale
Townhome
For Sale
Single
Family For
Sale
Units 320 75 160 88 160 203
Acres 4 1.5 7.6 1.3 7.6 29
Unit
Mix
Studio – 13%
1BR – 56%
2BR – 29%
3BR – 2%
1BR – 60%,
2BR – 40%
2 BR – 30%
3 BR – 70%
1BR – 36%
2BR – 52%
3BR – 8%
4BR – 3%
2 BR – 30%
3 BR – 70% 4BR – 100%
Unit
Size (sf)
Average:
825 sf
Average:
715 sf
Average:
1,650 sf
Average:
1,370 sf 1,650 sf 2,800 sf
Average
Parking
per unit

1.6 1.5 2.5 1.6 2.5 2.7
It is important to note that the prototype analysis is based on a snapshot in time, and in real estate economics, conditions can change quickly. Additionally, the prototypes may already assume waivers or incentives (such as reduced parking requirements because of a specific plan or use of the density bonus) that improve project feasibility.

Newark Inclusionary Housing - April 2025 8
Lastly, while the analysis studied typical developments based on a variety of data sources and stakeholder input, every real development is unique, and some will be more or less feasible than the prototype analysis indicates.

2.3 Feasibility Analysis Input Assumptions
Input assumptions to prepare the feasibility analysis such as development costs (e.g., hard costs, soft costs, and land costs), revenues, expenses, and target returns were developed via market research including interviews with developers who are currently developing or have previously developed projects in Newark.

Development Costs
Development costs were separated into hard costs, soft costs, land costs, sales/closing costs and impact fees. Soft costs were reflected as a percentage of hard costs. The hard costs ranged from $150 per square foot for single family homes to $405 per square foot for condominiums. Soft costs averaged ten to twelve percent of hard costs. Land costs varied dramatically from $54,000 per multifamily rental unit to $850,000 per single family home. Sales/closing costs averaged three percent for the for-sale products.

Newark has several impact fees for new development, including the aforementioned housing impact fee on both new residential and commercial development that funds affordable housing.

One of the City’s goals is to shift this impact fee to an on-site inclusionary requirement. This shift would revise the City’s inclusionary housing requirement for residential development to prioritize the provision of units restricted to low- and moderate-income households on site, whereas at present the requirement for new residential development is payment of the housing impact fee.

To assess the impact of a new on-site inclusionary requirement that would replace the current housing impact fee requirement, an adjustment is made to exclude the current fee (or any affordable housing requirement) from the baseline feasibility analysis of current conditions, as demonstrated in Table 3.

Table 3: Development Costs Assumptions
Multifamily
Rental
Multifamily
Infill Rental
Townhome
Rental
Condo
For Sale
Townhome
For Sale
Single
Family For
Sale
Hard Costs
(per SF) $365 $250 $200 $405 $200 $150
Soft Costs (%
of Hard Costs) 10% 10% 12% 11% 12% 11%
Land Cost (per
unit) $54,000 $87,000 $390,000 $62,000 $390,000 $850,000 Newark Inclusionary Housing - April 2025 9
Land Cost (%
of Total Devt
Cost)

10.26% 20.79% 45.72% 7.28% 45.72% 59.1%
Sales
Commissions
and Closing
Costs
NA NA NA 3% 3% 3%
Impact Fees
(per unit) $79,000 $76,000 $106,000 $94,000 $106,000 $133,000 Impact Fees
(per unit)

WITHOUT
Existing HIF
$58,000 $58,000 $75,000 $65,000 $75,000 $91,000
Revenue
The below chart describes expected average revenue (not profit) to the developer/owner for each development prototype analyzed. For rental development, revenue includes rent (minus vacancy) plus other revenue (such as laundry). For for-sale developments, revenue is the gross proceeds from the sale of the units.

Table 4: Revenue Assumptions
Multifamily
Rental
Multifamily
Infill Rental
Townhome
Rental
Condo
For Sale
Townhome
For Sale
Single
Family
For Sale
Average
Market
Rents (per
SF per
month)
$3.75 $3.65 $2.70 – – –
Vacancy
Rate 5% 5% 5% – – –
Average
Market
Prices (per
SF)
– – – $725 $710 $690
Operating Costs
Operating costs for rental developments include such things as management cost, repairs, property taxes, insurance, etc. For the multifamily rental prototype, the operating cost is estimated at $6,500 per unit per year, or 31.65% of gross residential revenue. For the multifamily infill rental prototype, the operating cost is estimated at $6,000 per unit per year, or 32.92% of Newark Inclusionary Housing - April 2025 10
gross residential revenue. For the rental townhome prototype, it is estimated at $2,000 per unit per year, or 20.21% of gross residential revenue.

Profit
The target return metric is the minimum profit threshold needed for a development to go forward. The analysis to evaluate the feasibility of rental residential development is “yield on cost”, while the analysis for for-sale development calculates the profit as a percent of development cost. “Yield on cost” is calculated by dividing annual net operating income by total development costs.

The target return for the rental developments is a 7.75% yield on cost. The target for for-sale developments is a 20-25% return as a percent of development cost.

Typically, a development’s profitability meets the target return. If revenue is higher or costs are lower, land prices tend to absorb excess profits, and profitability hovers around targeted levels.

There are rarely excess profits to support other expenses or policy priorities.

Feasibility can change quickly based on market conditions, in particular sales/rental price and construction cost. Small changes in rent dramatically affect the feasibility of projects. For that reason, what is feasible today may not be feasible in the past or in the future, and vice versa.

Only the Townhome For Sale and Single Family For Sale prototypes are feasible under today’s market and regulatory conditions.

Table 5: Baseline Feasibility under Current Conditions (including the Housing Impact Fee) Multifamily
Rental
Multifamily
Infill Rental
Townhome
Rental
Condo
For Sale
Townhome
For Sale
Single
Family
For Sale
Metric Yield on Cost Yield on Cost Yield on Cost Profit as % of Cost
Profit as % of
Cost
Profit as
% of Cost
Target
Return 7.75% 7.75% 7.75% 20.0% 25.0% 25.0%
Projected
Return
with HIF

4.6% 5.1% 4.6% 9.0% 28.3% 26.5%

2.4 Peer City Comparison
Inclusionary housing is already very common in Alameda County today.

Below is a list of inclusionary housing requirements from nearby cities or cities with similar development patterns to Newark. Affordability requirements in these cities ranged from 10 to 20 percent of new units, but details vary from community to community.

Newark Inclusionary Housing - April 2025 11
Table 6: Peer City Inclusionary Policies
City / Original Policy Adoption
Date and Latest Update % Inclusionary Rental % Inclusionary For-Sale Albany / 2005, 2024
Rental projects with 5+ units
15% requirement
● 5-6 units: In-lieu fee
● 7-9 units: 15% @ 80% AMI
● 10+ units: 7.5% at 50%
AMI, 7.5% at 80% AMI
For-sale projects with 5+ units
15% requirement
● 5-6 units: In-lieu fee
● 7-9 units: 15% @ 80% AMI
● 10+ units: 7.5% at 50% AMI,

7.5% at 80% AMI
Dublin / 2002, 2024
Projects with 10+ units for
rental and condos (density of
30+ units/acre)
10% requirement
● 10% @ 50-80% AMI
For-sale projects with 10+ units,
including condos with density
of <30 units/acre)
15% requirement
● 6% @ 50-80% AMI
● 9% @ 80-110% AMI
Emeryville / 1990, 2015
Baseline: Impact fee
Onsite alternative for all rental
projects: 12% requirement
● 4% @ 50% AMI
● 8% @ 80% AMI
For-sale projects with 10+ units
20% @ 120% AMI
Fremont / 2002, 2021
Rental projects with 2+ units
10% @ 60% AMI
All for-sale projects
15% requirement
● 10% @ 70% AMI
● 5% @ 110% AMI
San Leandro / 2004, 2020
Rental projects with 4+ units
(projects with <4 units are
exempt)
15% requirement
● 9% @ 50% AMI
● 6% @ 60% AMI
For-sale projects with 7+ units
(projects with 2-6 units can pay
fee, projects with <2 units are
exempt)
15% requirement
● 6% @ 80% AMI
● 9% @ 120% AMI
Union City / 2002, 2025
All rental projects (projects
with <7 units can pay a fee)
15% requirement
● 4.5% @ 50% AMI
● 10.5% @ 80% AMI
All for-sale projects (projects
with <7 units can pay a fee)
15% requirement
● 1.5% @ 80% AMI
● 4.5% @ 100% AMI
● 9% @ 120% AMI
Newark Inclusionary Housing - April 2025 12
The threshold at which inclusionary requirements are imposed vary widely, ranging from 1 unit (in Union City, the requirement applies to residential projects of all sizes) to 20 units (Dublin). In most cases, projects under 7-10 units tend to or are required to pay an in lieu fee rather than provide the affordable units on-site. This relates to feasibility as well as the complexity of longterm compliance and monitoring of affordable units scattered across development projects.

3. Inclusionary Housing Analysis & Recommendations

3.1 Analysis
Summarizing the potential effect of on-site inclusionary housing on new development is not straightforward. Both the percentage of units required to be affordable (e.g. 10% of the units will be affordable) as well as the level of affordability for those units (e.g., low-income, very lowincome, etc.) need to be assumed. Building inclusionary affordable units reduces rental and sales revenue, which in turn reduces the amount of development cost that a project can support. As such, on-site inclusionary housing can be thought of as a cost of development similar to a development impact fee. Projected returns/profitability must be high enough to absorb the additional cost, or land costs must be able to adjust to maintain targeted returns/profitability.

Projected returns are modeled with the existing housing impact fee removed to provide a baseline to which a proposed inclusionary requirement can be added. While reducing or waiving the affordable housing impact fee would slightly improve profitability, this would not on its own make feasible any of the development prototypes that are currently infeasible. Note that the projected returns under today’s existing conditions (“Projected Return with HIF”), including the housing impact fee, is the baseline for comparison.

The table below summarizes four key results:

1. Projected return with the existing housing impact fee requirement

2. Projected return without the existing housing impact fee requirement

3. Projected return with a 10% on-site inclusionary requirement:
● For rental developments, we looked at the return when 10% of the units are affordable on average to very low-income households (50% of area median income).
o For context, the rent for a two-bedroom unit would be approximately $1,750 or $1,950 for a three-bedroom unit.
o A project could include units restricted at multiple levels of affordability up Newark Inclusionary Housing - April 2025 13
to 80% of AMI, as long as rents and rent restrictions for the units collectively average out at or below 50% of AMI.
● For for-sale developments, we looked at the return when 10% of the units are affordable on average to households making 110% of the area median income. o For context, the sales price for a three-bedroom home would be approximately $435,000.
o A project could include units restricted at multiple levels of affordability up to 120% of AMI as long as the affordable units collectively average out at or below 110% of AMI.

4. Projected return with a 10% on-site inclusionary requirement, assuming a 5% increase in market rents/prices. This calculation is provided for illustrative purposes only, to provide a sense of how sensitive return calculations are to changes in the market.

A 10% inclusionary requirement at the 50% and 110% AMI levels provides returns that are similar to but slightly lower than today’s conditions with the housing impact fee.

The analysis was conservative in several respects. If the City provides flexibility to developers, such as letting them cluster their affordable units, the requirements would have less of an effect on projected returns. For example, the single family home for-sale prototype assumes large homes on large lots. If developers could provide an equal number of bedrooms, but smaller homes on smaller lots, the cost would be less and projected return higher.

The model also does not consider potential revenue increases associated with State Density Bonus or other incentives. Because of this, projected returns could be higher than modeled.

In general, a modest 10 percent inclusionary requirement would result in similar but slightly reduced projected returns as compared to the current fee requirement. The townhome and single family for-sale prototypes do see a larger dip in returns with a 10% moderate income inclusionary requirement.

Table 7: Feasibility Results
Multifamily
Rental
Multifamily
Infill Rental
Townhome
Rental
Condo
For Sale
Townhome
For Sale
Single
Family For
Sale
Target Return 7.75% 7.75% 7.75% 20.0% 25.0% 25.0%
Projected
Return with
HIF

4.6% 5.1% 4.6% 9.0% 28.5% 26.5%
Projected
Return

WITHOUT HIF

4.8% 5.4% 4.8% 13.2% 33.2% 30.2%
Newark Inclusionary Housing - April 2025 14
Projected
Return with
10% Set Aside

4.5% 5.2% 4.5% 5.7% 24.2% 19.4%
Projected
Return with
10% Set Aside
AND 5%
increase in
market rents
or sales prices

4.8% 5.4% 4.7% 10.6% 30.1% 25.2%

3.2 Recommendations
Based on the feasibility analysis findings, the current development market in Newark is not currently conducive to many new development typologies. Current conditions confirm this, as there are few developers actively processing new entitlements or approvals with the City, with the exception of large townhomes and single family homes.

We recommend that Newark convert its fee-first requirement to a modest build-first inclusionary requirement. Making the switch should have minimal impact on the current pipeline, and it will position the City well to have this requirement in place when market conditions improve.

Affordability
requirement (rental
and for sale)
10% of new units
Affordability levels Target average of 50% of AMI for rental units, maximum 80% AMI Target average of 110% of AMI for for-sale units, maximum 120% AMI
CA Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5(b) for owner occupied housing and Section 50053(b) for rental housing.

Minimum size
threshold
Fractional units
All residential development projects have an affordable housing obligation. Projects with fewer than 20 units pay the in lieu fee, unless otherwise specified in another ordinance
When there are fractional unit obligations of 0.5 or more units, the development sponsor shall round up to 1 unit. For example, a 27 unit project would include 3 affordable units (10% of 27 = 2.7, rounded up to 3 units). When there are fractional unit obligations of less than 0.5, the sponsor shall pay an equivalent in-lieu fee for that fractional unit. A project with 32 total units would provide 3 units Newark Inclusionary Housing - April 2025 15
and an in-lieu fee for the equivalent of 20% of a unit (10% of 32 =

3.2).

The City would calculate the in-lieu fee for the total project on a per square foot basis, divide that by the number of total units to get a per unit figure, and then apply the fractional percentage to that fee amount.

Alternative
compliance options
State law requires cities to provide at least one alternative method to comply with the inclusionary housing requirements. Additionally, alternatives offer additional means for developers to meet their financial feasibility thresholds, without which no development would occur. The City strongly prefers developers to include the units onsite but will consider the below options on a case-by-case basis:
● In Lieu Fee: Allow developers to pay a fee instead of building the unit. The fee would allow the City to work with nonprofits to build affordable homes. The City will set the in lieu fee levels using the existing impact fee schedule and its annual escalator. City Council approval
● On-site/Adjacent: Allow developers to cluster affordable units on site, including in different housing types (e.g. allowing duplexes or small apartments instead of singlefamily homes). City Manager approval ● Offsite: Allow development of the affordable housing
obligation at another location (by the developer or
potentially with an approved affordable housing
development partner) with a preference for development
locations in a high or highest resource area as determined by HCD and TCAC and within 0.5 miles of high-frequency public transit. Planning Commission and City Council approval
● Land Donation: Allow developers to offer a site valued at at least the equivalent of the in lieu fee level with a preference for development locations in a high or highest resource area as determined by HCD and TCAC and within 0.5 miles of highfrequency public transit. The City has the sole right to accept or reject a proposed site. Planning Commission and City Council approval
Newark Inclusionary Housing - April 2025 16
● Other: Allow developers to propose an alternative means of developing new affordable housing in Newark, subject to Planning Commission and City Council approval. The
developer must demonstrate that the proposed alternative will create more homes affordable to low-income households than would the Inclusionary Housing policy or other
alternatives, with a measurable timeline for unit completion and occupancy, and penalties for failure to deliver. Planning Commission and City Council approval
Methodology Use rent and income limits using HCD-published rent and income limits (HCD State Income Limits).

When setting sales/rent prices, it is important to have a window of affordability to have a pool of households that can afford the unit but also qualify. It is also important to ensure that rents and sales prices are set below market, as potential renters will not subject themselves to the more complex income qualification process for affordable units if they can find an unrestricted unit that meets their needs.

Rental: As of April 2025, the affordable prices for apartments at 50% of AMI were:
● Studio - $1,362
● One bedroom - $1,557
● Two bedroom - $1,752
● Three bedroom - $1,946
● Four bedroom - $2,102
For sale: As of April 2025, the affordable prices for for-sale units at 110% of AMI were in the following ranges:
● One bedroom - $300,000
● Two bedroom $350,000 to $400,000
● Three bedroom - $400,000 to $450,000
● Four bedroom - $450,000 to $500,000
Note the exact price for for-sale is particularly hard to calculate in a theoretical development, because it depends on many factors that are development specific (like HOA charges) and inputs that change quickly, including interest rates.

Newark Inclusionary Housing - April 2025 17
Equivalent design
requirements
Unless the City finds compelling reasons to the contrary, the affordable units shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the development, and the mix and type of affordable units shall be proportionate to those of the project as a whole. Affordable units shall have comparable bedroom counts but may be of smaller square footage. The interior finishes of affordable units may differ from those in the market rate units but must be functionally equivalent, new, durable and of good quality. Exterior finishes shall be comparable to the market rate units.

Residents of affordable units shall have the same access to the development’s site amenities (such as a community room, pool, other recreational facilities) as residents of the market rate units.

The City may also consider other alternative affordable options at its discretion.

Affordable units shall be delivered on the same timeframe as the market-rate units.

Effective date Housing projects that file an application for any use permit, design review approval, or subdivision map 30 days after the effective date of this ordinance will be subject to the requirements of Chapter

17.18: Affordable Housing.

Resale guidance Sale and resale prices of affordable units designated for owner occupancy will be subject to the City’s BMR program regulations and administrative guidance.

The resale restrictions shall provide an option for the City to purchase any affordable owner-occupancy unit at the maximum affordable price or the appraised value, whichever is lower, that could be charged to a purchaser household, at any time the owner proposes sale.

Length of
affordability/deed
restriction
Rental: In perpetuity or 99 years.

For sale: 99 years resetting upon resale, pending legal guidance Local preferences Owners must commit to following the City’s local preference policy (to be adopted concurrently with this ordinance), giving priority to Newark Inclusionary Housing - April 2025 18
people who live and/or work in the City of Newark. This is a requirement both at initial lease-up and on an ongoing basis.

Monitoring and
compliance
Agreements involving rental units shall require the owner of the affordable units to ensure that the units are occupied by tenants whose monthly income levels do not exceed very low-, low-, or moderate-income levels, as the case may be, and shall preclude tenants from subletting or subleasing the unit.

The agreement shall also require the owner of the affordable unit to submit an annual report to the City, in a format approved by the City. The report shall include, but not be limited to, the following information: an identification of the affordable units within the project; the monthly rents charged and proposed to be charged; vacancy information for the prior year; and the monthly income for tenants of each affordable unit throughout the prior year.

Monitoring and
compliance fee
The City has the right to charge rental property owners an annual monitoring and compliance fee.

Re-evaluation ● Have staff submit an annual report to the Planning Commission and City Council
● Revaluate standards after three years
Newark Inclusionary Housing - April 2025 19
Appendix A - Assumptions
Rental Development Prototype 1A: Multifamily Apartments Number of Units 320
Site Area 4 Acres
Parking Ratio 1.6 Stall per unit
Common Area 46,588 SF
Commercial Space Square Footage n/a
Commercial Space Rent n/a
Other Rental Income $125 per unit
Unit Mix Studio: 13%, 1BR: 56%, 2BR: 29%, 3BR: 2%
Unit Size 825 SF
Market Rents $3.75 PSF per month
Market Prices n/a
Development Costs
Construction Type 7-story mid-rise Type III over Type I Construction Costs See Below
Hard Costs (can be bundled under construction costs) $365 PSF Soft Costs (can be bundled under construction costs) 10% Land Cost $54,000 per unit
Cost per Parking Space Included in Hard Costs
Sales and Marketing Cost (Can be bundled) Included in Soft Costs Other Development Costs Included in Hard Costs
Impact Fees $79,000 per unit
Condo Wrap Insurance Included in Soft Costs
Operating Costs
Rental Vacancy Rates 5%
Rental Operating Costs $6,500 per unit
Financing
Construction Loan Interest Rate 8%
Loan to Cost Ratio 55%
Period of Initial Loan 24 months
Initial Construction Loan Fee 1.0% of Total Loan Amount Average Outstanding Balance 50.0% of Total Loan Amount
Permanent Loan Interest Rate n/a
Permanent Loan Rate n/a
Profitability
What method do we want to use? Yield on Cost
What's the threshold? 7.75%
Cap Rate 6.75%
Newark Inclusionary Housing - April 2025 20
Rental Development Prototype 1A-2: Multifamily Infill
Apartments
Number of Units 75
Site Area 1.5 Acres
Parking Ratio 1.5 Stall per unit
Common Area 9,455 SF
Commercial Space Square Footage n/a
Commercial Space Rent n/a
Other Rental Income $125 per unit
Unit Mix 1BR: 60%, 2BR: 40%
Unit Size 715 SF
Market Rents $3.65 PSF per month
Market Prices n/a
Development Costs
Construction Type 4-story Type V
Construction Costs See Below
Hard Costs (can be bundled under construction costs) $250 PSF Soft Costs (can be bundled under construction costs) 10% Land Cost $87,000 per unit
Cost per Parking Space Included in Hard Costs
Sales and Marketing Cost (Can be bundled) Included in Soft Costs Other Development Costs Included in Hard Costs
Impact Fees $76,000 per unit
Condo Wrap Insurance Included in Soft Costs
Operating Costs
Rental Vacancy Rates 5%
Rental Operating Costs $6,000 per unit
Financing
Construction Loan Interest Rate 8%
Loan to Cost Ratio 55%
Period of Initial Loan 18 months
Initial Construction Loan Fee 1.0% of Total Loan Amount Average Outstanding Balance 50.0% of Total Loan Amount
Permanent Loan Interest Rate n/a
Permanent Loan Rate n/a
Profitability
What method do we want to use? Yield on Cost
What's the threshold? 7.75%
Cap Rate 6.75%
Newark Inclusionary Housing - April 2025 21
Rental Development Prototype 1B: Townhome
Number of Units 160
Site Area 7.6 Acres
Parking Ratio 2.5 Stall per unit
Common Area n/a
Commercial Space Square Footage n/a
Commercial Space Rent n/a
Other Rental Income $0 per unit
Unit Mix 2BR: 30%, 3BR: 70%
Unit Size 1,650 SF
Market Rents $2.70 PSF per month
Market Prices n/a
Development Costs
Construction Type 3-story Type V
Construction Costs See Below
Hard Costs (can be bundled under construction costs) $200 PSF Soft Costs (can be bundled under construction costs) 12% Land Cost $390,000 per unit
Cost per Parking Space Included in Hard Costs
Sales and Marketing Cost (Can be bundled) Included in Soft Costs Other Development Costs Included in Hard Costs
Impact Fees $106,000 per unit
Condo Wrap Insurance Included in Soft Costs
Operating Costs a
Rental Vacancy Rates 5%
Rental Operating Costs $2,000
Financing
Construction Loan Interest Rate 8%
Loan to Cost Ratio 60%
Period of Initial Loan 8 months
Initial Construction Loan Fee 1.0% of Total Loan Amount Average Outstanding Balance 50.0% of Total Loan Amount
Permanent Loan Interest Rate n/a
Permanent Loan Rate n/a
Profitability
What method do we want to use? Yield on Cost
What's the threshold? 7.75%
Cap Rate 6.75%
Newark Inclusionary Housing - April 2025 22
For-Sale Development Prototype 2A: Condominiums
Number of Units 88
Site Area 1.3 Acres
Parking Ratio 1.6 Stall per unit
Common Area 13,396 SF
Commercial Space Square Footage n/a
Commercial Space Rent n/a
Other Rental Income n/a
Unit Mix 1BR: 36%, 2BR: 52%, 3BR: 8%, 4BR: 3%
Unit Size 1,370 SF
Market Rents n/a
Market Prices $725 PSF
Development Costs
Construction Type 5-story Type V over Type I
Construction Costs See Below
Hard Costs (can be bundled under construction costs) $405 PSF Soft Costs (can be bundled under construction costs) 11% Land Cost $62,000 per unit
Cost per Parking Space Included in Hard Costs
Sales and Marketing Cost (Can be bundled) 3%
Other Development Costs Included in Hard Costs
Impact Fees $94,000 per unit
Condo Wrap Insurance Included in Soft Costs
Operating Costs
Rental Vacancy Rates n/a
Rental Operating Costs n/a
Financing
Construction Loan Interest Rate 8%
Loan to Cost Ratio 55%
Period of Initial Loan 24 months
Initial Construction Loan Fee 1.0% of Total Loan Amount Average Outstanding Balance 50.0% of Total Loan Amount
Permanent Loan Interest Rate n/a
Permanent Loan Rate n/a
Profitability
What method do we want to use? Profit as % of Cost
What's the threshold? 20%
Cap Rate n/a
Newark Inclusionary Housing - April 2025 23
For-Sale Development Prototype 2B: Townhome
Number of Units 160
Site Area 7.6 Acres
Parking Ratio 2.5 Stall per unit
Common Area n/a
Commercial Space Square Footage n/a
Commercial Space Rent n/a
Other Rental Income n/a
Unit Mix 2BR: 30%, 3BR: 70%
Unit Size 1,650 SF
Market Rents n/a
Market Prices $710 PSF
Development Costs
Construction Type 3-story Type V
Construction Costs See Below
Hard Costs (can be bundled under construction costs) $200 PSF Soft Costs (can be bundled under construction costs) 12% Land Cost $390,000 per unit
Cost per Parking Space Included in Hard Costs
Sales and Marketing Cost (Can be bundled) 3%
Other Development Costs Included in Hard Costs
Impact Fees $106,000 per unit
Condo Wrap Insurance n/a
Operating Costs
Rental Vacancy Rates n/a
Rental Operating Costs n/a
Financing
Construction Loan Interest Rate 8%
Loan to Cost Ratio 60%
Period of Initial Loan 8 months
Initial Construction Loan Fee 1.0% of Total Loan Amount Average Outstanding Balance 50.0% of Total Loan Amount
Permanent Loan Interest Rate n/a
Permanent Loan Rate n/a
Profitability
What method do we want to use? Profit as % of Cost
What's the threshold? 25%
Cap Rate n/a
Newark Inclusionary Housing - April 2025 24
For - Sale Development Prototype 2C: Single-Family Home Number of Units 203
Site Area 29 Acres
Parking Ratio 2.7 Stall per unit
Common Area n/a
Commercial Space Square Footage n/a
Commercial Space Rent n/a
Other Rental Income n/a
Unit Mix 4BR: 100%
Unit Size 2,800 SF
Market Rents n/a
Market Prices $690 PSF
Development Costs
Construction Type 2-story Type V
Construction Costs See Below
Hard Costs (can be bundled under construction costs) $150 PSF Soft Costs (can be bundled under construction costs) 11% Land Cost $850,000 per unit
Cost per Parking Space Included in Hard Costs
Sales and Marketing Cost (Can be bundled) 3%
Other Development Costs Included in Hard Costs
Impact Fees $133,000 per unit
Condo Wrap Insurance n/a
Operating Costs
Rental Vacancy Rates n/a
Rental Operating Costs n/a
Financing
Construction Loan Interest Rate 8%
Loan to Cost Ratio 60%
Period of Initial Loan 8 months
Initial Construction Loan Fee 1.0% of Total Loan Amount Average Outstanding Balance 50.0% of Total Loan Amount
Permanent Loan Interest Rate n/a
Permanent Loan Rate n/a
Profitability
What method do we want to use? Profit as % of Cost
What's the threshold? 25%
Cap Rate n/a
Newark Inclusionary Housing - April 2025 25
Appendix B - City-Required Fees
Current Build Requirements as an Alternative Means of Compliance As adopted by Resolution No. 10,184 (2014)
Project Type % Build On-site
(Alternative Means)
Single family large lot
21%
● 11% VLI
● 5% LI
● 5% Mod
Single family small lot
19%
● 10% VLI
● 5% LI
● 4% Mod
Townhouse
16%
● 8% VLI
● 4% LI
● 4% Mod
Condos (multifamily for sale)
17%
● 9% VLI
● 4% LI
● 4% Mod
Apartments (multifamily rental)
12%
● 6% VLI
● 3% LI
● 3% Mod
2024-2025 Housing Impact Fees on Residential Development ● First 1,000 sf floor area/unit: $24.68 psf
● All sf over 1,000 sf floor area/unit: $9.89 psf
Impact Fees on Residential Development
● Park Impact Fee
● Public Safety
● Community Service/Facilities
● Transportation
● Housing
● Community Development Maintenance
● Water Capacity
● Sewer Permit and Inspection
● Unified School District

Item F. 1.

DATE 01/08/2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Michael Coulom, Housing Policy and Programs Manager SUBJECT Waive full reading and by title only introduce an ordinance adding Chapter 5.45 and adding Chapter 5.50 to the Newark Municipal Code to establish Residential Landlord and Tenant Relations regulations and a Rent Review program, and adopt a resolution to amend the 2024-2026 Biennial Budget and Capital Improvement Plan to fund the Emergency Rental Assistance Program.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
At its regular meeting on October 26, 2023, the City Council held a public hearing and voted unanimously to adopt the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Update to the General Plan. The Housing Element includes 7 goals, 35 policies, and 45 programs.

Among these are several program commitments that aim to reduce residential displacement and entrances into homelessness. In many cases, these commitments duplicate or complement existing state law and/or services provided by Alameda County.

Staff recommends that the City Council waive full reading and introduce by title only an ordinance adding Chapter 5.45 to the Newark Municipal Code to establish Residential Landlord and Tenant Relations regulations, including provisions related to residential evictions, relocation assistance, and anti-harassment; and adding Chapter 5.50 to the Newark Municipal Code to establish a Rent Review Ordinance (Attachment 1).

Staff additionally recommend City Council, by resolution, approve an amendment to the 2024-2026 Biennial Budget and Capital Improvement Plan to appropriate $250,000 from the unappropriated fund balance of Housing Impact Fee Fund (Account 623) to fund the Emergency Rental Assistance Program, of which such monies shall be used for direct financial assistance and a contract services agreement for a program administrator (Attachment 2).

BACKGROUND
City Council adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element in November 2023 following an City Council adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element in November 2023 following an extensive community engagement process and supported by a broad body of qualitative and quantitative data (Attachment 3). The Housing Element includes 45 unique programs designed to achieve seven goals that collectively address the housing needs of everyone in the Newark community, at all income levels.

Goal H4: Help People Stay In Their Homes and Communities focuses extensively on tenant rights in order to reduce displacement and prevent homelessness. While preventing displacement is essential for community and economic stability, homelessness prevention programs are significantly more cost-effective than homeless services and rehousing programs, according to Alameda County Health’s Homelessness Prevention Framework (Attachment 4). Prevention strategies also squarely align with the Alameda County Home Together Plan, which City Council endorsed by resolution at its May 12, 2022 meeting (Attachment 5).

The Housing Element process – inclusive of community engagement, stakeholder feedback, and alignment with county and regional objectives – culminated in commitments to implement the following programs:

H4.1: Develop Anti-Displacement Programs for the Old-Town Newark Specific Plan Area, including adopting and implementing a local preference policy for below-market rate units
H4.2: Develop a Tenant/Community Opportunity (TOPA/COPA) to Purchase Policy to facilitate pathways to homeownership for renters H4.3: Develop a Just Cause Eviction Ordinance to protect tenants should the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (Assembly Bill 1482, Chiu, 2019) (AB 1482) expire in 2029
H4.6: Support Tenant Stability Through Minimum Lease Terms and Relocation Assistance by adopting an ordinance outlining minimum terms for leasing residential property in the City and standards for providing relocation assistance Each Housing Element program includes quantified objectives for program implementation, including measurable outcomes and deadlines by which the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) will monitor progress.

With the exception of H4.2: TOPA/COPA, all of these programs have implementation deadlines on or before June 30, 2025, with HCD review and monitoring by December 31, 2026.

Community Engagement Summary
Staff, supported by Community Planning Collaborative (CPC), began extensive community and stakeholder engagement in the summer of 2024 through June 2025.

The purpose of this work was to inform the details of how Housing Element programs should be implemented and confirm their applicability to current needs. Activities included a mix of online and in-person workshops where feedback was collected through surveys, interviews, and group discussions. These opportunities were promoted to the community via the City of Newark’s Facebook page, participation at Newark Days, mailed flyers to local property owners, an article in the September 2024 Newark News newsletter, the City’s text communications channel, and the City’s housing website and the Planning & Housing Division webpage of the main City website. Meetings and surveys were conducted in English and Spanish.

Staff and CPC conducted the following community engagement activities:

Newark Days, September 22, 2024: Flyer distribution, fielding questions, and taking feedback
Virtual Community Workshop, October 23, 2024: Advertised via the Newark News, City website, Facebook, TextMyGov, emails to the Housing Element interest list, and 240 rental property owners
In-Person Promotores Workshop, October 30, 2024: Conducted in Spanish Online Survey, September 18 – November 8, 2024: Conducted in English and Spanish
Stakeholder Interviews over the course of 2024 and 2025 with: Centro Legal, Community Resources for Independent Living, ECHO Housing, East Bay Housing Organizations, East Bay Rental Housing Association, Rental Housing Association of Southern Alameda County, Bay East Association of Realtors, California Apartment Association, Alameda County Housing and Community Development Department
Focus group with landlords/members of the East Bay Rental Housing Association and Rental Housing Association of Southern Alameda County, March 26, 2025 Public comment period of draft Tenant Protections proposals, May 21 – June 13, 2025
Key takeaways from community and stakeholder engagement include:

General support for Tenant Protections among renters and homeowners, with shared concerns around rising rents and housing stability in Newark.

Among all participants, the most popular tenant supports were emergency financial assistance, production of affordable housing, and rent control.

Spanish-speaking participants highlighted habitability issues and harassment/tenant-landlord relations.

Property owner associations opposed rent control and just cause regulations that exceeded AB 1482, but generally viewed Newark’s proposals as moderate.

General feedback supported partnerships with a provider such as ECHO Housing to expand services that support tenants.

Newark's anticipated Proactive Rental Housing Inspection Pilot Program received positive feedback from community members, the Alameda County Housing and Community Development Department (County HCD), and a local landlord association.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Community and stakeholder engagement guided staff’s recommendations on which programs to implement and how to design them. Below is a summary of relevant Housing Element programs.

H4.1: Develop Anti-Displacement Programs for the Old-Town Newark Specific Plan Area, including adopting and implementing a local preference policy for below-market rate units
This policy would require that new below-market rate units built in Newark give lease and sale preference to households currently residing in Newark or with a household member employed in Newark, to the extent permissible under other state and federal laws and funding requirements. In practice, the City has incorporated this requirement into funding agreements for affordable housing projects with City support, including the Timber Senior Housing development, Lepakshi Homes, and the SAHA Thornton Avenue Apartments.

While the Housing Element contemplates the local preference policy’s applicability to the Old Town Specific Plan Area (OTSPA), staff recommend applying the policy to any project the City entitles or funds, given the citywide pressure of displacement and recent practice of applying the policy to projects outside of the OTSPA.

Recommendation: Incorporate the local preference policy citywide into a revised Affordable Housing Program ordinance (NMC 17.18 and 17.27). The Planning Commission considered staff’s recommendation at its December 9, 2025 public meeting and recommended City Council adopt the proposed ordinances.

H4.2: Develop a Tenant/Community Opportunity to Purchase (TOPA/COPA) Policy, which would facilitate homeownership for tenants by creating limited equity cooperative or other ownership models
TOPAs and COPAs are designed to give renters a first right of refusal when the owner of their rental unit lists it for sale. TOPA typically refers to an individual renter, or collective of renters, purchasing the property themselves. COPA refers to when a jurisdiction or community-based organization, such as a community land trust, purchases the property. TOPAs and COPAs often include incentives or covenants to deed-restrict the properties after acquisition. The intent of these policies is to prevent displacement, create pathways to homeownership, and protect and expand the stock of affordable housing.

The deadline for implementing this program is June 30, 2026.

Recommendation: Staff is not including Program H4.2 in this Tenant Protections package because of the later deadline and broad work required to engage stakeholders and design such a program.

H4.3: Develop a Just Cause Eviction Ordinance, which would protect tenants should the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (Assembly Bill 1482, Chiu, 2019) expire in 2029 AB 1482 took effect in July 2019 with a sunset date of January 1, 2030. AB 1482, also known as the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, established statewide regulations concerning just cause evictions, relocation eligibility, and rent stabilization. The intent of AB 1482 is to prevent displacement and reduce entrances to homelessness by protecting tenants from certain evictions and rent gouging.

Housing Element Program H4.3 commits to adopting a local no-fault just cause eviction ordinance, and Program H4.6 commits to adopting relocation assistance requirements.

The purpose of these programs is to amplify messaging of tenant rights, and to preserve these tenant protections if and when AB 1482 expires in 2030. The Housing Element does not propose adopting a local rent stabilization ordinance, although rent stabilization would still apply in Newark for as long as it is in effect in state law.

The eviction protections embodied in AB 1482 apply to residential tenancies of at least 12 months. The bill establishes the concept of Just Cause, meaning the legitimate grounds by which a property owner may terminate a tenancy. Just cause is further divided into at-fault evictions and no-fault evictions. An example of an at-fault eviction includes when a tenant does not pay rent, or otherwise violates the terms of the lease.

An example of no-fault eviction includes when the property owner or their family decide to move into the rental property or intend to demolish or substantially remodel it. AB 1482 creates a regulatory process that property owners must follow when undertaking a no-fault or at-fault eviction, and establishes certain rights and obligations for both tenant and property owner.

In addition to establishing a procedural process for evictions, AB 1482 entitles households subject to a no-fault eviction to one month’s rent to cover the cost of their relocation (Relocation Assistance). The bill also limits rent increases on eligible units to the annual change in the consumer price index plus five percent during any 12-month period, not to exceed 10 percent (Rent Stabilization).

Recommendation: Modeled after AB 1482, adopt an ordinance establishing eviction protections and relocation assistance, but not rent stabilization.

Staff recommend adopting a just cause eviction ordinance regulating the process by which a residential rental property owner may serve a notice of termination to a tenant, as well as defining the rights and obligations of property owners and tenants. AB 1482 exempts most single-family homes from this requirement. Given the prevalence of single-family rentals in Newark and the challenges of equitably implementing a two-tiered system, staff recommend applying the program to all rental units, including single-family homes, with few exceptions.

Staff recommend adopting a relocation assistance requirement for qualifying evictions modeled after the requirements of AB 1482, with slight modifications.

These modifications include entitling qualifying households (school-aged children, elderly, disabled, income-qualifying) to a second month of relocation assistance.

Staff do not recommend adopting a rent stabilization ordinance at this time.

Statewide rent control regulations would continue to apply to eligible properties in Newark through the end of 2029, unless extended by the legislature.

Staff recommend assessing a new, modest registration fee against all rental properties. Revenue from would be used to contract with vendor to provide counseling services to tenants and landlords on their rights and obligations under City ordinance, including evictions and relocation assistance.

H4.6: Support Tenant Stability Through Minimum Lease Terms and Relocation Assistance, by adopting an ordinance outlining minimum terms for leasing residential property in the City and standards for providing relocation assistance This program focuses on establishing minimum terms and conditions for inclusion in rental property leases in Newark. Examples of this include establishing a minimum lease term of 12 months and capping the cost of security deposits.

Community engagement participants expressed concern around high security deposits but did not prioritize other minimum lease terms. Recent state legislation has made both requirements less relevant. Assembly Bill 12 (Haney, 2024), took effect July 1, 2024 and limits security deposits to one month’s rent, although landlords who own no more than two rental properties can charge up to two month’s rent. Many community engagement participants may not have been familiar with this law due to its novelty.

Additionally, AB 1482 has established the 12-month lease as an industry norm.

Recommendation: Due to low interest and recent state legislation, staff does not recommend proceeding with the minimum lease component of Program H4.6.

Relocation assistance is incorporated into the Just Cause Eviction ordinance.

Recommendations for Additional Programs not Included in the Housing Element The community engagement process identified three additional programs to meaningfully prevent displacement and improve tenant and residential property owner relations.

Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP). This program would provide small grants ($3,000 – $7,000, exact limits to be determined) to households struggling to pay rent because of extenuating circumstances, such as an unexpected medical expense or traffic accident. Eligible recipients would be limited to income-qualifying households with demonstrated ability to pay rent after receipt of program funds. Eligible costs could include rent, utility payments, or security deposits.

Newark residents currently have access to an ERAP program administered by ECHO Housing for County residents. Demand for funds greatly exceeds what is available, however, with only 20 households countywide eligible for funds each week. The City’s ERAP program, using City funding, would be exclusively available to City residents.

The City would contract with a HUD-certified housing counselor experienced in Alameda County to administer the program using funds from the Housing Impact Fee Fund. Staff recommend allocating an initial $250,000 for the ERAP program to be used for direct financial assistance to households and a program administrator contract.

Rent Review and Mediation. A Residential Landlord and Tenant Relations ordinance would entitle tenants to request third-party review of rent increases of more than five percent during a 12-month period. If requested by the tenant, the property owner would be required to participate in mediation facilitated by a third-party provider. The outcomes of mediation would be non-binding. This program would not include a rent cap, rent control, or stabilization. The City would contract with a HUD-certified housing counselor experienced in Alameda County to advise tenants and landlords on their rights and obligations under the ordinance using funds from the Housing Impact Fee Fund. The Director shall a report assessing the effectiveness of the program and recommending changes as may be appropriate.

The City would require residential property owners to register their property annually and pay a $50 fee for the purpose of reimbursing the City for the reasonable costs of implementing this program, including costs associated with reconciliation and mediation. Registration will be completed via a simple form prepared by the City. Staff do not recommend creating a full rental registry at this time, however, based on the limited programmatic needs for such a registry and stakeholder feedback.

Anti-Harassment Ordinance. A Residential Landlord and Tenant Relations ordinance would also define inappropriate actions and behaviors by which a property owner could engage with a tenant. This ordinance is similar to existing ordinances in cities such as Union City and Emeryville. The City would contract with a HUD-certified housing counselor experienced in Alameda County to advise tenants and landlords on their rights and obligations under the ordinance using funds from the Housing Impact Fee Fund.

Next Steps
Should City Council introduce the ordinance, a second reading will be set for a subsequent City Council Meeting. The ordinances will become operative May 1, 2026.

During this period, the City will enter into contract(s) with a HUD-certified housing counselor(s) and prepare information and resources for property owners and tenants to support compliance and program implementation. This extended effective date will allow staff, property owners, and tenants additional time to understand their obligations and rights under the new ordinances and facilitate smooth rollout of new programs.

City staff will determine an appropriate fee related to the implementation of the programs pursuant to the ordinance and will return with an amendment to the master fee schedule for Council consideration at a future date. The City’s contractor(s) will prepare an annual report on the results of the number of property owners and tenants served.

FISCAL IMPACT
Staff’s recommendations would establish and/or fund three programs. These include the ERAP program, Rent Review and Mediation Program, and general information to property owners and tenants as to their rights and obligations for evictions, relocation assistance, and anti-harassment.

The ERAP program is expected to reduce the Housing Impact Fee Fund by approximately $250,000. As of October of 2025, the Fund has a balance of $28,805,148 available to spend. The proposed ERAP allocation is intended as a one-time appropriation, and sufficient fund balance capacity exists to support this use without affecting existing housing commitments.

The Rent Review and Mediation and counseling programs are anticipated to have a net neutral fiscal impact as the vendor(s) contracts would be on a fee for service basis.

Residential rental property owners would be required to pay a new annual fee for implementation and administration of the new municipal code provisions established by the ordinance. The annual fee is intended to recover the reasonable costs of program administration, mediation, and information for landlords and tenants, and does not establish a full rental registry.

Staff anticipate that services contracts with a HUD-certified housing counselor experienced in Alameda County will fall below that applicable to approval by the City Manager. City staff would retain responsibility for contract oversight, program monitoring, and reporting.

Staff additionally recommend City Council, by resolution, approve an amendment to the 2024-2026 Biennial Budget and Capital Improvement Plan to appropriate $250,000 from unappropriated fund balance of the Housing Impact Fee Fund (Fund 623) to establish an Emergency Rental Assistance Program, of which such monies shall be used to fully fund the Emergency Rental Assistance Program as follows:

TO: 623.50.052.920.6220 Program Administrator $50,000 TO: 623.50.052.920.6950 Economic/Public Assistance $200,000 FR: 623.3000 Unappropriated Fund Balance $250,000

ENVIRONMENTAL/PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
Approval of the ordinance is exempt from further environmental review under the general rule in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) that CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. As a series of text amendments and additions that do not authorize any new activity, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment.

REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Prepared by - Michael Coulom, Housing Policy and Programs Manager Reviewed by - Steven Turner, Community Development Director Reviewed by - Krysten Lee, Finance Director
Reviewed by - Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Approved by - David J. Benoun, City Manager
Attachments
Staff Presentation
Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance
Attachment 2: Draft Resolution
Attachment 3: 2023-2031 Housing Element
Attachment 4: County Homelessness Prevention Framework
Attachment 5: Home Together 2026
City Council Meeting
January 8, 2026
Tenant Protections
Programming
It is our mission to serve and partner with our community to continually enhance the quality of life of everyone in Newark City Council Meeting: January 8, 2026
Tenant Protections Programming
Item (Other Business)
• Waive full reading and by title only introduce an ordinance adding Chapter 5.45 and adding Chapter 5.50 to the Newark Municipal Code to establish Residential Landlord and Tenant Relations regulations and a Rent Review program.
• Adopt a resolution to amend the 2024-2026 Biennial Budget and Capital Improvement Program to fund the Emergency
Rental Assistance Program.

Agenda

1. Introductions

2. Displacement in Newark

3. Housing Element

4. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

5. Landlord and Tenant Relations

6. Rent Review and Mediation

7. Emergency Rental Assistance

8. CEQA

9. Next Steps

10. Staff Recommendation
3 Photo by Kadyn Pierce on Unsplash
Introductions
City of Newark
Michael Coulom, Housing Policy and Programs Manager
Community Planning Collaborative (CPC)
Kristy Wang, Principal
4 California needs 2.5 million more homes
5 California’s Statewide Housing Plan
estimates 2.5 million more homes are
needed by 2030 to adequately address
the state’s housing affordability crisis.

Over 1 million homes are needed for
low- and very low-income households.

Source: 2022 Statewide Housing Plan
2019
Above Moderate
ModerateLow-Income
Very Low-Income

2.5 million homes
New Housing Need (RHNA)
643,352
384,910
420,814
1,051,177
2023 – 2031 Housing Element
Newark’s Housing Element is an
affordability strategy
6th Cycle Housing Targets
• 1,874 new homes
o 464 Very Low-Income
o 268 Low-Income
o 318 Moderate-Income
o 824 Above Moderate
• 0.4 percent of regional RHNA
• 2,507 homes permitted in
Cycle 5
6 2023-2031 Housing Element Goals

1. Preserve and Improve Existing Housing

2. Facilitate the Development of More
Homes for More People

3. Reduce and Remove Constraints to
Affordable Housing Development

4. Help People Stay in Their Homes and
Communities

5. Increase Access to Affordable Housing

6. Enhance Quality of Life, Equity, and
Environmental Justice

7. Further Fair Housing Throughout the City
• Each Housing Element program includes one or more Quantified Objectives. • Quantified Objectives are the specific, achievable, and measurable targets used to track progress in implementing each Housing Element program. • Quantified Objectives are timebound, targeted for implementation on Immediate or Mid-Term bases, or by a specific date.
• HCD will begin monitoring progress in July 2026, with consideration toward ongoing Housing Element compliance and further reforms. • Demonstrating substantial progress in achieving Quantified Objectives is important to retaining land use authority.

Program Quantified Objectives
7 Housing Policy Groupings
Policies intended to speed up land use approvals and permitting Policies and programs intended to improve sustainability Policies intended to improve project financial feasibility Policies intended to reduce displacement and homelessness 8  Related Plans and Studies
 Program H4.3 (Just Cause Eviction)
 Program H4.6 (Tenant Stability)
 Community and Stakeholder Input
 Additional Programs
o Anti-Harassment
o Rent Review and Mediation
o Emergency Rental Assistance
 Ordinance Structure and Resolution
Tenant Protections
9 Anti-Displacement and Homelessness Prevention
Photo by OPPO Find X5 Pro on Unsplash Photo by Jixiao Huang on Unsplash Goal H4: Help People Stay in Their
Homes and Communities
10 Home Together 2026 Community Plan
11 • City Council endorsed the Alameda
County Home Together Community
Plan in 2022.
• Homelessness prevention is typically
administered outside of the
homelessness system via community
development funding streams.
• Prevention strategies
• Shallow subsidies
• Right to Counsel
• Emergency Rental Assistance
“City of Newark Policy Study- Evaluation of the Need for a Local Affordable Housing Live/Work Preference Given Displacement Risks”
• In August 2022, Siefel Consulting and The Concord Group completed a study on displacement risk in Newark between 2010 and 2020. • Rents and home prices increased while wages stagnated. • The number of cost-burdened households increased 20%. • More than 1,700 residents live in overcrowded or severely overcrowded conditions- doubling or tripling up.
• Households of color are disproportionately lower income, overcrowded, and at risk of displacement.
• 5% of NUSD students experienced homelessness in 2021-2022.

The “Displacement Study”
12 Newark Point in Time and McKinney-Vento Counts
13 2024-25 School Year
McKinney Vento NUSD Count
% of Total
Student
Body
% of
Homeless
Student Body
Doubled
Up
Temporary
Shelter
African
American 3% 3% * *
Asian 19% 14% 84.4% 15.6%
Filipino 8% 4% * *
Hispanic or
Latino 52% 65% 93.2% 4.8%
White 8% 5% * *
Two or More
Races 6% 2% 100.0% *
Other (AI/AN,
PI, Not
Reported)
5% 7% * NA
Newark Point in Time (PIT) Count
Emergency Shelter
Unsheltered * Data suppressed for student privacy
76 people experienced homelessness in
Newark in 2024 by HUD’s definition.
227 students experienced homelessness
in Newark in School Year 2024-25 by
DOE’s definition.

Bay Area Eviction Study
• MTC ABAG published the Bay Area
Eviction Study in September 2025
• The Study found that for every 43
households in Alameda county, 1 will
experience an eviction lawsuit.
• There were 95 eviction lawsuits in
Newark in 2023, or 1 in 48 renter
households.
• Eviction rates continue to increase,
now at a 10-year high.
• Court records represent only a fraction
of displacements.
14 Total Alameda County Eviction Lawsuits (2015 to 2024) Data Source: California Judicial Council
FY 23 -24
FY 15-16
6,340
4,857
Program H4.3 commits to developing an ordinance that prohibits landlords from ending a tenancy or evicting a tenant without a specific reason.

Quantified Objectives
1) Develop and implement a just cause eviction ordinance for the city to cover tenants under state law when AB 1482 expires in 2019 (Mid-Term)  Adopt and implement a just cause eviction ordinance
 Support 15 low-income residents per year to stay in their homes H4:3 Just Cause Eviction Ordinance
15 The Tenant Protections Act of 2019 establishes several rights and obligations of residential landlords and tenants concerning the following:

1. Eviction proceedings: Establishes a definition of “just cause” and defines procedures and noticing requirements for terminating residential tenancies.

2. Relocation assistance: Establishes compensation standards that residential landlords must offer tenants when terminating qualifying tenancies.

3. Rent cap: Establishes a maximum limit that a residential landlord may increase rent in a 12-month period, i.e. 5% plus the percentage change in cost of living, or 10% (whichever is lower)
AB 1482 will “sunset” on January 1, 2030 unless otherwise extended by the state legislature
AB 1482: Tenant Protections Act of 2019
16 Just Cause: A specific, written reason
for terminating a tenancy of 12+
months. Either no-fault or at-fault.

No-Fault: Includes owner’s intent to
occupy the property, withdrawal of
property from rental market, intent to
demolish or substantially rehab.

At Fault: Includes non-payment of rent,
breach of material term of the lease,
nuisances, criminal activity, etc.

Defining “Just Cause” in AB 1482
17 Photo by Christian Erfurt on Unsplash
• Curable lease violations: Landlords
shall issue a notice of violation with
opportunity to cure, prior to issuing
a notice of termination.
• Notify tenant of right to relocation
assistance
• Noticing requirements shall be
stated in the rental agreement.
• Terminations are void if noticing
requirements are not properly
followed.

AB 1482 Noticing Requirements
18 Photo by Allan Vega on Unsplash
• No-Fault Evictions: Landlord shall
compensate tenants with 1-month’s
rent or waiver equivalent to the rent in
effect at time of notice of termination.
• Landlord shall pay relocation assistance
with 15 days of sending the notice to
terminate.
• If tenant fails to vacate on time, actual
amount of relocation assistance or
waiver may be recovered as damages.
• Not entitled to at-fault terminations
AB 1482 Relocation Assistance
19 Photo by HiveBoxx on Unsplash
Program H4.6 commits to supporting tenant stability through minimum lease terms and relocation assistance.

Quantified Objectives
1) Develop an ordinance outlining the following renter protections (Immediate):
 Minimum lease terms
 Relocation assistance
H4:6 Support Tenant Stability
20 1) Assembly Bill 12 (Haney, 2024) took effect July
1, 2024 and limits security deposits to one
month’s rent, although landlords who own no
more than two properties can charge up to two
months rent.
2) AB 1482 established legal standards for
relocation assistance payments.
3) AB 1482’s focus on the 12-month lease, the 12-
month lease is now a residential rental
property industry standard.

Recent Tenant Stability State Laws
21 Photo by Josh Hild on Unsplash
Stakeholder Engagement: How did we engage?
22  Newark Days
 Online and in-person workshops
 Surveys, interviews and group
discussions
 Newark News, TextMyGov, City
websites, and Facebook
 Proposal Fact Sheet
 Public Comment Period
(May 21 – June 13, 2025)
Stakeholder Engagement: With whom did we talk?
23 • 6 Tenant stakeholder meetings, including:
 Newark Promotores
 ECHO Housing
 Community Resources for Independent Living
 Centro Legal de la Raza
 East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO)
• 5 Property Owner stakeholder meetings, including:
 East Bay Rental Housing Association
 Rental Housing Association of Southern Alameda County  California Apartment Association
 Bay East Association of REALTORS
Stakeholder Engagement: What did we hear?
24 • Among Newark renters and homeowners, general support for tenant protections with shared concerns around rising rents and housing stability. The most popular tenant supports included: emergency financial assistance, production of affordable housing, and rent control. • Among Spanish-speaking participants, concern for habitability issues and harassment / tenant-landlord relations.
• Among property owner associations, opposition to rent control and just cause regulations that exceed AB 1482. Generally perceived Newark’s tenant protections proposals as moderate.
• General feedback supporting City partnership with a tenant / landlord services provider.

Staff Recommendations

1. NMC 5.45 Residential Landlord
and Tenant Relations Ordinance
 Just Cause
 Relocation Assistance
 Anti-Harassment

2. NMC 5.50 Rent Review

3. Emergency Rental Assistance
Program (ERAP)
25 Photo by Imagine Buddy on Unsplash
Proposed NMC 5.45: Residential Landlord / Tenant Relations 26 Based on the Displacement Study, regional analysis and policy objectives, stakeholder feedback, and the City’s Housing Goals, staff recommend:

NMC Chapter 5.45 Residential Landlord and Tenant Relations Purpose and Need of Newark Municipal Code additions:

1. Implement the City’s Housing Element and achieve quantified objectives to Help People Stay In Their Homes and Communities

2. Continue tenant protections and supports if AB 1482 expires in 2030

3. Clarify landlord and tenant rights and obligations under state and local law NMC 5.45.030 Applicability
27 The ordinance shall apply to all residential rental units within the City, including the following exceptions:
• Hotels, motels, other short-term lodging
• School and university dormitories
• Housing in which the tenant shares bathroom or kitchen facilities with the owner-occupant.
• Single-family residences in which the owner-occupant rents no more than two units or bedrooms, including, accessory dwelling units. • Housing that has been issued a certificate of occupancy within the previous 15 years.
• Housing restricted by deed or a regulatory restriction with a government agency for low-income households.

NMC 5.45.040 Cause for Termination
28 Definitions of Just Cause, At Fault, and No Fault align with state law.

At Fault- 5.45.040(A)(5)
• Default in payment of rent
• Breach of a material term of the lease
• Maintaining or committing a nuisance
• Committing waste
• Tenant’s refusal to execute a written extension or renewal of the lease • Criminal activity by the tenant on the property
• Assigning or subletting in violation of the tenant’s lease • Tenant’s refusal to allow the owner to enter the property • Failure to vacate
NMC 5.45.040(A) Cause for Termination
29 Definitions of Just Cause, At Fault, and No Fault align with state law No Fault- 5.45.040(A)(6)
• Intent to occupy the residential property by the owner or their immediate family for a minimum of 12 continuous months.
• Withdrawal of the property from the rental market
• A government order related to habitability or other such order that requires vacating the property
• Intent to demolish or substantially remodel the property NMC 5.45.040(C) Relocation Assistance
30 Tenancies terminated based on a no-fault just cause shall:
 Assist the tenant to relocate by providing a direct payment to the tenant equal to two months’ of the tenant’s rent. Payment shall be provided within 15 days of servicing the notice of termination.
 OR Waive payment of the final month’s rent and provide direct payment to the tenant for an additional month’s rent.

Other provisions:
• If the tenant fails to vacate after the expiration of the notice to terminate the tenancy, the landlord may recover the relocation assistance as damages.
• A landlord’s failure to comply shall render the notice of termination void.

NMC 5.45.040 Noticing Requirements
31 Landlords shall notice tenants of their rights at the following times:
• Within 60 days of the effective date of this ordinance • When entering and renewing a lease or rental agreement • With a notice of termination
• At such times as required by the City, such as when this chapter is significantly amended
Notification shall be in at least three languages and shall notice tenants of:
• Right to just cause eviction protections
• Right to relocation assistance
• Limits on rent increases per AB 1482
NMC 5.45.040 Noticing Requirements
32 Landlords shall also send notices of termination to the Community Development Department in a form prescribed by the City, and Update the Community Development Department on the outcome of the notice of termination within 60 days of servicing the notice.

NMC 5.45 Eviction Scenarios
33 Just Cause, At Fault Eviction:
• Lena has rented a home to Thomas for the last three years. In October, Thomas stopped paying rent. Lena has just cause to terminate Thomas’ tenancy at fault. Lena may evict Thomas, but not before noticing him and the City with the reason for termination and the date to vacate.

Just Cause, No Fault Eviction:
• Sarah inherited her mother’s home 5 years ago. Since then, she has rented it to Beatriz, who has abided by all terms of her lease. Sarah’s daughter and grandchildren are now moving back to Newark, however, and would like to live in the home. Sarah has just cause to terminate Beatriz’s tenancy at no fault. Sarah must notice Beatriz and provide relocation assistance.

NMC 5.45.050 Anti-Harassment
34 The ordinance identifies 16 actions that no landlord may take in bad faith, with ulterior motive, or without honest intent. These include, • Interrupt or fail to provide any housing services under the rental agreement • Fail to perform, or threaten not to perform, or complete, required repairs / maintenance • Remove tenant’s personal property from the rental unit • Influence or attempt to influence the tenant(s) to vacate the rental unit by means of fraud, intimidation, or coercion (including threats based on immigration status) • Offer payment for the tenant to vacate the unit, more often than once every 6 months • Threaten the tenants by word or gesture with physical harm • Refuse to accept or acknowledge payment of rent
• Interfere with the tenant’s right to privacy and quiet enjoyment of the unit • Retaliate against the tenant for exercising their rights under the law • Interfere with the rights of tenants to organize as tenants NMC 5.45.090 Property Registration and Fees
35 Landlords shall register each property with the City on forms provided by the City and including the name and mailing address of the owners, as well as any other information deemed necessary by the City.

Landlords shall pay an annual fee to the City for the costs of implementing chapters 5.45 and 5.50, including the costs of maintaining property registration records and related administrative systems.  Staff recommend an annual fee of $25 per unit
NMC 5.45 Comparison to AB 1482
36 AB 1482 Staff Recommendations
Rent increases are capped at 5% + cost of living,
not to exceed 10% in a 12-month period.

No codification in NMC. Noticing
requirements still apply.

Single-family homes are broadly excluded,
unless owned by a corporation or real estate
investment trust.

Single-family homes are included,
except when owner-occupied.

Relocation assistance required for no-fault
evictions equivalent to one month’s rent.

Relocation assistance required for
no-fault evictions equivalent to two
months’ rent.

No property registration requirement or
compliance support
Modest annual fee assessed to
landlords, City to provide resources
and counseling for support.

Proposed NMC 5.50: Rent Review
37 Based on the Displacement Study, regional analysis and policy objectives, stakeholder feedback, and the City’s Housing Goals, staff recommend:

Chapter 5.50 Rent Review
Purpose and Need of Newark Municipal Code additions:

1. In lieu of a local rent cap or stabilization ordinance, provide tenants and landlords with additional resources to discuss rent increases and address conflict.

NMC 5.50.040 Rent Review
38 • A tenant may seek rent review when a proposed rent increase raises the rent by more than 5 percent in a 12-month period.
• The tenant must submit the request in writing to the Community Development Director within 15 calendar days of receiving the notice of rent increase. • Tenants and landlords would next proceed to conciliation where they may provide relevant information, exchange proposals, and engage in discussion. • If parties agree to a resolution during conciliation, they may formalize the agreement in a form signed by both parties. The City is not a party.
• If the parties do not resolve the dispute during conciliation, the tenant shall be entitled to seek mediation.
• If the landlord fails to appear at either conciliation or mediation, the rent increase shall be void.
• The final recommendations of mediation shall be non-binding. The City is not a party.

NMC 5.50.030 Rent Review Noticing
39 • Landlords shall provide notice of the availability of rent review and mediation at the same time that they service a tenant with a notice of rent increase.
• The notice of availability of rent review shall be available in three languages predominately spoken in the City.
• Any rent increases that violate these terms shall be void, and shall be considered a complete defense for a tenant under any eviction proceedings.

NMC 5.50.050 Miscellaneous
40 • Landlords shall register each property with the City on forms provided by the City and including the name and mailing address of the owners, as well as any other information deemed necessary by the City. • Landlords shall pay an annual fee to the City for the costs of implementing chapters 5.45 and 5.50, including the costs of maintaining property registration records and related administrative systems.
 Staff recommend an annual fee of $50 per unit
Monitoring and Enforcement
41 • Staff recommend contracting with a HUD-certified housing counselor experienced in Alameda County to provide tenants and landlords with resources and counseling on their rights and obligations. • The housing counselor would prepare an annual report for the City on services rendered.
• The ordinances include language certifying that any violation of said ordinances shall be an affirmative defense for a tenant in an eviction lawsuit.
• NMC makes ordinance violation a misdemeanor punishable by fine, which violation may be enforced by the City.

Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP)
42 Based on the Displacement Study, regional analysis and policy objectives, stakeholder feedback, and the City’s Housing Goals, staff recommend:

Establishing a local Emergency Rental Assistance Program to:
• Support tenants with one-time small grants for housing expenses, including rent, utilities, or security deposits.
• Provide housing stability and reduce episodic homelessness at low fiscal impact to the city ($3,000 to $7,000 grants).
• Allocate $200,000 for direct financial assistance and up to $50,000 for program administration.

Emergency Rental Assistance Precedent
43 • Newark residents currently have access to ERAP through Seasons of Sharing, a non-profit providing services to Alameda County. o ECHO Housing administers ERAP for the County / Seasons of Sharing. o Seasons of Sharing makes grants of up to $3,000 per lifetime. o Seasons of Sharing is significantly oversubscribed, serving 20 households/week countywide.
• During the COVID-19 pandemic, additional County and State resources were made available for emergency rental assistance.
o The City promoted these opportunities in partnership with the County. • ERAP is popular among tenants and landlords to increase housing stability.

Emergency Rental Assistance in Newark
44 • Staff recommend establishing a local
emergency rental assistance program for
Newark tenants. The program would:
• Provide small grants to eligible households
for qualifying housing-related expenses.
• Be administered by a HUD-certified
housing counselor.
• Utilize funds from the City’s Affordable
Housing Impact Fee Fund.
• Be governed by administrative guidelines
and updated as program needs change. Photo by Samsung Memory US on Unsplash

1. If adopted by City Council, the ordinance would go into effect Tuesday, May 1, 2026.

2. In the interim period, staff will contract with a HUD-certified housing counselor experienced in Alameda County to administer ERAP, rent review and mediation, and other counseling services. The counselor, staff, and City Attorney’s Office will publish required noticing forms, property registration forms, ERAP guidelines, and other resources to support compliance.

3. Landlords will have until July 1, 2026 to notice tenants of their rights.

4. Annually, staff will report to City Council on the effectiveness of the Rent Review Program, the status of property registration fees collected, and the use of ERAP funds.

5. Consider additional displacement and homelessness prevention activities as part of the forthcoming Homeless Action Plan.

Next Steps
45 Staff’s recommendations would establish three new programs:

1. Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP)

2. Rent Review and Mediation

3. Counseling for compliance with Tenant and Landlords Relations Ordinance • These programs would have a minimal fiscal impact on the City. • (1) ERAP would be funded by the Affordable Housing Impact Fee Fund, which has approximately $28,805,148 available to spend. Staff request an initial $250,000 for ERAP administration and direct assistance. • (2) Rent Review and Mediation and (3) Counseling would be administered by HUD-certified housing counselors on a fee-for-service basis, using property registration fees required by 5.45 and 5.50.

Fiscal Impact
46 Approval of the ordinance is exempt from further environmental review under the general rule in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15601(b)(3) that CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. As a series of text amendments and additions that do not authorize any new activity, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment.

California Environmental Quality Act
47 • Adopt an ordinance adding Chapter 5.45 to the Newark Municipal Code establishing the Landlord and Tenant Relations Ordinance, and adding Chapter 5.50 to the Newark Municipal Code
establishing the Rent Review and Mediation Ordinance.
• Approve a resolution amending the 2024-2026 biennial budget and Capital Improvement Plan to appropriate $250,000 from the Housing Impact Fee Fund to fund the Emergency Rental
Assistance Program.

Recommendation
48 Question and Answer
Staff and consultant welcome questions from the Commission.

City of Newark
Michael Coulom, Housing Policy and Programs Manager
Community Planning Collaborative
Kristy Wang, Principal
49 Ordinance No. ____
1 of 2
ORDINANCE NO. ______

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWARK ADDING CHAPTER 5.45 TO THE NEWARK
MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING CHAPTER 5.50 TO THE

NEWARK MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH RENT REVIEW

AND RESIDENTIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT RELATIONS

REQUIREMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Newark (the “City”) occasionally initiates amendments to the Newark Municipal Code to clarify, add, or amend certain provisions to ensure that it remains current with federal and state law, internally consistent, simple to understand and implement, and relevant to changes occurring in the community; and
WHEREAS, on October 26, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11,575, adopting a general plan amendment to repeal the Fifth Cycle Housing element for the period of 2015-2023 and adopt the Housing Element of the General Plan for the Period of 2023-2021 (Sixth Cycle) and adopt the Safety Element of the General Plan, in compliance with State Housing Element Law; and
WHEREAS, the Sixth Cycle Housing Element includes Goal 4 to help people stay in their homes and communities, to be advanced by policies that protect the rights of residential tenants, hereafter “Tenant Protections”; and
WHEREAS, the Sixth Cycle Housing Element includes Program H4.3 to amend the Newark Municipal Code to include a just cause eviction ordinance to protect tenants should the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 expire; and
WHEREAS, the Sixth Cycle Housing Element includes Program H4.6 to support tenant stability through minimum lease terms and relocation assistance by adopting standards for providing relocation assistance to residential tenants; and WHEREAS, residential tenants in Newark are at greater risk of displacement due to a shortage of affordable housing in the city; and
WHEREAS, tenant protections are a concern for individuals of all demographics, ages, and economic backgrounds in communities throughout the State of California, including within the City of Newark; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to add Chapter 5.45 and Chapter 5.50 to Title 5 of the Newark Municipal Code, to implement the policies and programs of the Housing Element and more Ordinance No. ____
2 of 2
specifically the general requirements for issuing residential evictions and the rights and obligations and tenants in the use and operation of residential property; and WHEREAS, the City’s General Plan, Zoning Code, and Municipal Code are incorporated herein by reference, and are available for review at City Hall during normal business hours and on the City’s website.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newark does ordain as follows:

Section 1. RECITALS. That the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made part of this Ordinance.

SECTION 2. CEQA. Approval of the ordinance is exempt from further environmental review under the general rule in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) that CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. As a series of text amendments and additions that do not authorize any new activity, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 3: Newark Municipal Code Chapter 5.45 and Chapter 5.50. Chapter 5.45 “Residential Landlord and Tenant Relations” and Chapter 5.50 “Rent Review” are hereby added to the Newark Municipal Code to read as provided in Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein and made a part of this Ordinance.

SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.

SECTION 5. Publication and effective date. Within fifteen (15) days from and after adoption, this Ordinance shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in Alameda County and circulated in the City of Newark, in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.

EXHIBIT A
1 Amendment to Newark Municipal Code to Add Chapter 5.45 CHAPTER 5.45 RESIDENTIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT RELATIONS
§ 5.45.010 Purpose.

The purposes of this chapter are to regulate relations between residential landlords and tenants and to protect tenants from arbitrary, discriminatory, or retaliatory evictions. This legislation is designed to preserve the public peace, health and safety, and advance the housing policies of the City.
§ 5.45.020 Definitions.

For purposes of this chapter, each of the following terms is defined as follows:
"Landlord" means any person, partnership, corporation, or other business entity offering for rent or lease any residential property in the City. "Landlord" shall include the agent or representative of the landlord, provided that such agent or representative shall have full authority to answer for the landlord and enter into binding agreements on the landlord's behalf. "Notice of termination" means a written notice that includes all of the components identified in Section 5.45.060.
"Owner-occupied residence" means a single dwelling unit in which an individual retains no less than a fifty percent ownership interest in the individual unit and resides in that unit as his or her permanent residence no less than ten months of any calendar year. "Rental unit" or “residential real property” means any unit in any real property, regardless of zoning status, including the land appurtenant thereto, that is rented or available for rent for residential use or occupancy (regardless of whether the unit is also used for other purposes), together with all housing services connected with use or occupancy of such property, such as common areas and recreational facilities held out for use by the tenant. A rental unit includes a single-family home.
"Tenant" means any person having the legal responsibility for the payment of rent for residential property in the City. "Tenant" shall include the agent or representative of the tenant, provided that such agent or representative shall have full authority to answer for the tenant and enter into binding agreements on the tenant's behalf.
§ 5.45.030 Applicability.

A. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all rental units within the City where a notice to vacate/quit any such rental unit has been served after May 1, 2026.

Ordinance No. ____

EXHIBIT A
2 B. The provisions of this chapter may not be waived, and any term of any lease, contract, or other agreement which purports to waive or limit a tenant's substantive or procedural rights under this chapter are contrary to public policy, unenforceable, and void. § 5.45.040 Cause for Termination.

A. No landlord may terminate a residential tenancy of a rental unit, recover possession of a rental unit or otherwise endeavor to recover possession of a rental unit in the City that has been continuously and lawfully occupied by a tenant for 12 months or more unless the landlord can demonstrate all of the following:

1. That the landlord possesses a valid business license pursuant to Chapter 5.04 of this Code and has properly registered the rental unit pursuant to Section 5.45.090 below; and

2. That the landlord has provided the tenant with a notice of tenant rights in accordance with Section 5.45.070; and

3. That the landlord served a notice of termination pursuant to Section 5.45.060; and

4. That the landlord has not accepted and will not accept rent or any other consideration in return for the continued use of the rental unit beyond the term of the terminated tenancy in compliance with California Civil Code Sections 1945, 1946 and 1946.1; and

5. The existence of one of the following “at fault just cause” grounds for termination:
a. Default in the payment of rent.
b. A breach of a material term of the lease, as described in paragraph (3) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure, including, but not limited to, violation of a provision of the lease after being issued a written notice to correct the violation.
c. Maintaining, committing, or permitting the maintenance or commission of a nuisance as described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
d. Committing waste as described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
e. The tenant had a written lease that terminated on or after January 1, 2020, or January 1, 2022, if the lease is for a tenancy in a mobilehome, and after a written request or demand from the owner, the tenant has refused to execute a written extension or renewal of the lease for an additional term of similar duration with similar provisions, provided that those terms do not violate this section or any other provision of law.

Ordinance No. ____

EXHIBIT A
3 f. Criminal activity by the tenant on the residential real property, including any common areas, or any criminal activity or criminal threat, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 422 of the Penal Code, on or off the residential real property, that is directed at any owner or agent of the owner of the residential real property.
g. Assigning or subletting the premises in violation of the tenant’s lease, as described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure. h. The tenant’s refusal to allow the owner to enter the residential real property as authorized by California Civil Code Sections 1101.5 and 1954, and Sections 13113.7 and 17926.1 of the Health and Safety Code.
i. Using the premises for an unlawful purpose as described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
j. The employee, agent, or licensee’s failure to vacate after their termination as an employee, agent, or a licensee as described in paragraph (1) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
k. When the tenant fails to deliver possession of the residential real property after providing the owner written notice as provided in California Civil Code Section 1946 of the tenant’s intention to terminate the hiring of the real property, or makes a written offer to surrender that is accepted in writing by the owner, but fails to deliver possession at the time specified in that written notice as described in paragraph (5) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure; or

6. The existence of one of the following “no fault just cause” grounds for termination:
a.
i. Intent to occupy the residential real property by the owner or the owner’s spouse, domestic partner, children, grandchildren, parents, or grandparents for a minimum of 12 continuous months as that person’s primary residence.
ii. For leases entered into on or after July 1, 2020, or July 1, 2022, if the lease is for a tenancy in a mobilehome, subsection (i) shall apply only if the tenant agrees, in writing, to the termination, or if a provision of the lease allows the owner to terminate the lease if the owner, or the owner’s spouse, domestic partner, children, grandchildren, parents, or grandparents, unilaterally decides to occupy the residential real property.

Addition of a provision allowing the owner to terminate the lease as described in this clause to a new or renewed rental agreement or fixedOrdinance No. ____

EXHIBIT A
4 term lease constitutes a similar provision for the purposes of subsection (5)(e) above.
iii. This subsection does not apply if the intended occupant occupies a rental unit on the property or if a vacancy of a similar unit already exists at the property.
iv. The written notice terminating a tenancy for a just cause pursuant to this subparagraph shall contain the name or names and relationship to the owner of the intended occupant. The written notice shall additionally include notification that the tenant may request proof that the intended occupant is an owner or related to the owner as defined in subsection (a)(viii)(II) below. The proof shall be provided upon request and may include an operating agreement and other non-public documents. v. Subsection (a)(i) applies only if the intended occupant moves into the rental unit within 90 days after the tenant vacates and occupies the rental unit as a primary residence for at least 12 consecutive months. vi.

I. If the intended occupant fails to occupy the rental unit within 90 days after the tenant vacates or fails to occupy the rental unit as their primary residence for at least 12 consecutive months, the owner shall offer the unit to the tenant who vacated it at the same rent and lease terms in effect at the time the tenant vacated and shall reimburse the tenant for reasonable moving expenses incurred in excess of any relocation assistance that was paid to the tenant in connection with the written notice.

II. If the intended occupant moves into the rental unit within 90 days after the tenant vacates, but dies before having occupied the rental unit as a primary residence for 12 months, as required by above, this will not be considered a failure to comply with this section or a material violation of this section by the owner. vii. For a new tenancy commenced during the time periods described in subsection (a)(v) above, the accommodations shall be offered and rented or leased at the lawful rent in effect at the time any notice of termination of tenancy is served.
viii. As used in this subsection:

I. “Intended occupant” means the owner of the residential real property or the owner’s spouse, domestic partner, child, Ordinance No. ____
Ordinance No. ____

EXHIBIT A
5 grandchild, parent, or grandparent, as described in subsection (a)(i) above.

II. “Owner” means any of the following:
ia. An owner who is a natural person that has at least a 25- percent recorded ownership interest in the property.
ib. An owner who is a natural person who has any recorded ownership interest in the property if 100 percent of the recorded ownership is divided among owners who are
related to each other as sibling, spouse, domestic partner, child, parent, grandparent, or grandchild.
ic. An owner who is a natural person whose recorded
interest in the property is owned through a limited liability company or partnership.

III. For purposes of subsection (a)(viii)(II) above, “natural person” includes any of the following:
ia. A natural person who is a settlor or beneficiary of a family trust.
ib. If the property is owned by a limited liability company or partnership, a natural person who is a beneficial owner with at least a 25-percent ownership interest in the property.

IV. “Family trust” means a revocable living trust or irrevocable trust in which the settlors and beneficiaries of the trust are persons who are related to each other as sibling, spouse, domestic partner, child, parent, grandparent, or grandchild.

V. “Beneficial owner” means a natural person or family trust for whom, directly or indirectly and through any contract arrangement, understanding, relationship, or otherwise, and any of the following applies:
ia. The natural person exercises substantial control over a partnership or limited liability company.
ib. The natural person owns 25 percent or more of the
equity interest of a partnership or limited liability company. ic. The natural person receives substantial economic
benefits from the assets of a partnership.

Ordinance No. ____

EXHIBIT A
6 b. Withdrawal of the residential real property from the rental market. c.
i. The owner complying with any of the following:

I. An order issued by a government agency or court relating to habitability that necessitates vacating the residential real property.

II. An order issued by a government agency or court to vacate the residential real property.

III. A local ordinance that necessitates vacating the residential real property.
ii. If it is determined by any government agency or court that the tenant is at fault for the condition or conditions triggering the order or need to vacate under subsection (i) above, the tenant shall not be entitled to relocation assistance as outlined in this Chapter.
d.
i. Intent to demolish or to substantially remodel the residential real property.
ii. For purposes of this subparagraph, “substantially remodel” means either of the following that cannot be reasonably accomplished in a safe manner that allows the tenant to remain living in the place and that requires the tenant to vacate the residential real property for at least 30 consecutive days:

I. The replacement or substantial modification of any structural, electrical, plumbing, or mechanical system that requires a permit from a governmental agency.

II. The abatement of hazardous materials, including lead-based paint, mold, or asbestos, in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws.
iii. For purposes of this subsection, a tenant is not required to vacate the residential real property on any days where a tenant could continue living in the residential real property without violating health, safety, and habitability codes and laws. Cosmetic improvements alone, including painting, decorating, and minor repairs, or other work that can be performed safely without having the residential real property vacated, do not qualify as substantial remodel.

Ordinance No. ____

EXHIBIT A
7 iv. A written notice terminating a tenancy for a just cause pursuant to this subsection shall include all of the following information:

I. A statement informing the tenant of the owner’s intent to demolish the property or substantially remodel the rental unit property.

II. The following statement:
“If the substantial remodel of your unit or demolition of the property as described in this notice of termination is not commenced or completed, the owner must offer you the
opportunity to re-rent your unit with a rental agreement containing the same terms as your most recent rental agreement with the owner at the rental rate that was in effect at the time you vacated.

You must notify the owner within thirty (30) days of receipt of the offer to re-rent of your acceptance or rejection of the offer, and, if accepted, you must reoccupy the unit within thirty (30) days of notifying the owner of your acceptance of the offer.”
III. A description of the substantial remodel to be completed, the approximate expected duration of the substantial remodel, or if the property is to be demolished, the expected date by which the property will be demolished, together with one of the following:
ia. A copy of the permit or permits required to undertake the substantial remodel or demolition.
ib. Only if a notice is issued pursuant to subclause (II) of clause (ii) and the remodel does not require any permit, a copy of the signed contract with the contractor hired by the owner to complete the substantial remodel, that reasonably details the work that will be undertaken to abate the
hazardous materials as described in subclause (II) of clause (ii).

IV. A notification that if the tenant is interested in reoccupying the rental unit following the substantial remodel, the tenant shall inform the owner of the tenant’s interest in reoccupying the rental unit following the substantial remodel and provide to the owner the tenant’s address, telephone number, and email address.

B. Before an owner of residential real property issues a notice to terminate a tenancy for just cause that is a curable lease violation, the owner shall first give notice of the violation to the Ordinance No. ____

EXHIBIT A
8 tenant with an opportunity to cure the violation pursuant to paragraph (3) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the violation is not cured within the time period set forth in the notice, a three-day notice to quit without an opportunity to cure may thereafter be served to terminate the tenancy.

1. For a tenancy for which just cause is required to terminate the tenancy under subsection 5.45.040(A) above, if an owner of residential real property issues a termination notice based on a no-fault just cause described in subsection (A)(6) above, the owner shall, regardless of the tenant’s income, at the owner’s option, do one of the following:
a. Assist the tenant to relocate by providing a direct payment to the tenant as described in subsection 3 below.
b. Waive in writing the payment of rent for the final month of the tenancy, prior to the rent becoming due and provide direct payment to the tenant for an additional month of the tenant’s rent as described in subsection 3 below.

2. If an owner issues a notice to terminate a tenancy for no-fault just cause, the owner shall notify the tenant in the written termination notice of the tenant’s right to relocation assistance or rent waiver pursuant to this subsection. If the owner elects to waive the rent for the final month of the tenancy as provided in subsection (C)(1)(b) above, the notice shall state the amount of rent waived and that no rent is due for the final month of the tenancy.

3. a. The amount of relocation assistance or rent waiver shall be equal to two months of the tenant’s rent that was in effect when the owner issued the notice to terminate the tenancy. Any relocation assistance shall be provided within 15 calendar days of service of the notice.
b. If a tenant fails to vacate after the expiration of the notice to terminate the tenancy, the actual amount of any relocation assistance or rent waiver provided pursuant to this subdivision shall be recoverable as damages in an action to recover possession.
c. The relocation assistance or rent waiver required by this subdivision shall be credited against any other relocation assistance required by any other law.

4. An owner’s failure to strictly comply with this subdivision shall render the notice of termination void.

Ordinance No. ____

EXHIBIT A
9 D. This section shall not apply to the following types of residential real properties or residential circumstances:

1. Transient and tourist hotel occupancy as defined in subdivision (b) of Civil Code Section 1940.

2. Housing accommodations in a nonprofit hospital, religious facility, extended care facility, licensed residential care facility for the elderly, as defined in Section 1569.2 of the Health and Safety Code, or an adult residential facility, as defined in Chapter 6 of Division 6 of Title 22 of the Manual of Policies and Procedures published by the State Department of Social Services.

3. Dormitories owned and operated by an institution of higher education or a kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, school.

4. Housing accommodations in which the tenant shares bathroom or kitchen facilities with the owner who maintains their principal residence at the residential real property.

5. Single-family owner-occupied residences , including both of the following:
a. A residence in which the owner-occupant rents or leases no more than two units or bedrooms, including, but not limited to, an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit.
b. A mobilehome.

6. A property containing two separate dwelling units within a single structure in which the owner occupied one of the units as the owner’s principal place of residence at the beginning of the tenancy, so long as the owner continues in occupancy, and neither unit is an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit.

7. Housing that has been issued a certificate of occupancy within the previous 15 years, unless the housing is a mobilehome.

8. Residential real property, including a mobilehome, that is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit, provided that both of the following apply:
a. The owner is not any of the following:
i. A real estate investment trust, as defined in Section 856 of the Internal Revenue Code.
ii. A corporation.
iii. A limited liability company in which at least one member is a corporation.
iv. Management of a mobilehome park, as defined in Section 798.2.

Ordinance No. ____

EXHIBIT A
10 b.
i. The tenants have been provided written notice that the residential property is exempt from this section using the following statement:
“This property is not subject to the rent limits imposed by Section 1947.12 of the Civil Code and is not subject to the just cause requirements of Section 1946.2 of the Civil Code. This property meets the requirements of Sections 1947.12 (d)(5) and 1946.2 (e)(8) of the Civil Code and the owner is not any of the following: (1) a real estate investment trust, as defined by Section 856 of the Internal Revenue Code; (2) a corporation; or (3) a limited liability company in which at least one member is a corporation.” ii.

I. Except as provided in subsection II, for a tenancy existing before July 1, 2020, the notice required under subsection i may, but is not required to, be provided in the rental agreement.

II. For a tenancy in a mobilehome existing before July 1, 2022, the notice required under subsection i may, but is not required to, be provided in the rental agreement.
iii.

I. Except as provided in subsection II, for any tenancy commenced or renewed on or after July 1, 2020, the notice required under subsection i must be provided in the rental agreement.

II. For any tenancy in a mobilehome commenced or renewed on or after July 1, 2022, the notice required under subsection i shall be provided in the rental agreement.
iv. Addition of a provision containing the notice required under subsection i to any new or renewed rental agreement or fixed-term lease constitutes a similar provision for the purposes of subsection (5)(e) above.

9. Housing restricted by deed, regulatory restriction contained in an agreement with a government agency, or other recorded document as affordable housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or subject to an agreement that provides housing subsidies for affordable housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code or comparable federal statutes.

10. Rental units in a nonprofit facility that has the primary purpose of providing short term treatment, assistance, or therapy for alcohol, drug, or other substance abuse and the Ordinance No. ____

EXHIBIT A
11 housing is provided incident to the recovery program, and where the client has been informed in writing of the temporary or transitional nature of the housing at its inception.

11. Housing units owned by any government unit, agency, or authority, including, but not limited to, any division or department of a local, State, or Federal government.as otherwise provided in this chapter.

E. An owner of residential real property subject to this section shall provide notice to the tenant as follows:

1. a. Except as provided in subsection b. below, for any tenancy commenced or renewed on or after July 1, 2020, as an addendum to the lease or rental agreement, or as a written notice signed by the tenant, with a copy provided to the tenant. b. For a tenancy in a mobilehome commenced or renewed on or after July 1, 2022, as an addendum to the lease or rental agreement, or as a written notice signed by the tenant, with a copy provided to the tenant.

2. a. Except as provided in subsection b. below, for a tenancy existing prior to July 1, 2020, by written notice to the tenant no later than August 1, 2020, or as an addendum to the lease or rental agreement.
b. For a tenancy in a mobilehome existing prior to July 1, 2022, by written notice to the tenant no later than August 1, 2022, or as an addendum to the lease or rental agreement.

3. The notification or lease provision shall be in no less than 12-point type, and shall include the following:
“California law limits the amount your rent can be increased. See Section 1947.12 of the Civil Code for more information. California law also provides that after all of the tenants have continuously and lawfully occupied the property for 12 months or more or at least one of the tenants has continuously and lawfully occupied the property for 24 months or more, a landlord must provide a statement of cause in any notice to terminate a tenancy.

See Section 1946.2 of the Civil Code and Newark Municipal Code Chapter 5.45 for more information.”
The notification or lease provision shall be subject to Civil Code Section 1632.

F. An owner’s failure to comply with any provision of this section shall render the written termination notice void.

Ordinance No. ____

EXHIBIT A
12 G.

1. An owner who attempts to recover possession of a rental unit in material violation of this section shall be liable to the tenant in a civil action for all of the following:
a. Actual damages.
b. In the court’s discretion, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. c. Upon a showing that the owner has acted willfully or with oppression, fraud, or malice, up to three times the actual damages. An award may also be entered for punitive damages for the benefit of the tenant against the owner.

2. The city attorney may seek injunctive relief based on violations of this section.

H. Any waiver of the rights under this section shall be void as contrary to public policy.

I. For the purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

1. “Owner” includes any person, acting as principal or through an agent, having the right to offer residential real property for rent, and includes a predecessor in interest to the owner.

2. “Residential real property” means any dwelling or unit that is intended for human habitation, including any dwelling or unit in a mobilehome park.

3. “Tenancy” means the lawful occupation of residential real property and includes a lease or sublease.

J. This section shall not apply to a homeowner of a mobilehome, as defined in Civil Code Section 798.9.

K. This section 5.45.050 shall not apply to the types of residential properties and circumstances identified in Civil Code Section 1946.2(e) except that it shall apply to a tenant that leases the entirety of a rental unit that is a single family residence. Should Civil Code Section 1946.2(e) be repealed, the residential properties and circumstances identified as of the effective date of this Chapter shall continue to apply. § 5.45.050 Anti-Harassment and Other Prohibited Activities.

A. No landlord may do any of the following in bad faith, with ulterior motive, or without honest intent:

1. Interrupt, fail to provide, or threaten to interrupt or fail to provide any housing services under the rental agreement, including, but not limited to, utility services and other amenities and services agreed to by contract;
Ordinance No. ____

EXHIBIT A
13 2. Fail to perform, or threaten to not perform, repairs or maintenance required by contract or by State, County, or local housing, health, or safety laws;

3. Fail to exercise due diligence to complete repairs and maintenance once undertaken, including the failure to follow industry-appropriate safety standards and protocols;

4. Abuse or otherwise improperly use landlord's right to access the property;

5. Remove personal property of the tenant(s) from the rental unit;

6. Influence or attempt to influence the tenant(s) to vacate the unit by means of fraud, intimidation, or coercion (including, but not limited to, threats based on immigration status);

7. Offer payment or any other consideration, in return for the tenant(s) vacating the unit, more often than once every six months;

8. Threaten the tenant(s) by word or gesture with physical harm;

9. Interfere with the tenant(s) right to quiet use and enjoyment of the rental unit;

10. Refuse to accept or acknowledge receipt of lawful rent from the tenant(s);

11. Refuse to cash a rent check for over thirty days;

12. Interfere with a tenant's right to privacy, including but not limited to: (1) Requesting information regarding residence or citizenship status, protected class status, or Social Security number (except for, in the case of a Social Security number, for purposes of obtaining information for the qualifications for a tenancy), or refusing to accept equivalent alternatives to such information or documentation that does not concern immigration or citizenship status, e.g. an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN); (2) Releasing such information except as required or authorized by law or in violation of applicable State and/or Federal law; or (3) Requesting information regarding a tenant's relationship status in violation of state or Federal law;

13. Request information that violates the tenant(s) right to privacy;

14. Other repeated acts or omissions of such significance as to substantially interfere with or disturb the tenant(s) comfort, repose, peace, or quiet enjoyment, and that cause, are likely to cause, or are intended to cause the tenant(s) to vacate the unit; or

15. Retaliate against the tenant(s) for the tenant(s) exercise of rights under this chapter or State or Federal law.

16. Interfere with the right of tenants to do any of the following: Organize as tenants and engage in concerted activities with other tenants for the purpose of mutual aid and protection including concerns regarding repairs and maintenance, rent amounts or rent Ordinance No. ____

EXHIBIT A
14 increases, evictions, discrimination, or harassment, regardless of whether the tenants share the same landlord or management company; convene tenant or tenant organization meetings in an appropriate space accessible to tenants under the terms of their rental housing agreement(s); contact other tenants and offer such tenants literature informing them of their rights and opportunities to involve themselves in tenant organizing/tenant union activities; distribute and post such literature on bulletin boards or other areas that the owner has designated for tenant use or free speech activities; and/or exercise their rights under California Civil Code Section 1942.6, and/or providing access to tenant organizers, advocates, or representatives working with or on behalf of tenants living at the property.

B. Nothing in this section prohibits the lawful eviction of a tenant by appropriate legal means.

C. A landlord’s violation of this section shall be an affirmative defense to an eviction. § 5.45.060 Notice of Termination.

A. In order terminate a residential tenancy of a rental unit or otherwise endeavor to recover possession of a rental unit, a landlord must send the tenant a notice of termination that contains the reason for termination of the tenancy in accordance with Section 5.45.040(E).

This requirement is in addition to any other notice requirements imposed by local, State or Federal law. The landlord must also file the notice of termination with the Community Development Department in a form prescribed by the City. Failure to file notice the notice of termination with the Community Development Department shall be an affirmative defense to an eviction.

B. A landlord who has sent a notice of termination in accordance with Section 5.45.040(E) must notify the Community Development Department of the status of the residential tenancy within 60 days of sending the tenant a notice of termination. § 5.45.070 Notice of Tenant Rights
A. Landlords must provide to each tenant in a rental unit a notice of tenant rights under this chapter in the three predominant languages spoken in the City. Each notice shall include a proof of service. The City shall provide notices for landlord use. The use of the City provided forms shall be prima facie evidence that the landlord has provided the proper notice. The notice shall contain the information and be in substantially the same form as follows:

The City of Newark regulates the relationship between most landlords and tenants within the City. Generally, a landlord may only terminate your tenancy for specific reasons, which are set forth in Chapter 5.45 of the Newark Municipal Code. Examples of such reasons include, but are not limited to, a failure to pay rent on time as agreed to in the rental contract. In addition to State and Federal Laws, Chapter 5.45 of the Newark Municipal Code creates Ordinance No. ____

EXHIBIT A
15 certain rights for landlords and tenants. Visit the City of Newark website for more information.

B. Landlords must provide tenants with the notice of tenant rights in accordance with subsection A of this section in the following circumstances:

1. No later than July 1, 2026;

2. When entering a lease or rental agreement;

3. When renewing a lease or rental agreement;

4. With a notice of termination;

5. At such times as required by the City of Newark, which may include, but is not limited to, when this chapter is significantly amended.
§ 5.45.080 Civil Remedies.

A. Whenever a landlord retaliates against a tenant for the exercise of any rights under this chapter or engages in activities prohibited under this chapter, the tenant may institute a civil proceeding for money damages, including general and/or punitive damages, or injunctive relief, or both. This section creates a private right of action to enforce all terms, rights, and obligations under this chapter.

B. Any tenant who receives a notice of termination may bring a civil action against the landlord to contest the validity of each necessary component and pre-condition for service of the notice of termination as required by this chapter and to request injunctive relief to halt the termination of tenancy.

1. A landlord's inability to demonstrate compliance with any individual component of or pre-condition to serve a notice of termination as required by this chapter will invalidate, nullify, and avoid the effect of a notice of termination. If a notice of termination is invalidated, the tenant(s) will be entitled to costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred to invalidate the notice of termination.

2. If a landlord can demonstrate compliance with each pre-condition to serve the notice of termination to the tenant(s) by a preponderance of the evidence, the notice of termination will be deemed valid and the landlord is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred to defend the notice of termination.

C. Any tenant may bring a civil action to determine the applicability of this chapter to the tenancy, including, but not limited to, a determination of whether the dwelling unit is a rental unit.

D. The city attorney may seek injunctive relief based on violations of this section.

Ordinance No. ____

EXHIBIT A
16 § 5.45.090 Property Registration and Fees.

A. A landlord shall register each rental unit within the City. The registration shall be on forms provided by the City and shall include the name and mailing address of the owner or owners of the rental unit as well as any other information deemed necessary by the City.

B. For the sole purpose of reimbursing the City for the reasonable costs of maintaining property registration records and related administrative systems required by this chapter, the landlord of each rental unit shall pay a fee in an amount to be set by the City for each rental unit.

Ordinance No. ____

EXHIBIT A
17 …
Amendment to Newark Municipal Code to Add Chapter 5.50
CHAPTER 5.50 Rent Review
§ 5.50.010 Short Title.

This Chapter shall be known as the “Rent Review Ordinance.” § 5.50.020 Definitions.

For purposes of this chapter, each of the following terms is defined as follows:
"Base rent" means the rent paid to the landlord for occupancy of the residential property required to be paid by the tenant to the landlord in the month immediately preceding the effective date of the rent increase. Base rent excludes pass-through costs and ancillary costs paid separately to the landlord for parking, storage, utilities, water, garbage or any other similar fee or charge associated with a residential property.
"City" means the City of Newark.
"City Manager" means the City Manager of the City of Newark, or their designated representative.
"Director" means the Director of the Community Development Department of the City of Newark, or their designated representative. A designated representative may include a party or organization contracted by the City to provide the necessary services to implement the procedures contained in this chapter.
"Council" means the City Council of the City of Newark. “Hotel” shall have the same definition as provided in Newark Municipal Code Chapter 3.16. "Landlord" means any person, partnership, corporation, or other business entity offering for rent or lease any residential property in the City. "Landlord" shall include the agent or representative of the landlord, provided that such agent or representative shall have full authority to answer for the landlord and enter into binding agreements on the landlord's behalf. "Party" means a person who participates in the rent review program of this chapter or their agent or representative.
"Rent" means a fixed periodic compensation paid by a tenant at fixed intervals to a landlord for the possession and use of residential property as defined by the rental agreement between the landlord and tenant. Rent excludes pass-through costs and ancillary costs paid separately to the Ordinance No. ____

EXHIBIT A
18 landlord for parking, storage, utilities, water, garbage, or any other fee or charge associated with a residential property.
"Rent increase" means any upward adjustment of the rent from the base rent amount. "Rent review officer" means the officer designated by the Director to conduct mediation pursuant to Section 5.50.040(E).
"Residential property" means any housing unit offered for rent or lease in the City. Mobile homes are subject to this chapter only if a tenant rents the mobile housing unit itself. Residential property shall exclude any housing unit that is subject to a recorded regulatory agreement that requires that the housing unit be rented to a tenant at specified income levels as defined by the regulatory agreement, hotels, and junior accessory dwelling units as defined by state law. "Tenant" means any person having the legal responsibility for the payment of rent for residential property in the City. "Tenant" shall include the agent or representative of the tenant, provided that such agent or representative shall have full authority to answer for the tenant and enter into binding agreements on the tenant's behalf.
§ 5.50.030 Notice of Availability of Rent Review.

A. Notice of Availability of Rent Review Required. In addition to the notice of a rent increase required by Civil Code Section 827(b), and at the time when a landlord provides notice of any rent increase, the landlord shall also provide notice of the availability of the rent review procedure established by this chapter. The notice of availability of rent review required by subsection C of this section shall be provided by the landlord at the time when a landlord provides notice of any rent increase in the three predominant languages spoken in the City. The City Manager or designee shall determine the predominant languages spoken in the City and shall ensure that copies of the notice of availability of rent review required by subsection C of this section are made available to landlords by the City in those three languages. Any rent increase accomplished in violation of this chapter shall be void, and no landlord may take any action to enforce such an invalid rent increase. Any rent increase in violation of this chapter shall operate as an affirmative defense to an unlawful detainer action based on failure to pay any illegal rent increase. Any tenant required to pay an illegal rent increase may recover all illegal rent increase amounts actually paid by the tenant. If a landlord fails to properly notice a tenant pursuant to this chapter, the landlord must re-notice the tenant in accordance with this section prior to demanding or accepting any increase in rent.

B. Contents of Notice. All notices of the availability of rent review shall be in writing, shall provide the name, address and phone number of the landlord and shall be personally delivered to the tenant or mailed to the tenant at the address of the tenant's residential property. Service by mail shall be presumed complete within five calendar days of mailing.

This presumption may be rebutted by the tenant.

Ordinance No. ____

EXHIBIT A
19 C. Text of Notice. In addition to all other information provided in the notice of the availability of rent review required by this chapter, each such notice, which may be modified by the City Manager to reflect any changes in the law, shall substantively state:

NOTICE: Under Civil Code Section 827(b) a landlord must provide a tenant with at least 30 days' notice prior to a rent increase of 10% or less and at least 90 days' notice of a rent increase of greater than 10%. Under Chapter 5.50 of the Newark Municipal Code, a landlord must, at the same time as a notice of a rent increase, provide this notice of the City's rent review procedure, before demanding or accepting any increase in rent. You are encouraged to contact the owner or manager of your rental unit to discuss the rent increase. However, if you have received notice of a rent increase that: 1) will increase your rent more than 5% above the base rent you paid last month; or 2) follows one or more prior rent increases within the past year where the combined rent increases are more than 5% than the base rent paid prior to the first rent increase over the past year, you may request rent review, which includes conciliation and mediation, of your rent increase. Such a request must be submitted in writing within 15 calendar days of your receiving notice of the rent increase or post marked within 15 calendar days of receipt if mailed. You must submit a copy of the notice of rent increase at the same time you submit the rent review request. To request review of your rent increase, please contact the Community Development Department of the City of Newark, 37101 Newark Blvd., Newark, CA 94560. Under Civil Code Section 1942.5, it is illegal for a landlord to retaliate against a tenant for lawfully and peaceably exercising their legal rights. § 5.50.040 Rent Review.

A. Request for Rent Review. A tenant may seek rent review when the proposed rent increase:
(1) raises the rent to an amount more than five percent than the base rent; or (2) follows a prior rent increase or rent increases imposed within the previous twelve-month period where the combined rent increases are more than five percent than the base rent paid prior to the first rent increase of the twelve-month period. The tenant seeking rent review must submit the request in writing to the Director and the request must be received by the Director or their designee, or post marked (if submitted by mail), within fifteen calendar days of the tenant's receipt of the notice of rent increase. The request must include a copy of the landlord's notice of rent increase.

B. Conciliation and Mediation. The rent review shall consist of conciliation pursuant to subsection D of this section and, if required, mediation pursuant to subsection E of this section. After determining that a proposed rent increase meets the criteria for initiation of rent review set forth in subsection A of this section, the Director shall attempt to contact the landlord to initiate conciliation procedures pursuant to paragraph (D)(1) of this section within three business days.

Ordinance No. ____

EXHIBIT A
20 C. Impact on Rent Increase. A request for rent review shall not delay the effective date of a rent increase. If appropriate, the parties may enter into a mutual private agreement to delay the effective date of a rent increase or reach any other agreement to effectively reimburse rent increases paid by the tenant.

D. Conciliation.

1. Duration of Conciliation. After the Director contacts the landlord pursuant to subsection B of this section, the Director shall provide the landlord with a copy of the tenant's rent review request form and the landlord shall respond to acknowledge the rent review request either orally or in writing within ten business days. Failure of the landlord to respond to the Director within ten business days, absent a finding of good cause by the Director, shall void the rent increase. Good cause for failure to respond shall include, but not be limited to, illness, unanticipated absence from the office, emergency situations, and other similar circumstances. The Director shall attempt conciliation, which may include peer-to-peer counseling, of the rent increase for a period not to exceed ten business days following acknowledgement of the rent review request by the landlord.

2. Participation. The landlord and tenant shall participate in conciliation and shall provide relevant information, exchange proposals, reasonably consider proposals by opposite parties and engage in discussion(s) regarding the rent increase and issues related to the rent increase. One or more tenants affected by a common rent increase may simultaneously participate in the same conciliation proceeding with consent of the landlord.

3. Failure to Participate. Failure of the tenant to participate in conciliation of the rent increase at issue shall bar the tenant from seeking mediation pursuant to subsection E of this section and shall bar the tenant from seeking any further remedies under this chapter for such rent increase. Failure of the landlord to participate in conciliation shall void the rent increase.

4. Agreement During Conciliation. If the parties agree to a resolution during conciliation, they may formalize the agreement in a standard form signed by both parties. The City shall not be a party to such an agreement, nor shall the City assume any responsibility for enforcement of its terms.

5. Failure to Resolve. If the parties do not resolve the rent dispute during conciliation, the Director shall inform the parties that the conciliation process is concluded and the tenant shall be entitled to seek mediation, pursuant to Section subsection E of this section, within five business days. Failure of the tenant to seek mediation shall bar the tenant from pursuing any further remedies under this chapter for the rent increase at issue.

E. Mediation.

Ordinance No. ____

EXHIBIT A
21 1. Notice and Date. Upon request for mediation, the mediation shall be scheduled and held before the rent review officer within sixty calendar days of the Director's receipt of the rent review request, or as soon thereafter as the mediation may be scheduled. The City Manager shall establish a specified date and time each month for mediations to be held. The City Manager may schedule a special mediation date and time in addition to the established mediation date and time, if the City Manager determines, in their discretion, that a special mediation is appropriate for a particular rent review. The Director shall provide the landlord and the tenant notice of the mediation date and location at least ten calendar days prior to the mediation.

2. Factors. The rent review officer will afford the landlord and the tenant an opportunity to explain their respective positions at the mediation of a rent dispute. After hearing from both parties, and taking into consideration such factors as the hardship to the tenant, the frequency and amount of prior rent increases, the landlord's mortgage payments and other costs associated with owning and maintaining the property, the landlord's interest in earning a reasonable rate of return, and any other factors that may assist the rent review officer in determining a fair resolution to the dispute, the rent review officer will make a recommendation to the parties for the resolution of their dispute. One or more tenants affected by a common rent increase may elect to simultaneously participate in the same mediation proceeding with consent of the landlord.

3. Agreement. If the parties agree to a resolution proposed by the rent review officer they may formalize the agreement in a standard form signed by both parties. Neither the City nor the rent review officer shall be a party to such an agreement, nor shall the City or rent review officer assume any responsibility for enforcement of its terms.

4. Failure to Appear. If the tenant requesting rent review appears at a mediation, but the landlord who has been given notice of the mediation as required by paragraph 1 of this subsection fails to appear before the rent review officer without good cause, the rent increase shall be void, and the landlord may not take any action to enforce such an invalid rent increase. If a tenant who has been given proper notice of rent review as required by paragraph 1 of this subsection fails to appear for the mediation without good cause, or if both the tenant and landlord fail to appear without good cause, the rent review officer shall dismiss the case and the tenant will be barred from subsequently challenging such increase pursuant to this chapter. Good cause for failure to appear shall include, but not be limited to, illness, death, vehicle malfunction, and other similar circumstances. If either party fails to appear for good cause, the mediation shall be rescheduled as soon as reasonably possible.

F. Retaliatory Eviction. Commencement of eviction proceedings against a tenant for exercising their rights under this chapter shall be considered a retaliatory eviction. Under Ordinance No. ____

EXHIBIT A
22 Civil Code Section 1942.5, it is illegal for a landlord to retaliate against a tenant for lawfully and peaceably exercising their legal rights.
§ 5.50.050 Miscellaneous.

A. Annual Review. The Director shall annually prepare a report to the Council assessing the effectiveness of the rent review program established under this chapter and recommending changes as may be appropriate.

B. Property Registration and Fees.

1. A landlord shall register each residential property within the City. The registration shall be on forms provided by the City and shall include the name and mailing address of the owner or owners of the residential property as well as any other information deemed necessary by the City.

2. For the sole purpose of reimbursing the City for the reasonable costs of implementing this chapter, including costs associated with conciliation and mediation, the landlord of each residential shall pay a fee in an amount to be set by the City for each residential property.

C. Operative Date. This chapter shall be operative May 1, 2026.

Ordinance No. ____
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWARK AMENDING THE 2024–2026 BIENNIAL BUDGET

AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN TO APPROPRIATE

FUNDS FROM THE HOUSING IMPACT FEE FUND TO FUND

AN EMERGENCY RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, on October 26, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11,575, approving a General Plan amendment to repeal the Fifth Cycle Housing Element (2015–2023) and adopt the Sixth Cycle Housing Element (2023–2031), in compliance with State Housing Element Law; and
WHEREAS, the Sixth Cycle Housing Element includes Goal H4, “Help People Stay in Their Homes and Communities,” which emphasizes strategies to reduce displacement and prevent homelessness; and
WHEREAS, Housing Element Goal H4 includes policies that encourage the development of programs to support housing stability for homeowners and tenants, particularly low- and moderate-income households; and
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11,341 endorsing the Alameda County Home Together Plan, which identifies homelessness prevention as a key strategy for reducing displacement and housing instability; and WHEREAS, emergency rental assistance programs are an effective tool used by jurisdictions to prevent displacement and homelessness by providing short-term support to households experiencing temporary financial hardship; and WHEREAS, the City desires to establish an Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) to provide limited, short-term financial assistance to income-qualifying residential tenants experiencing temporary hardships that threaten housing stability; and WHEREAS, on June 27, 2024, the City Council adopted the City of Newark’s 2024–2026 Biennial Budget and Capital Improvement Plan; and
WHEREAS, the staff report dated January 8, 2026, recommends appropriating $250,000 from the Housing Impact Fee Fund to establish the Emergency Rental Assistance Program, including up to $50,000 for program administration and the remaining funds for direct financial assistance; and
WHEREAS, the Emergency Rental Assistance Program will be funded using Housing Impact Fee Fund resources, which have sufficient available fund balance to support the proposed allocation without affecting existing housing commitments; and WHEREAS, amending the adopted 2024–2026 Biennial Budget and Capital Improvement Plan is required to appropriate funds not previously authorized, and such amendment requires formal action by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed budget amendment is consistent with the City’s adopted Housing Element, fiscal policies, and long-term financial planning objectives.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newark that the 2024–2026 Biennial Budget and Capital Improvement Plan is hereby amended to appropriate $250,000 from the unappropriated fund balance of the Housing Impact Fee Fund (Fund 623) to fund the Emergency Rental Assistance Program, as described in the January 8, 2026 staff report.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the budget amendment authorized herein shall be recorded as follows:

TO: 623.50.052.920.6220 Program Administrator $50,000
TO: 623.50.052.920.6950 Economic/Public Assistance $200,000 FR: 623.3000 Unappropriated Fund Balance $250,000
BE IT RESOLVED that the City Manager, or designee, is authorized to take all actions necessary to implement this resolution in a manner consistent with the adopted budget, City procurement requirements, and the program parameters described in the staff report, including execution of contracts within approved authority limits.

CITY OF NEWARK
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT

HCD COMPLIANT DRAFT
December 1, 2023

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
NEWARK 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements 8
SECTION 1 Introduction 9
A. Purpose and Organization of the Housing Element 9
B. Changes in State Housing Law 10
C. Relation to Other General Plan Elements 12
D. Community Engagement 14
SECTION 2 Housing Needs 21
A. Population Growth and Trends 23
B. Housing Tenure 28
C. Housing Needs for Special Needs Populations 41
SECTION 3 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing 53
A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing 53
B. History of the Land and People 54
C. Summary of Fair Housing Need 56
D. Fair Housing Assessment 58
E. Racially and/or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty + Affluence 74 F. Disparities in Access to Opportunity 76
G. Disproportionate Housing Needs for Low-income Households and Protected Classes 91 H. AFFH Analysis of Sites 123
I. Contributing Factors and Meaningful Actions 141
SECTION 4 Housing Constraints 148
A. Governmental Constraints 148
B. Non-Governmental Constraints 187
C. Environmental Constraints 189
SECTION 5 Housing Resources 192
A. Available Sites For Housing 192
B. City Financial Resources 195
C. Other City and Partner Agency Resources 195
2 NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
SECTION 6 Housing Plan 197
A. Evaluation of Accomplishments Under Adopted Housing Element 197 B. Housing Plan: Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Programs 205 Appendices
A. Housing Needs A-1
B. Public Engagement and Input Summary B-1
C. Housing Sites Inventory C-1
D. Public Comment Response D-1
3 NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: New State Housing Laws Relevant to
Housing Element Update
Table 1-2: Draft Public Comment
Table 2-1: Population Growth Trends
Table 2-2: Population by Race 2000 to 2019
Table 2-3: Number and Type of Housing Units in
Alameda County 2022
Table 2-4: Newark Cash Rent, 2021
Table 2-5: Newark Rents, 2023
Table 2-6 Overcrowding by Regional Population,
2013-2017
Table 2-7: Substandard Housing Units, 2015-2019
Table 2-8: Subsidized Affordable Housing Units at
Risk of Conversion to Market Rate 2020
Table 2-9: Disability by Type, 2015-2019
Table 3-1: Newark Fair Housing Complaints,
2016-2021
Table 3-2: Fair Housing Complaints Forwarded to Fair
Housing and Equal Opportunity Alameda County,
January 2017- June 2020
Table 3-3: Population by Racial Group, Newark and
the Region, 2000 to 2020
Table 3-4: Race and Ethnicity of Newark Residents,
2000 to 2020
Table 3-5: Dissimilarity Index Between Racial Groups,
2000 to 2020
Table 3-6: Isolation Index for Newark and the Bay
Area, 2000 to 2020
Table 3-7: Domains and List of Indicators for
Opportunity Maps, 2021
Table 3-8: Selected District Level Data -
0161234--Newark Unified for the year 2021-2022
Table 3-9: Residents With A Disability, Newark and
Region, 2015- 2019
Table 3-10: Housing Units at Risk of Conversion, 2022
Table 3-11: Students in Local Public Schools
Experiencing Homelessness, 2016 to 2020
Table 3-12: Migrant Farmworker Student Population,
2016 to 2020
Table 3-13: Distribution of Housing Capacity by
Census Tract with AFFH Indicators
Table 3-14: Site Distribution by Median Income,
2015- 2019
Table 3-15: Sites Along Transit Lines and High or
Moderate Opportunity Areas, 2022
Table 3-16: Summary of Contributing Factors and
Actions Regarding Housing Issues in Newark
Table 4-1: General Plan Land Use Designations
Table 4-2: Residential Development Standards,
Newark 2022
Table 4-3: Housing Types Permitted by Zone, Newark
2022
Table 4-4: Potential Sites for Emergency Shelters in
Newark, 2022
Table 4-5: Level of Review Authority, Selected
Decision Types
Table 4-6: Average Permit Processing Time, Newark,
2022
Table 4-7: Permit Fees, Newark, Fiscal Year
2022-2023
Table 4-8: Residential Development Impact Fees,
Newark, Fiscal Year 2022-2023
Table 4-9: Off-Street Parking Requirements, Newark
2021
Table 6-1: Review of Policies and Programs of 5th
Housing Element Cycle
Table 6-2: Assessors Parcels Numbers Subject to AB
1397, 2022
4 NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table 6-3: List of Quantified Objectives for the 2023
to 2031 Planning Period
Table C-1: City of Newark Detailed Sites Inventory
Table C-2: City of Newark Sites Inventory APNs and
Acreage
Table C-3: Planned and Proposed Sites with Project
Status
Table C-4: Lower Income RHNA vis-a-vis Non Vacant
Sites, 2023
Table C-5: Grocery Outlet Center Realistic Capacity
Analysis
Table C-6: Thornton Ave. Sites Realistic Capacity
Analysis
Table C-7: Cedar Blvd. and Timber St. Industrial Sites
Realistic Capacity Analysis #1
Table C-8: Cedar Blvd. and Timber St. Industrial Sites
Realistic Capacity Analysis #2
Table C-9: Cedar Blvd. and Timber St. Industrial Sites
Realistic Capacity Analysis #3
Table C-10: E-Z 8 Realistic Capacity Analysis
Table C-11: Cherry Plaza Realistic Capacity Analysis
Table C-12: Sycamore St. Vacant Lot Realistic
Capacity Analysis
Table C-13: Cedar Blvd. Public Storage Realistic
Capacity Analysis
Table C-14: Filbert Ave. Sites Realistic Capacity
Analysis
Table D-1: Housing Element Draft Public Comments
Received and City Response
5 NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Population by Age, 2000 to 2019
Figure 2-2: Wage or Works by Place of Residence and
Work, by Income, 2015- 2019
Figure 2-3: Housing Age, 2015- 2019
Figure 2-4: Newark Zillow Home Value Index, 2013
-2022
Figure 2-5: Home Values of Owner Occupied Units,
2015-2019
Figure 2-6: Rents for Renter Occupied Units in
Newark, Alameda County, and the Bay Area, 2015-
2019
Figure 2-7: Housing Tenure by Race, 2015- 2019
Figure 2-8: Vacant Units By Type, 2015- 2019
Figure 2-9: Cost Burdened Households, Renters and
Homeowners, 2015- 2019
Figure 2-10: Low Income Cost Burdened Households,
Renters and Homeowners, 2015- 2019
Figure 2-11: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity,
2013- 2017
Figure 2-12: Senior Households by Income and
Tenure, 2013- 2017
Figure 2-13: Cost Burdened Rates by Income Level,
Seniors, 2013- 2017
Figure 2-14: Households by Household Size, 2015-
2019
Figure 2-15: Household Type, 2015- 2019
Figure 2-16: Household Type by Tenure, 2015- 2019
Figure 2-17: Households by Household Income Level,
2013- 2017
Figure 3-1: Predominate Racial Groups in Newark,
2010
Figure 3-2: Racial Demographics of Newark, 2018
Figure 3-3: Household Income levels for Newark,
Alameda County and the Bay Area, 2013- 2017
Figure 3-4: Income by Race and Ethnicity, 2013- 2017
Figure 3-5: Median Household Income, 2015- 2019
Figure 3-6: Low to Moderate Income Households and
Percent Non-White Population, 2015- 2019, 2018
Figure 3-7: Area of High Segregation and Poverty,
2021
Figure 3-8: Distribution of TCAC Opportunity Areas
in the San Francisco Bay Area, 2022
Figure 3-9: Composite of Opportunity Areas in
Newark, 2022
Figure 3-10: Percentage of Residents in Low,
Moderate and High Resourced Areas by Race, 2015-
2019
Figure 3-11: Jobs Proximity Index Composite,
2014-2017
Figure 3-12: Economic Opportunity Score, 2021
Figure 3-13: Environmental Opportunity Score, 2021
Figure 3-14: CalEnviroScreen and Non-White
Population, 2021 and 2018
Figure 3-15: Newark School Enrollment, 2017-2022
Figure 3-16: Race and Ethnicity of Newark Unified
School District, 2020-2021 School Year
Figure 3-17: Educational Opportunity Index, 2021
Figure 3-18: Alameda County Transit Bus Stops and
Proposed Transit Stations, 2022
Figure 3-19: Housing and Transportation Costs as a
Percentage of Income
Figure 3-20: Percentage of Households With Children
Under 18 Years of Age, 2015- 2019
Figure 3-21: Family Structures in Newark, 2015-
2019
Figure 3-22: Percent of Married Couples with
Children, 2015- 2019
Figure 3-23: Percent of Children in a Female Headed
Household, 2015- 2019
Figure 3-24: Poverty Levels of Female Headed
Households in Newark, 2015- 2019
6 NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-25: Comparison of Household Size for
Owners and Renters in Alameda County and Newark,
2015- 2019
Figure 3-26: Increase of Senior Population. 2010 to
2019
Figure 3-27: Seniors Income Level, Owners and
Renters, 2015- 2019
Figure 3-28: Disability Status By Age, 2016- 2020
Figure 3-29: Newark Senior Population with
Disability, 65 years and Older, 2016- 2020
Figure 3-30: Disability Status by Race, 2016- 2020
Figure 3-31: Cost Burden Renter Households in
Newark Over Time, 2015- 2019
Figure 3-32: Cost Burdened by Income, 2013- 2017
Figure 3-33: Cost Burdened Households, Renters and
Homeowners, 2015-2019
Figure 3-34: Overpayment by Renters, 2015- 2019
Figure 3-35: Overpayment by Homeowners, 2015-
2019
Figure 3-36: Cost Burdened Residents by Race, 2013-
2017
Figure 3-37: Percent of Owner and Renter
Households Living in Crowded Conditions, 2013-
2017
Figure 3-38: Overcrowding by Race and Ethnicity,
2015- 2019
Figure 3-39: Overcrowding and Severe Overcrowding
in Newark and Non-White Population, 2015- 2019
and 2018
Figure 3-40: Subsidized Housing and Housing Choice
Vouchers, 2021
Figure 3-41: Housing Tenure in Newark, 2015- 2019
Figure 3-42: Rates of Homeownership by Race, 2015-
2019
Figure 3-43: Mortgage Applications and Acceptance
by Race, 2018-2019
Figure 3-44: Total Count of People Experiencing
Homelessness For The Point In Time Count On
February 22, 2022
Figure 3-45: Unsheltered Individuals in Newark and
Alameda County, 2022
Figure 3-46: Sheltered Individuals by Race, 2022
Figure 3-47: Permanent and Seasonal Farmworkers
at the County Level, 2022 to 2017
Figure 3-48: Map of Plan and Dumbarton Corridor,
2010
Figure 3-49: Areas in Newark Vulnerable to
Displacement and Percentage of Communities of
Color, 2018 and 2022
Figure 3-50: 100 Year and 500 Year Flooding
Projections for the City of Newark
Figure 3-51: Housing Sites for the RHNA 6th Cycle
Figure 3-52: Sites by Racial Predominance, 2010
Figure 3-53: Site Distribution by Median Income,
2015- 2019
Figure 3-54: Site Distribution By Percent of Low and
Moderate Income Residents, 2015- 2019
Figure 3-55: Site Distribution by CalEnviroScreen
Percentile Score, 2021
Figure 3-56: Percentage of Housing Units by
Resource Opportunity Area, 2022
Figure 3-57: Site Distribution by Resource Level and
Transportation Access, 2022
Figure 3-58: Distribution of Sites by Rates of Cost
burdened, 2015– 2019
Figure 3-59: Distribution of Sites by Displacement
Risk and Percent BIPOC population, 2017 and 2018
Figure 3-60: Housing Sites Vis-a-Vis Disability Status, 2015- 2019
Figure 4-1: Development Review Process
Figure 5-1: Housing Sites for the RHNA 6th Cycle
Figure C-1: Housing Sites for the RHNA 6th Cycle
7 NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
City of Newark Staff
Steven Turner, Community Development Director
Art Interiano, Assistant Community Development Director Carmelisa Lopez, Senior Planner
Joseph Balatbat, Associate Planner
Consultant Team
Paul Peninger, BAE Urban Economics
Community Planning Collaborative
Clara Cheeves
Bowen Close
Josh Ellsworth
Corinne Tsai
Newark Community
The City would like to extend its thanks to the community members, advocates and organizations that contributed to this report. An incomplete list of those who contributed their time and knowledge toward this draft is below:
● All the community members that filled out a survey, and attend a community meeting ● Alameda County Department of Health Developmental Disabilities Council ● Clark W. Redeker Newark Senior Center
● El Tímpano
● Greenbelt Alliance
● Housing Consortium of the East Bay
● Promotores
● Second Chance Inc.
● Newark Public Library
● Newark Unified School District: Newark Parent leadership team ● Newark Planning Commission
8 NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
The city of Newark is a growing, vibrant, multicultural city with a diverse commercial and business sector, and an inclusive community character. The City is committed to ensuring that all current and future residents continue to enjoy Newark’s distinctive attributes through the implementation of policies and programs that ensure that all residents have access to housing that meets the full range of household and community needs. To this end, the City is currently engaged in the implementation of an ambitious affordable housing work plan adopted by the Newark City Council in May, 2021. This Work Plan lays the foundation for the update of the City’s General Plan Housing Element, an opportunity for Newark to plan for housing to meet the needs of all segments of Newark’s diverse community.

A. Purpose and Organization of the Housing Element
Housing Element Purpose
California law recognizes the vital role that local governments play in the availability, adequacy, and affordability of housing. Every jurisdiction in California is required to adopt a long-range General Plan to guide its physical development, and the Housing Element is one of the seven required elements of the General Plan. Housing Element law mandates that local governments adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The law recognizes that in order for the private market to adequately address housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt land use plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain housing production. Housing Element statutes also require the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to review local housing elements for compliance with State law and to report their findings to the local government.

California's Housing Element law requires that each city and county develop local housing programs to meet its "fair share" of existing and future housing needs for all income groups. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is responsible for developing and assigning these regional needs, or "RHNA", to Bay Area jurisdictions. Pursuant to the RHNA planning period, the Newark Housing Element is an eight-year plan extending from 2023 to 2031, also referred to as the 6
th Cycle Housing Element.
9 NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Newark’s Housing Element identifies strategies and programs that focus on:

1. Preserving and improving existing housing

2. Removing governmental and other constraints to housing development

3. Promoting and expanding fair and equitable housing opportunities

4. Assisting in the creation of new affordable housing in the City

5. Providing sites for new housing to be built

6. Addressing existing and emergent housing challenges related to climate change Element Organization
The 2023-2031 Newark Housing Element is comprised of the following major components:
● An introduction to review the requirements of the Housing Element, recent State laws and the community engagement process
● A community profile evaluating Newark's demographic, household and housing characteristics and related housing needs
● An analysis of governmental and non-governmental constraints on housing production and maintenance
● A detailed analysis of sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA for the planning period ● An evaluation of available resources to facilitate the production and maintenance of housing, including housing sites, financial and administrative resources available for housing, and opportunities for energy conservation
● A Housing Plan for addressing the City's identified housing needs, constraints and resources; including housing goals, policies and programs A series of appendices provide additional documentation. ● Appendix A is a presentation of the Housing Needs analysis. ● Appendix B provides a summary of public input received from the variety of community engagement opportunities undertaken throughout the Housing Element update process. ● Appendix C presents the parcel-specific Housing Element sites inventory.

B. Changes in State Housing Law
In response to California's worsening affordable housing crisis, in each of the last several years the State legislature has enacted a series of bills aimed at increasing production, promoting affordability and creating greater accountability for localities in addressing their housing needs.

The following items in Table 1-1 represent substantive changes to State housing law since Newark's last Housing Element was adopted and certified in 2014. 10 NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table 1-1: New State Housing Laws Relevant to Housing Element Update Housing Bills Bill Overview
Housing Element Sites Analysis
and Reporting
AB 879 (2017); AB 1397 (2017); SB
6 (2019)
Requires cities to zone more appropriately for their share of regional housing needs and in certain circumstances require by-right development on identified sites. Site analysis must also include additional justification for being chosen, particularly for sites identified to address lower income needs.

No Net Loss Zoning
SB 166 (2017)
Requires cities to identify additional low-income housing sites in their Housing Element when market- rate housing is developed on a site currently identified for low-income housing.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing
AB 686 (2017)
Housing Elements must contain an Assessment of Fair Housing, consistent with the federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Final Rule. The AFFH sections must include a summary of fair housing issues in the jurisdiction; a summary of fair housing data including contributing factors to fair housing issues; analysis of Housing Element sites in relation to AFFH; and an AFFH program that includes meaningful action.

Accessory Dwelling Units and
Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
AB 494 (2017), SB 229 (2017), AB
68 (2019), AB 881 (2019), AB 587
(2019), SB 13 (2019), AB 670
(2019), AB 671 (2019), AB 3182
(2020)
The State enacted legislation in both 2017 and 2019 to further assist and support the development of ADUs, including "by right" approval for one-bedroom units less than 850 square feet and two-bedroom units less than 1,000 square feet. and Junior ADUs less than 500 square feet.

Density Bonus
AB 1763 (2019), AB 2345 (2020)
Permits 100% affordable projects to be built denser and taller through three modifications to current Density Bonus Law. AB 2345 creates additional incentives and also requires the annual progress report to include if density bonuses have been granted.

Housing Crisis Act of 2019
SB 330 (2019)
Seeks to boost homebuilding by expediting approvals for housing development, including application processing times. SB 339 also prevents jurisdictions from decreasing a site's housing capacity through tools such as downzoning if that would preclude a jurisdiction from meeting its RHNA targets. Also, any project that includes demolition of housing units must replace or exceed that number of units. Any demolished units occupied by low-income households must be replaced with new units that are affordable to that same income level.
11 NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Housing Bills Bill Overview
Surplus Land for Affordable
Housing
SB 1486 (2019), AB 1255 (2019)
Expands definition of surplus land and puts additional restrictions on the disposal of surplus land.

Jurisdictions must include information about surplus lands in the Housing Element and Annual Progress Reports. A central
inventory of surplus lands also must be submitted to HCD.

Emergency and Transitional
Housing Act
AB 139 (2019)
Amends assessment method to show site capacity, including using the most up-to-date point-in-time count. Additionally, the bill modifies parking requirement for emergency shelters. The Housing Element must include all of this information as well as analysis of the jurisdiction's special needs populations.

Supportive Housing Streamlined
Approval
AB 2162 (2018)
Requires supportive housing to be a use by right and eliminates parking if close to transit.

Safety Element Changes
SB 1035 (2018), SB 99 (2019), SB
747 (2019)
Updates requirements for the General Plan Safety Element including expanded information on environmental hazards facing jurisdictions and analysis of emergency evacuation routes. These updates must occur at the same time as the Housing Element updates.

C. Relation to Other General Plan Elements
The City of Newark's General Plan is comprised of the following eleven Chapters: 1) Introduction; 2) Planning Framework; 3) Land Use; 4) Transportation; 5) Housing; 6) Economic Development; 7) Conservation and Sustainability; 8) Parks, Recreation, and Open Space; 9) Environmental Hazards (to be renamed Safety Element); 10) Health and Wellness; and 12) Community Services and Facilities. Except for the Housing Element which was updated to be consistent with other elements, the other Newark General Plan Elements were adopted by the Newark City Council on December 12, 2013. State law requires that the General Plan be internally consistent. The Housing Element is consistent with Goals and Policies of the other elements of the General Plan.

The City will ensure consistency between the Housing Element and the other General Plan elements so that policies introduced in one element are consistent with other elements.

Whenever any element of the General Plan is amended in the future, the Housing Element will be reviewed and modified, if necessary, to ensure continued consistency between elements. 12 NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
General Plan and Housing Element Consistency
The City of Newark’s General Plan, adopted in 2013, is the city’s long term vision for the growth and development. There are a number of elements that are interconnected with the goals and policies of the Housing Element: The Land Use Element, Transportation Element, Economic Development Element, and the Health and Wellness Element.

The Land Use Element seeks to encourage redevelopment and promote infill in strategic areas to create new pedestrian oriented, high-density, mixed-use, and transit-oriented development, especially around the proposed Dumbarton Rail station and Old Town neighborhood. The Land Use Element seeks to ensure that the design of new development is responsive to existing residential neighborhoods and community character. The Land Use Element’s policies and actions encourage new housing opportunities for all residents, through increasing ADU production and inclusionary zoning, to co-locate services, parks and recreation to increase access to residential opportunities.

The Transportation Element reinforces elements of the Land Use Element through the emphasis on high density, mixed use housing development in proximity to public transportation. The element also looks at the addressing parking requirements for housing to ensure the number of parking spaces is reflective to the use, resident type and location.

The Economic Development Element is focused on the revitalization of the NewPark Mall area, reducing commuter times through jobs housing balance, and ensuring that new development has a positive economic impact for the city.

The Health and Wellness Element looks at connecting land use planning with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and general community health through increasing access to healthy foods. This year a new chapter will be added to the Health and Wellness Element, this chapter will work to:
● Reduce pollution exposure and improve air quality
● Promote access to public facilities
● Promote access to healthy foods
● Promote safe and sanitary homes
● Promote physical activity
● Promote civic engagement
Upon adoption, this Housing Element will be incorporated into the 2013 General Plan, updating the existing Housing Element. This Housing Element was prepared to maintain internal consistency with other elements of the General Plan. In addition, State law requires that other General Plan elements be reviewed and/or modified upon adoption of the Housing Element.

Senate Bill (SB) 1035 requires the safety element to be revised upon update of the Housing Element to include new information on fire hazards, flood hazards, and climate adaptation and 13 NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
resilience strategies. The City will be updating the Environmental Hazards Element (to be renamed the Safety Element) in conjunction with the 2023-2031 Housing Element update. The City will maintain consistency between the Housing Element and the other General Plan elements so that policies introduced in one element are consistent with other elements.

D. Community Engagement
The City of Newark maintains an ongoing commitment to providing meaningful community engagement in partnership with community based organizations and in collaboration with other city departments in order to reach all segments of the population.Through a multi-pronged and multi-lingual approach, City staff worked to provide opportunities for community engagement over the course of the Housing Element update process.

Findings from the Community Engagement process were used to inform Newark’s Fair Housing Assessment and the goals, policies, and programs of the Housing Element update. See Section 3 (Affirmatively Furthering fair Housing) and 6 (Goals, Policies, & Programs) for more information.

Public Comment from HCD review process
During the HCD Review process, the City received comment letters from East Bay for Everyone, Save the Bay, Greenbelt Alliance and the Planning Commission and the public. Comments and responses received during the comment period focused on making adjustments to parking to better facilitate affordable housing development, programs to increase missing middle housing, aligning housing with active transportation investments and concern about housing development in the floodplain areas of the city. Comment letters and responses can be found in Appendix D.

Outreach Methods Utilized:

Social Media
The City and consultants utilized social media promotion for pop up events, promoting the website and a housing survey through Facebook. Content was posted on Facebook pages for the City of Newark, Newark Unified School District, Promotores, and Newark Recreation and Community Services.

Posters and Flyers
In addition to social media, the city used more traditional forms of communication, including the distribution of posters and flyers. Posters were distributed and posted in a variety of public places throughout the city, including parks, community centers, and other public buildings, local 14 NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
businesses and with faith-based communities. Posters and flyers were translated into Spanish, Simplified Chinese, Vietnamese and Tagalog in order to reach a broad spectrum of the community.

Places the city posted:
● Newark Public Library
● Mel Nunes Skate Park
● NewBark Dog Park
● Restaurants in partnership with community groups
● Senior Center
● Silliman Community Activity Center
● Newark Community Center and childcare center
Flyers were shared at popular and frequented sites in the community and distributed at in-person community events. The flyers had a QR code that connected residents directly to the website and housing survey.

Website
The city also created a unique, dedicated stand-alone website that is translatable in three languages, and also touches on issues of environmental justice. The website is the hub for the community to access information on the housing element update and opportunities for engagement including in-person events, email updates, and our survey.

In Person Engagement: Meeting The Community Where They Are The city conducted in person community engagement in a variety of locations and events around the city. They engaged with residents at Family Day in the Park on April 9, 2022, spent time connecting with folks at the Newark Public Library on a busy Saturday, visited the senior center for Bingo, and Tri City food pantry mobile pop up. These provided an opportunity for city staff to answer questions, and encourage residents to take part in the housing survey.

One On One Interviews and Listening Sessions
The city conducted one-on-one interviews with staff from the Housing Consortium of the East Bay (HCEB), an organization that creates inclusive communities for individuals with developmental disabilities or other special needs, and a member of the Newark Parent leadership team with Newark Unified School district. We gained insight and guidance into the needs of families and those with developmental disabilities.

Meeting with a member of the Newark Parent leadership team, the city heard there needs to be more affordable housing, as families are being displaced, or forced to live in hotels on a short-term basis. The member shared that households are kept out of the rental market due to unattainable 15 NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
income requirements, and they cited the need for rent control in order to make housing more attainable. There is a need to have more homeownership opportunities that are attainable to a larger demographic. The lack of stable housing and internet access places these children at a disadvantage both educationally, mentally and physically. Increasing access to enrichment and after school activities at the Silliman Center was seen as a beneficial element for the city to develop in conjunction with affordable housing.

Survey
From March 15th through April 30th 2022, 342 people participated in the City of Newark’s online community conversation about housing issues and opportunities in Newark. 300 of those responses were in English, 38 in Spanish and 4 in Chinese.

Participants were invited to answer a series of 22 questions covering housing experience and preference, environmental justice and demographic information. The survey was hosted on the SurveyMonkey platform accessible via the city’s webpage.

The survey was distributed and advertised in multilingual materials through various platforms to reach as broad of a cross section of the community as possible. It was promoted through the social media pages of the City of Newark, Newark Recreation and Community Services, Newark Police Department, and Newark Unified School District. It was also listed in print newsletters that were sent to all Newark residents, the Clark W. Redeker Newark Senior Center email list, and the Alameda County Health Department Developmental Disabilities council list. To reach those lacking internet access, we conducted in-person outreach at the city’s Family Day in the Park event and the Newark Library where residents and workers could take our survey on paper or an iPad.

We also utilized our partnerships with local organizations to share our survey with special needs populations. We worked in partnership with the group Promotores to reach the Latino community.

We also reached out to nonprofit organizations that support people experiencing and escaping from domestic violence, and transitioning from homelessness, to share the survey with them. With the intention of connecting with families, we reached out to the Newark Unified School District parent leadership committees, and was able to gain valuable insight into the needs of families in the city.

Essential insight from the survey is that quality of life, in addition to increasing housing affordability and homeownership opportunities for Newark residents is of great importance and concern. For the full survey questions and responses, see Appendix B. 16 NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Example survey page Example flyer
WHAT WE HEARD Residents are very concerned about housing affordability 53% of respondents to the English language survey are very concerned about housing affordability. 87% of respondents in the Spanish language survey are very concerned about housing affordability.

The three biggest issues to address for housing affordability:

1. More homeownership opportunities, especially affordable homeownership for first time homebuyers

2. More affordable rental opportunities

3. Low cost home improvements for seniors and low income households The most urgent affordable housing needs are: housing on both ends of the spectrum. Housing for large families as well as for smaller households.

1. Housing for families: Large and intergenerational. Housing for single parents was brought up in comments repeatedly throughout the survey

2. Housing for smaller households

3. Housing for low income and underserved households

4. Housing for seniors
17 NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
WHAT WE HEARD Housing prices have risen, making housing unaffordable to many ● 40% of respondents are in housing that is not affordable to them ● 17% of respondents are in housing that they can afford but does not meet their needs ● 43% in housing they can afford and like
WHAT WE HEARD Not everyone feels that they live in a neighborhood of opportunity What would make your neighborhood feel like it has more opportunity?

1. City infrastructure that supports physical activity, including sidewalks, bike lanes, parks, and rec centers

2. Affordable, safe, and healthy housing choices

3. Educational opportunities that are academically and culturally supportive WHAT WE HEARD People are interested in a variety of housing types Residents were most interested in low scale housing types. Backyard cottages were the most favorable housing type. Cottage clusters and Townhomes were similarly favored housing types, while small to mid-size multifamily housing and multi-family buildings downtown were the least favored.

Who We Heard From
There were 342 overall participants, 300 of which responded in English, 38 in Spanish and 4 in Chinese.

There were five demographic questions, including the survey respondent’s connection to Newark, living situation, age and race. This information helped us understand if participants were representative of the city’s general population and helped us refine subsequent outreach and engagement to improve representation.

In summary, most participants identified as White (31%), followed by Hispanic/Latino (24%) and Asian/Asian American (18%). While nearly half were between the ages of 30 and 49, the remaining were split between people aged 20 to 29 (3%), 50 to 69 (21%), and over 70 (5%). The majority of respondents live in Newark (71%) and in a single family home (57%), and nearly half are homeowners (49%).

Community Meeting
The City held an online community meeting with 50 attendees on June 22 2022, to share with the community the findings from the survey and obtain general feedback on proposed goals and 18 NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
policies that we had developed in response to research and survey results. We advertised the meeting through email communication to local organizations, posters in laundromats and grocery stores such as 99 Ranch that are located in low-income neighborhoods with a majority of BIPOC community members, as well as on social media sites for the Newark Public Library, the parents of NUSD, community organizations such as the Promotores, and the City of Newark. The meeting provided simultaneous translation in both Mandarin Chinese and Spanish, with small break out groups to help residents feel comfortable discussing their thoughts.

WHAT WE HEARD Newark needs to plan for climate change
● Making Newark the green city by the bay: Incorporating and increasing access to public parks, preserving existing ecologically sensitive land, and increasing tree planting to combat increased heat
● Building for energy efficiency: requiring solar panels on homes, insulation, and water conservation
● Increasing access to transportation options: increasing bus access, and building bike lanes to support active transportation with bikes and scooters. ● Building a walkable city: planning housing close to existing amenities such as schools, parks and grocery stores for walkability
WHAT WE HEARD Residents want to stay in their communities, and right now it’s challenging, with many facing displacement
● Supportive resources: Residents, documented and undocumented, need more support and increased access to housing resources and tenant protections “We all deserve housing”
● Innovative programs: Seniors on a fixed income need more support to remain in their homes and communities
“Developing a shared housing program with othersthat need a room to rent, connectseniors with single people who need affordable housing. Helpsseniors on limited incomes” ● Protect tenants: The city needs programs to combat gentrification such as protections from rapid increases in rent
“Rentsincrease but our incomes do not. The median income isreally very high for Newark,so you have a lot of people who need housing at the low and very low incomes.” 19 NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
● Build + preserve homes: More affordable housing is needed for a variety of income levels and housing types. Families, and those transitioning out of homelessness are especially in need.
“It is very hard to move people who have been homelessinto permanent housing, we need more optionsfor those that are on SSI and extremely low incomes” – Director of Second Chance Public Communication for the Draft Housing Element
Newark released the Draft Housing Element for Public Review for 30 days on February 24th, 2023 to March 27th, 2023. The greater Newark community was made aware of the public review and comment period through a variety of channels, including social media, email, the website and a community meeting.

Social media outreach was conducted multiple times a week, with bilingual posts in English and Spanish connecting residents with information about the housing element update such as the release of the draft for comment and the community meeting.

City staff sent out an email announcement that the housing element is available for public comment to 16 community based organizations that are representative of the ethnic and linguistic diversity of Newark. Other organizations included the Alameda County coalition for disability, Def plus, and the domestic violence shelter. Working with the Newark Unified School District, Newark sent out a bilingual community meeting invite over Peachjar, sending the message to parents and caregivers district wide. City staff engaged with the Spanish speaking community, meeting with the local Promotoras group and providing a translated summary of the housing element in Spanish on the website.

Newark hosted a virtual community meeting, the evening of March 22nd, 2023. The meeting provided Spanish and American Sign Language translation to ensure the attendees would be able to participate fully. City staff got the word out through email, social media posts on city and public library sites, and bilingual posters in key locations such as community center, library and laundry mat to reach those without access to the internet.

The website continues to be a source of information for updates on community meetings and Housing Element timelines. A recording providing the public with an overview of the housing element update, how to access and review the draft, the draft goals and a highlight of some of the proposed programs was posted to walk community members through the process.

Detailed Public Comments are provided as Appendix D below. 20 NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
SECTION 2 HOUSING NEEDS
The Housing Needs Assessment analysis of housing and population characteristics, housing needs for vulnerable population groups, as well as the cities growth and employment, to provide the foundation for the development of the goals, policies and programs to meet the future and current needs of the residents.

This section pulls from various sources, primary data sources were compiled by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in 2021. ABAG utilized the US Census, American Community Survey (ACS), the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), California Department of Finance (DOF), California Employment Development Department (EDD). If possible, data was updated to most recent available data and local sources were utilized.

SUMMARY
● Population – Generally, the population of the Bay Area continues to grow because of natural growth and because the strong economy draws new residents to the region. The population of Newark increased by 15.3% from 2000 to 2020, which is above the growth rate of the Bay Area
● Age – In 2019, Newark’s youth population under the age of 18 was 10,015 and senior population 65 and older was 6,038. These age groups represent 21.2% and 12.8%, respectively, of Newark’s population.
● Race/Ethnicity – In 2020, 23.7% of Newark’s population was White while 3.9% was African American, 33.9% was Asian, and 34.8% was Latinx. People of color in Newark comprise a proportion above the overall proportion in the Bay Area as a whole. 1 ● Employment – Newark residents most commonly work in the Manufacturing, Wholesale & Transportation industry. From January 2010 to January 2021, the unemployment rate in Newark decreased by 3.7 percentage points. Since 2010, the number of jobs located in the jurisdiction has increased by 4,650 (29.9%). Additionally, the jobs-household ratio in Newark has increased from 1.33 in 2002 to 1.49 jobs per household in 2018. 1 The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey accounts for ethnic origin separate from racial identity. The numbers reported here use an accounting of both such that the racial categories are shown exclusive of Latinx status, to allow for an accounting of the Latinx population regardless of racial identity. The term Hispanic has historically been used to describe people from numerous Central American, South American, and Caribbean countries. In recent years, the term Latino or Latinx has become preferred. This report generally uses Latinx, but occasionally when discussing US Census data, we use Hispanic or Non-Hispanic, to clearly link to the data source.

HOUSING NEEDS 21

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
● Number of Homes – The number of new homes built in the Bay Area has not kept pace with the demand, resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness. The number of homes in Newark increased, 11.2% from 2010 to 2020, which is above the growth rate for Alameda County and above the growth rate of the region’s housing stock during this time period. ● Home Prices – A diversity of homes at all income levels creates opportunities for all Newark residents to live and thrive in the community.
○ Ownership – The largest proportion of homes had a value in the range of $750k-$1M in 2019. Home prices increased by 133.9% from 2010 to 2020. ○ Rental Prices – The typical contract rent for an apartment in Newark was $2,110 in 2019. Rental prices increased by 61.1% from 2009 to 2019. To rent a typical apartment without cost burden, a household would need to make $84,720 per year.
2 ○ Housing Type – It is important to have a variety of housing types to meet the needs of a community today and in the future. In 2020, 69.6% of homes in Newark were single family detached, 9.5% were single family attached, 4.4% were small multifamily (2-4 units), and 16.5% were medium or large multifamily (5+ units).

Between 2010 and 2020, the number of single- family units increased more than multi-family units. Generally, in Newark, the share of the housing stock that is detached single family homes is above that of other jurisdictions in the region. ● Cost Burden – The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development considers housing to be affordable for a household if the household spends less than 30% of its income on housing costs. A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30% of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” In Newark, 19.2% of households spend 30%-50% of their income on housing, while 12.4% of households are severely cost burdened and use the majority of their income for housing. ● Neighborhood – 9.7% of residents in Newark live in neighborhoods identified as “Highest Resource” or “High Resource” areas by State-commissioned research, while 11.0% of residents live in areas identified by this research as “Low Resource” or “High Segregation and Poverty” areas. These neighborhood designations are based on a range of indicators covering areas such as education, poverty, proximity to jobs and economic opportunities, low pollution levels, and other factors.
3 3 For more information on the “opportunity area” categories developed by HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, see this website: https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp. The degree to which different jurisdictions and neighborhoods have access to opportunity will likely need to be analyzed as part of new Housing 2 Note that contract rents may differ significantly from, and often being lower than, current listing prices.

HOUSING NEEDS 22

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
● Special Housing Needs – Some population groups may have special housing needs that require specific program responses, and these groups may experience barriers to accessing stable housing due to their specific housing circumstances. In Newark, 7.6% of residents have a disability of any kind and may require accessible housing. Additionally, 18.7% of Newark households are larger households with five or more people, who likely need larger housing units with three bedrooms or more. 11.8% of households are female-headed families, which are often at greater risk of housing insecurity.

A. Population Growth and Trends
In recent decades, Newark’s population has seen rapid growth, with an increase of 15.3 percent from 2000 to 2020; this rate is above that of the region as a whole, at 14.8 percent. In 2020, the population of Newark was estimated to be 48,966 (see Table 2-1). From 1990 to 2000, the population increased by 12.2 percent, while it increased by just 0.2 percent during the first decade of the 2000s. In the most recent decade, the population increased by 15 percent. The population of Newark makes up three percent of the population in Alameda County.

Table 2-1: Population Growth Trends
Geography 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Newark 37,861 39,681 42,471 43,522 42,573 44,371 48,966 Alameda
County
1,276,702 1,344,157 1,443,939 1,498,963 1,510,271 1,613,528 1,670,834 Bay Area 6,020,147 6,381,961 6,784,348 7,073,912 7,150,739 7,595,694 7,790,537 Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
Age
In recent years the population of youth has declined slightly with continued growth in those 55 and over. In 2019, Newark’s youth population under the age of 18 was 10,015 and the senior population 65 and older was 6,038. These age groups represent 21.2 percent and 12.8 percent of Newark’s population. Figure 2-1 shows slight increases in population in the 25-34 age group, and the 55 to 64+ age group. The increase in senior population can possibly be attributed to the establishment of a new affordable senior housing development. Community members have shown a preference for more walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods that are close to work, schools, parks, and amenities. The majority of seniors prefer to stay in their homes and communities, known as aging-in-place. Yet many live on fixed incomes and may have mobility issues as they age, which Element requirements related to affirmatively furthering fair housing. ABAG/MTC will be providing jurisdictions with technical assistance on this topic this summer, following the release of additional guidance from HCD.

HOUSING NEEDS 23

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
require supportive services. Similar financial and mobility obstacles exist for many of Newark’s households with special needs. Younger generations are less likely to own homes and have less savings than previous generations; they are more likely to live alone and delay marriage. Yet, many are growing their families, reflected by a higher percentage of families with children in Newark versus the County and Bay Area, and therefore may be in greater need of support when purchasing their first home. Coupled with increasing housing prices, it is more difficult for younger generations to rent or purchase a home than it is for current residents. For these reasons, Newark residents consider the three biggest issues to address housing affordability as: (1) more homeownership opportunities, especially for first time homebuyers; (2) more affordable rental opportunities; and (3) low cost home improvements for seniors and low income households. We therefore must address how to support our seniors as they get older so they can stay in their homes and communities, and make sure young people and households with special needs, new families, and our workers can find housing that is affordable and accessible.

Figure 2-1: Population by Age, 2000 to 2019
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5 Year Data, 2015-2019, Table B01001 HOUSING NEEDS 24

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Race & Ethnicity
Since 2000, the percentage of residents in Newark identifying as White has decreased – and at the same time, the percentage of residents of all other races and ethnicities has increased – by 18.6 percentage points, with the 2019 population standing at 11,168 (see Table 2-2). In absolute terms, the Asian / API, Non-Hispanic population increased the most while the White, Non-Hispanic population decreased the most. In 2020, 23.7 percent of Newark’s population was White while four percent was African American, 33.9 percent was Asian, and 34.8 percent was Latinx. People of color in Newark comprise a proportion above the overall proportion in the Bay Area as a whole. 4 When planning for housing, we need to consider a variety of housing needs—like larger homes for multi- generational families or those with more children—and how to create opportunities for everyone to access quality, affordable housing near schools, transit, jobs, and services.

Past exclusionary practices have prevented people of color from purchasing homes, living in certain neighborhoods, and building wealth over time. As a result, they are more likely to experience poverty, housing insecurity, displacement, and homelessness. And while many of our communities are very diverse, we are still contending with segregation and a lack of equitable opportunities. To help prevent displacement due to gentrification and to create a future where it is possible for everyone to find the housing they need, it will be important to plan for a variety of housing types and affordability options in all neighborhoods.

Table 2-2: Population by Race 2000 to 2019
Year
American Indian
or Alaska Native
Asian / API
Black or African
American
White
Other Race or
Multiple Races
Hispanic or
Latinx
2000 148 9,329 1,639 17,103 128 12,145
2010 95 12,005 1,908 11,726 1,845 14,994
2019 130 16,002 1,818 11,168 1,661 16,392
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001 4 The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey accounts for ethnic origin separate from racial identity.

The numbers reported here use an accounting of both such that the racial categories are shown exclusive of Latino status, to allow for an accounting of the Latinx population regardless of racial identity. The term Hispanic has historically been used to describe people from numerous Central American, South American, and Caribbean countries. In recent years, the term Latino or Latinx has become preferred. This report generally uses Latino, but occasionally when discussing US Census data, we use Hispanic or Non-Hispanic, to clearly link to the data source.

HOUSING NEEDS 25

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Employment Characteristics
By 2050 the number of jobs in South Alameda County will increase to 221,000, 19% ofthe projected growth for the County
5 In Newark there are 17,935 employed residents, and 17,168 jobs
6 - the ratio of jobs to resident workers is 0.96; Newark is a net exporter of workers. Despite the overall job growth expected in the county, 92 percent of Newark residents work outside of the City, with a greater number today employed in the peninsula and Silicon Valley.

Figure 2-2 shows the balance when comparing jobs to workers, broken down by different wage groups, offering additional insight into local dynamics. A community may offer employment for relatively low- income workers but have relatively few housing options for those workers - or conversely, it may house residents who are low wage workers but offer few employment opportunities for them. Such relationships can potentially contribute to an unbalanced demand for housing in particular price categories. A relative surplus of jobs relative to residents in a given wage category suggests the need to import those workers, while conversely, surpluses of workers in a wage group relative to jobs means the community will export those workers to other jurisdictions.

Newark has more low-wage jobsthan low-wage residents(where low-wage refers to jobs paying less than $25,000). At the other end of the wage spectrum, the city has more high-wage residents than high-wage jobs(where high-wage refers to jobs paying more than $75,000). In addition to the inflow of workers, our population is growing naturally, meaning more people are living longer while our children are growing up and moving out into homes of their own. All of this impacts housing demand.
6Employed residentsin a jurisdiction is counted by place of residence (they may work elsewhere) while jobsin a jurisdiction are counted by place of work (they may live elsewhere). The jobs may differ from those reported abode as the source for the time series is from administrative data, while the cross-sectional data is from a survey.
5 Plan Bay Area 2050 Projected Growth Pattern.

HOUSING NEEDS 26

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 2-2: Wage or Works by Place of Residence and Work, by Income, 2015- 2019 Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5 Year Data, 2015-2019, Table B08119, B08519 HOUSING NEEDS 27

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
B. Housing Tenure
The 2020 Decennial Census estimates a total of 15, 371 housing units in Newark, with 14,946 as occupied housing units . Of these occupied housing units, 10,185 or 68 percent were owner occupied and 4,761 or 32 percent were renter occupied, compared to approximately 47 percent of Alameda County households that rent and 44 percent of Bay Area households.

Housing Stock Characteristics
This section examines housing stock in Newark from age, condition, type to understand current and emerging needs and analyzing vacancy and cost to understand the affordability.

Housing Age and Type
Housing in Newark was primarily built before 1980, with 53 percent built from 1960 to 1979 (see Figure 2-3). In 2020, 70 percent of homes in Newark were single family detached, 9.5 percent were single family attached, four percent were small multifamily (2-4 units), and 16.5 percent were medium or large multifamily (5+ units). Between 2010 and 2020, the number of singlefamily units increased more than multi-family units. Generally, in Newark, the share of the housing stock that is detached single family homes is above that of other jurisdictions in the region. With 10,385 single family homes in 2020 and 659 two to four unit homes, there is opportunity for Newark to support the increase of missing middle housing types. Programs such as SB9 can further support these efforts, as well as program H2.8 Zoning for Missing Middle Housing.

HOUSING NEEDS 28

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 2-3: Housing Age
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5 Year Data, 2015-2019: Table B25034 HOUSING NEEDS 29

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table 2-3: Number and Type of Housing Units in Alameda County 2022

POPULATION HOUSING UNITS
City Household
Total
Housing
Units
Single Family
Detached
Single Attached Two to Four Five Plus Mobile Homes Occupied Vacancy
Rate
Persons per
Household
# % # % # % # % # %
Alameda 75,677 33,524 13,993 41.7% 3,482 10.4% 6,003 17.9% 9,920 29.6% 126 0.4% 31,473 6.1% 2.40 Albany 18,450 7,946 4,864 61.2% 277 3.5% 954 12.0% 1,823 22.9% 28 0.4% 7,545 5.0% 2.45 Berkeley 105,151 52,921 21,534 40.7% 2,128 4.0% 10,307 19.5% 18,730 35.4% 221 0.4% 48,377 8.6% 2.17 Dublin 68,482 24,977 13,331 53.4% 3,524 14.1% 812 3.3% 7,254 29.0% 56 0.2% 24,040 3.8% 2.85 Emeryville 12,396 7,656 424 5.5% 406 5.3% 766 10.0% 6,023 78.7% 36 0.5% 7,025 8.2% 1.76 Fremont 227,195 79,749 44,781 56.2% 10,210 12.8% 2,718 3.4% 21,314 47.6% 725 0.9% 76,507 4.1% 2.97 Hayward 156,757 52,870 27,328 51.7% 5,599 10.6% 3,063 5.8% 14,476 53.0% 2,403 4.5% 50,794 3.9% 3.09 Livermore 85,444 33,087 22,536 68.1% 3,218 9.7% 1,652 5.0% 5,140 22.8% 541 1.6% 31,968 3.4% 2.67 Newark 47,029 15,811 11,040 69.8% 1,457 9.2% 688 4.4% 2,626 23.8% 0 0.0% 15,329 3.0% 3.07 Oakland 414,325 183,729 75,322 41.0% 7,115 3.9% 33,457 18.2% 67,272 89.3% 562 0.3% 171,880 6.4% 2.41 Piedmont 10,973 3,964 3,679 92.8% 68 1.7% 138 3.5% 78 2.1% 0 0.0% 3,846 3.0% 2.85 Pleasanton 76,830 29,750 18,004 60.5% 2,858 9.6% 1,687 5.7% 6,806 37.8% 395 1.3% 28,581 3.9% 2.69 San Leandro 87,506 32,952 19,659 59.7% 2,008 6.1% 1,952 5.9% 8,436 42.9% 898 2.7% 31,851 3.3% 2.75 Union City 67,434 21,947 13,762 62.7% 2,856 13.0% 821 3.7% 3,489 25.4% 1,019 4.6% 21,467 2.2% 3.14 Source: California Department of Finance, City/County Population Estimates, E5, 2022 HOUSING NEEDS 30

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Housing Cost and Vacancy
Housing Costs and Vacancy have a pronounced effect on residents' ability to find housing that is affordable , that fits their needs, and be able to purchase a home, allowing them to build equity and stability in the community. Newark has experienced increasing housing costs over the past decade.

The Zillow Home Value Index shows home prices $ 542,000 in 2013, to more than double that in 2022, with an average home value of $1,169,000. Coupled with low vacancy rates of three percent, Newark residents face numerous housing challenges. In relation to other cities in Alameda County, Newark provides fewer housing options, but has a similar percentage of housing types as Union City, and fewer five plus units than Fremont. Only Newark and Piedmont do not have any mobile homes.

In relation to Alameda County and the Bay Area, Newark has a lower percentage of vacancies, with a 3 percent total vacancy rate( Table 2-3) 14 % of rental units are vacant, in comparison to Alameda County at 24 % and the Bay Area at 26% ( Figure 2-8). The largest vacancies are for units that are for sale at 23% and for seasonal use at 30%. Taking into account the increase in housing prices over the last 10 years, with a significant spike in 2018, brings ownership costs to over $900,00, the large vacancy rates for homes sales correlates. Throughout community engagement, community members echoed the data to share that housing costs are too high and unattainable for current residents. In response, programs such as H2.2 an Accessory Dwelling Unit program to incentivise and support the increased development of ADU production, Program H2.6 to Work in Partnership with Newark Unified School District to find creative ways to utilize school properties, Program H2.7 the Affordable housing fund to support non profit developers in developing affordable housing, H4.4 the Small Sites program supports the purchase of small scale multi family housing by affordable housing organizations and H5.1 First Time Homebuyer Assistance. As seen in Figure 2-7, BIPOC communities have lower rates of home ownership, and programs such as H5.1 will focus on supporting those populations.

HOUSING NEEDS 31

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 2-4: Newark Zillow Home Value Index, 2013 -2022
The ZHVI is a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. The ZHVI includes all owner-occupied housing units, including both single-family homes and condominiums.

Source: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHCI) 2013-2022
HOUSING NEEDS 32

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 2-5: Home Values of Owner Occupied Units, 2015-2019 Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5 Year Data, 2015-2019, Table B25075 Rental Cost and Affordability
With the recent increase in rents in the Bay Area, affordable housing has become much harder for lower- and moderate-income households to find. This rent burden is an important issue for many households. In Newark 44 percent of rents are from $2,000 to $3,000 dollars per month from the 2021 American Community Survey. Conversely, only 17 percent of residents pay between $500 and $1,500 dollars per month. An indicator of the few choices available for deed restricted affordable housing in the City, which is consistent with what we have heard from community members. This is a slight change from 2019, with a reduction of those paying $1,00 to $2,500 (see Table 2-4), and a sharp increase in those paying $3,000 dollars or more, from 7 percent in 2019 to 20 percent in 2021. The percentage of those paying $500 to $1,000 dollars per month doubled from 3 percent to 6 percent, potentially tied to new affordable senior housing developments.

Newark, in relation to Alameda County and the Bay Area, has an average of 24 percent of residents paying from $2,000 to $3,000 dollars in rent, a higher percentage than both Alameda and the Bay Area with an average of 14 percent (Figure 2-6). In Newark 3 percent of residents were paying $500 to $1,000 dollars per month in cash rent, significantly fewer in comparison to Alameda County at 12 percent and the Bay Area at 10 percent. This wide discrepancy could be attributed to the lack of deed restricted affordable housing, an abundance of single family homes, HOUSING NEEDS 33

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
and general housing pressure from high wage earners of Silicon Valley. Table 2-5 shows most recent rents show a general increase in rents from the previous years, with housing for two and three bedrooms seeing the largest increases. With some of the largest family sizes in Alameda County, this places extreme pressure on larger families looking for housing. Housing for large families is one of the key populations the city is focusing on for new housing through their Affordable Housing Action Plan. Programs such as H 2.1 and H2.2 will open up new housing opportunities for residents. H2.7 provides funding for affordable housing developments in Newark.

Figure 2-6: Rents for Renter Occupied Units in Newark, Alameda County, and the Bay Area, 2015- 2019 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25056 HOUSING NEEDS 34

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table 2-4: Newark Cash Rent, 2021
Rent Percent Population
Less than $500 per month 5% 220
$500 to $1,000 per month 6% 270
$1,000 to $1,500 6% 280
$1,550 to $2,000 18% 799
$2,000 to $2,500 22% 979
$2,500 to $3,000 22% 958
$3,000 or more 20% 860
Total with cash rent 100% 4,366
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2017- 2021), Table B25056 Table 2-5: Newark Rents, 2023
Unit Average Rent Year over year change
Studio $1,600 +$200
One Bedroom $2,300 +$55
Two Bedroom $2,900 +$299
Three Bedroom $3,750 +$314
Four Bedroom + $4,950 +$133
Source :Zillow.com, accessed June 21st, 2023
HOUSING NEEDS 35

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 2-7: Housing Tenure by Race, 2015- 2919
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5 Year Data, 2015-2019, Table B25003 (A-1) Vacancy Rate
Figure 2-8: Vacant Units By Type, 2015- 2019
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5 Year Data, 2015-2019, Table B25004 HOUSING NEEDS 36

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Overpayment and Overcrowding
Overall, many residents are paying too much for housing, while many others have been priced out entirely. If a household spends more than 30 percent of its monthly income on housing, it is considered cost-burdened. If it spends more than 50 percent, it is considered severely cost-burdened. In Newark, 12 percent of households spend 50 percent or more of their income on housing, while 19 percent spend between 30 to 50 percent. However, these rates vary greatly across income and race. Of those who are extremely low income—making 30 percent or less of the area median income (AMI)— 365 renter households, or 51 percent, spend more than half of their income on housing, as do extremely low-income owners at a slightly lower number of 255 households
7 . Figure 2-9 shows that renters are more likely to be cost burdened, with twice the number of renters (30%) spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing compared to 16 percent of homeowners, and 14 percent of renters are severely cost burdened. This leaves them with little to meet other basic needs, such as food and healthcare. Since low-income residents and communities of color are the most cost burdened, they are at the highest risk for eviction, displacement, and homelessness. Through the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Newark will be able to support the development of affordable housing throughout the city, with a focus on special populations such as seniors and large families.

Overcrowding is defined by the US Census as households with 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens). Units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. Newark residents are experiencing both overcrowding and severe overcrowding. Table 2-6 shows Newark with 9 percent of the population living in overcrowded conditions, and three percent in severely overcrowded households.

Figure 2-9: Cost Burdened Households, Renters and Homeowners, 2015- 2019 US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5 year data, 2015-2019, Table B25070, B25091 7 Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2015-2019 release HOUSING NEEDS 37

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 2-10: Low Income Cost Burdened Households, Renters and Homeowners, 2015- 2019 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2015-2019 release. Note: For this figure, the definition of cost burdened isspending more than 30% of income on housing.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2015-2019 release
Table 2-6 Overcrowding by Regional Population, 2013-2017 Geography

1.00 occupants per
room or less

1.01 to 1.50
occupants per
room

1.50 occupants per
room or more
Newark 88% 9% 3%
Alameda County 92% 5% 3%
Bay Area 93% 4% 3%
Source: Housing and Urban Development, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, ACS Tabulation. 2013-2017 HOUSING NEEDS 38

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 2-11: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity, 2013- 2017 Source: Housing and Urban Development, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, ACS Tabulation. 2013-2017 Substandard Housing Units
High housing costs can often result in households, particularly renters, living in substandard conditions to afford housing. Through public comment and mapping of code enforcement reports, there is a high concentration of substandard housing conditions in the Mirabeau and Old Town/ Central neighborhoods from 2018 to the present, some of the oldest housing stock in the city. US Census data shows that a small number of homeowners and renter households experience substandard housing with .3 percent having substandard kitchens. That would translate to 42 homeowners and 37 rental units. Homeowners reported 0.1 percent of homes without adequate plumbing, or 12 homes. There were no rental units reported. Due to the fact that over 50 percent of Newark’s housing stock was constructed before 1980, there is potential for other buildings in need of rehabilitation in the near future, and Newark will continue to offer and expand upon home maintenance programs for low and moderate income residents, with a focus on informing residents in the Mirabeau Park and Old Town/ Central Newark neighborhoods. The city has identified 40 units that could use rehabilitation and repair. The existing rehabilitation program has supported about 10 homes per year and with the addition of programs such as H1.1 Housing Rehabilitation and Repair, supporting homeowners with repairs, and H1.2 Citywide inspection program, which will inspect rental properties to ensure safe and healthy living conditions for all will help in addressing these needs and support even more households.

HOUSING NEEDS 39

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table 2-7: Substandard Housing Units, 2015-2019
Building Amenity Owner Renter
Percentage
Kitchen 0.3% 0.3%
Plumbing 0.1% 0.0%
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5 Year Data, 2015-2019, Table B25053, B25043, B25049 Subsidized Housing Units at Risk
Currently Newark has a total of 274 low income subsidized housing units (Table 2-8), owned by non profit housing developers. Due to the ownership structure of the housing units, the California Housing Partnership finds these units are at low risk of conversion to market rate housing in the next ten years. Newark Station Seniors, Newark Gardens l and Newark Gardens ll are senior housing developments in Newark that comprise the total number of subsidized housing units.

Table 2-8: Subsidized Affordable Housing Units at Risk of Conversion to Market Rate 2020 Geography Low Moderate High Very High
Total Assisted
Units in Database
Newark 274 0 0 0 274
Alameda County 23,040 167 189 106 23,502
Bay Area 110,177 3,375 1,854 1,053 116,459
Source: Universe: HUD, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), USDA, and CalHFA projects. Subsidized or assisted developmentsthat do not have one of the aforementioned financing sources may not be included.

HOUSING NEEDS 40

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
C. Housing Needs for Special Needs Populations
Seniors
Seniors in Newark are a growing population, as long time residents continue to age and the city adds more affordable senior rental housing. As of the 2020 US Census, there are 6,005 Seniors in Newark. Seniors in Newark overwhelmingly are home owners at every income level, with low income seniors having the highest percentage of renters at 37 percent. 8 Low income seniors
experience higher rates of cost burden then moderate and above moderate income counterparts.

Figure 2-12 shows that 37 percent of very low income seniors are cost burdened with 22 percent extremely cost burdened.

Figure 2-12: Senior Households by Income and Tenure, 2013- 2017 Source: Housing and Urban Development, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, 2013-2017 8 Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS Tabulation, 2013-2017 release
HOUSING NEEDS 41

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 2-13: Cost Burdened Rates by Income Level, Seniors, 2013- 2017 Source: Housing and Urban Development, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, 2013-2017 Available affordable housing for seniors in Newark includes: Newark Gardens, Newark Gardens 2 , Newark Station, and Timber Senior Housing is under construction with an anticipated completion later this year. As the senior population continues to grow, there will be increased need for housing that is accessible, affordable to those on fixed incomes and allows residents to age in place. In addition to increased types of housing options, seniors need support with the maintenance of their existing homes and their age and spaces that are accessible. Programs to address the growing senior population are program H1.1 Financial assistance with home repair, the adoption of H2.4 Universal Design Ordinance, and program H4.5 will develop a Shared Housing Partnership.

Disability
People with disabilities often face additional housing challenges. Encompassing a broad group of individuals living with a variety of physical, cognitive and sensory impairments, many people with disabilities live on fixed incomes and often need accessible designed housing to live more independent lives. In Newark, eight percent of the population has a disability of any kind, with the majority being ambulatory (Table 2-9). Due to housing challenges of affordability, accessibility and HOUSING NEEDS 42

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
discrimination, 87 percent
9 of people with disabilities live with family members in Newark.

Partnering with local organizations that serve people with disabilities will support Newark in developing more housing options to meet the diverse needs of this population. Through community engagement we have connected with organizations providing resources and support to those with disabilities: Deaf Plus, Housing Consortium of the East Bay, and Alameda County Public Health Disability Council. Program H4.7 will identify housing opportunities for those with Developmental disabilities, and program H2.4 for a Universal Design Ordinance.

Table 2-9: Disability by Type, 2015-2019
Persons with Disability Percentage
Total percentage of people with Disabilities 8%
With an ambulatory difficulty 4%
With an independent living difficulty 3%
With a hearing difficulty 3%
With a cognitive difficulty 2%
With a self-care difficulty 2%
With a vision difficulty 1%
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5 Year Data, 2015-2019, Table B18102, B18103, B18104, Table B18105, Table B18105, B18107
People Experiencing Homelessness
People experiencing homelessness have steadily increased in Alameda County since 2017, with 9,747 sheltered and unsheltered people at the most recent point in time count on February 22, 2022. The city of Newark has a documented reduction of people experiencing homelessness, from 89 in 2019, to 58 sheltered and unsheltered people in 2022. The point in time count found a total of 32 unsheltered individuals, with 34 percent, or 11 people, living in a tent, with 8 living outside and 7 in a RV. Fewer people were found living in their car, at 6 people or 19 percent. It is no surprise that the largest number of people outside of shelters are living in tents, as the locations with the highest concentrations of people experiencing homelessness are in the undeveloped areas along highway 84, in the Eucalyptus grove, and along the 880. These sites are all concentrated in the Mirabeau and Mayhews Landing areas, in the northern portion of the city due 9 Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California Zip Code and Residence Type (2020).

HOUSING NEEDS 43

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
to the proximity of open space for tents along the freeway.

Although Newark has a significantly lower number of people experiencing homelessness than neighboring jurisdictions, housing and homeless support is the most prevalent service request for Newark callers to the countywide 2-1-1 referral service, representing about 42% of all service requests. Newark residents are seeking referrals for low cost rental listings, rent payment and deposit assistance, supportive and transitional housing, emergency shelter, among other services (Eden I&R Referral Service, January 2020 through March 2022).

Currently Second Chance provides transitional housing for those experiencing homelessness in Newark. The facility has 32 beds, with the shelter at 81 % capacity on the point in time count. In conversation with John Balentine, Executive Director of Second Chance, he shared that as an organization, they budget funds for transportation, providing bus passes and having a van to transport residents if public transportation is not sufficient.

The city has engaged in a number of actions to address homelessness in Newark. There is a partnership with the Fremont Family Resource Center to provide support to Newark households at risk of becoming homeless, and the city was awarded a HomeKey grant to convert the Towne Place Suites extended stay hotel into 124 supportive, affordable residential units known as Cedar Community Apartments. The Housing Navigation Center in Fremont has prioritized space for those experiencing homelessness from the greater Tri City area. The 2021 Housing Navigation Center Annual report showed 8 percent or 6 Newark residents were supported. The City also partners with the city of Fremont to provide access for personal hygiene, with a mobile unit coming to Newark once a week for showers and laundry.

Utilizing American Rescue Plan Act funding, the city is working to establish a local family resource center in the Old Town/ Bayside neighborhood. This resource center would provide an initial point of access to any residents in need of social services. Some services could be accessed directly at the center through third party social service providers or referrals could be made to other agencies,and a space for the Promotores, a local organization for the Latino Community. Most recently the city has created a Homelessness Committee with members from various City departments to develop a cohesive plan to address homelessness and have launched a Human Resources webpage, connecting the community with resources for people experiencing homelessness such as housing, transportation. and food pantries around the city.

The city has developed a number of programs in response to the needs of people experiencing homelessness identified : Program H2.5 will continue to build upon the work the city has undertaken to develop a local response to homelessness. Program H2.10, makes changes to increase uptake of Single Room Occupancy or (SROs), an affordable housing type, Program H4.10, identifies zoning changes for special needs housing, and Program H4.8 connects residents with foreclosure assistance. The following is a list of agencies operating support services, emergency shelters, and transitional and supportive housing in Newark and the surrounding area:

HOUSING NEEDS 44

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
● Viola Blythe Community Services Center, Newark. Viola Blythe provides services for Children, men, women and families in immediate need can use the services and programs of the Viola Blythe Community Service Center. No fees are charged for any services provided. Some services include food distribution, baby food and formula, clothing, children’s shoe fund, and referrals to other agencies.
● Clean Start Mobile Hygiene Unit. For someone experiencing homelessness, keeping yourself and your clothes clean can be incredibly challenging, and can greatly impact your ability to get and keep a job, or simply participate in society. To meet this need, the City of Fremont, City of Newark, and several community partners developed the Clean Start Mobile Hygiene Program to provide much-needed shower and laundry services to our homeless neighbors.This mobile hygiene van travels between Fremont, Newark and Union City each week.
● Centro de Servicios, Union City. Centro de Servicios has assisted more than 800 families and individuals every month since its inception in 1974. This nonprofit corporation is a major service provider for the homeless population in Alameda County’s Tri-City area. The center provides basic necessities, such as food, clothing, and blankets as well as referrals, counseling, job listings, and workshops to its clients. Recently celebrating 40 years of operations, Centro de Servicios serves over 1,300 families per month, out of multiple locations. Staff estimates that they assist at least 20-50 homeless or at-risk clients from Union City per week. Most (80 percent) of these clients are Latino. Many live in substandard housing, in their cars, or at local parks and campgrounds. Staff makes referrals to nearby shelters, especially Sunrise Village in Fremont and Second Chance in Newark. ● Second Chance Addiction Recovery. Second Chance is a counseling and recovery agency that operates five outpatient centers in addition to a short-term emergency shelter. They have locations in Newark, Hayward, Phoenix, and the Tri-City area. The emergency shelter has 30 beds for single men, women, and for families. Addiction recovery services are provided on-site and there is not typically a waiting list to receive treatment and recovery services.
● Abode Services (formerly known as Tri-City Homeless Coalition), Fremont. Abode Services operates nearly 60 primary programs across six counties and has experienced dramatic growth in response to the increasing need for affordable housing and services for homeless people. Abode Services works to provide housing and services to homeless people in the community as they work to help people remain stably housed and live as independently as possible. In 2021 they served 14,700 adults and children across their programs. In Alameda and Santa Clara Counties, Abode offers three main types of services:
emergency shelter and street outreach services, supportive housing for formerly homeless families and individuals, and supportive services, such as mental health services and employment support. They provide extensive services to Tri-City residents, including permanent supportive housing, emergency shelter and services at Sunrise Village Emergency Shelter in Fremont, and social and health services though the HOPE Project Mobile Health Clinic. Their programs serve a wide variety of people, including families with HOUSING NEEDS 45

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
children, at risk youth exiting foster care, veterans and their families, and people who are chronically homeless. In 2021, 5,542 participants throughout Alameda County received support.
● Safe Alternatives to Violent Environments (SAVE). SAVE is a non-profit community-based organization founded in 1976 to address domestic violence. They provide supportive services, advocacy and education, and a 25-bed safe house for families fleeing abuse. From 2020 to 2021, 1,265 participants received critical services from SAVE. SAVE also provided shelter to 98 women and children and provided rent subsidies and ongoing case management to 60 families in the Housing First Program.

Large Households
Large Families are considered to have 5 or more people, bringing about the need for larger housing units with three bedrooms or more. Figure 2-13 shows Newark has a larger percentage of families with 3 or more people than Alameda County and the Bay Area, with 38 percent of households with 3 or more, and 19 percent of households with five or more people. While Newark has a large inventory of single family homes, the cost of rent and ownership place many of these homes beyond reach for families. Families also face costs such as child care, increased transportation and medical care that further reduce their housing budget allowance. The pace of construction of multifamily and affordable units has not kept pace with that of market rate single family homes in Newark. Program H5.2 Affordable Housing Development Programs work to increase the number of affordable housing constructed in the city. Newark’s Affordable Housing Action Plan has identified large families as a community of focus for new housing needs.

HOUSING NEEDS 46

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 2-14: Households by Household Size, 2015- 2019
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5 Year Data, 2015-2019, Table B11016 Female Headed Household
Government Code Section 65583(a)(7) identifies families with female heads of households as a group that may have special housing needs and requires the City to analyze the housing needs of these households. Female-headed households are households led by a single female with one or more children under the age of 18 at home. In Newark, 11 percent of households are female-headed families, which are often at greater risk of housing insecurity. A greater number of single parent headed households are renters, with 67 percent of married households owning homes, compared to 16 percent of female headed households (Figure 2-15). Female headed households have a significantly higher vulnerability to poverty, 22.8 percent of female-headed households with children fall below the Federal Poverty Line, while 5.7 percent of female-headed households without children live in poverty (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17012 ). As Female headed households face challenges of familial housing discrimination, limited income due to wage discrimination against women makes this population have higher rates of poverty and vulnerability to being housing cost burdened.

HOUSING NEEDS 47

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 2-15: Household Type, 2015- 2019
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5 Year Data, 2015-2019, Table B11001 HOUSING NEEDS 48

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 2-16: Household Type by Tenure, 2015- 2019
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5 Year Data, 2015-2019, Table B25011 Existing housing need for extremely low-income households Residents with extremely low incomes, less than 30% of the Area Median Income, face extreme housing challenges due to fixed or low incomes, credit, disability, family structure and access to affordable housing. In Newark, 58% of households make more than 100% of the Area Median Income (AMI), compared to 10% making less than 30% of AMI, which is considered extremely low-income (see Figure 2-17). In Newark, renters are disproportionately experiencing cost burden, with 30 percent of renters cost burdened and 14 percent spending more than 50 percent of their income on housing (Figure 2-9) . Regionally, more than half of all households make more than 100% AMI, while 15% make less than 30% AMI. In Alameda County, 30% AMI is the equivalent to the annual income of $34,850 for a family of four. Many households with multiple wage earners – including food service workers, full-time students, teachers, farmworkers and healthcare professionals – can fall into lower AMI categories due to relatively stagnant wages in many industries.

To estimate the projected housing need for extremely low-income households, 50 percent of Newark’s 464 very low-income RHNA units are assumed to serve extremely low-income households. Based on this methodology, the City has a projected need of 232 units for extremely HOUSING NEEDS 49

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
low-income households over the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period. More than half of this allocation will be provided through the Cedar Creek Apartments, which is already in the development pipeline and has received $6M in funding support from the City’s Affordable Housing Impact Fee Fund. Additional proposed programs to support the housing needs for this population include Program H5.2 Affordable Housing Development Programs work to increase the number of affordable housing constructed in the city.

Figure 2-17: Households by Household Income Level, 2013-2017 Source: Housing and Urban Development, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, 2013-2017 Farmworkers
The number of farmworkers living in Newark has declined over the years, with the student population at 57 students for the 2019-2020 school year. The previous years saw 79 students for 2017-2018 and 72 for the 2018 to 2019 school year. Table 3-12 shows the trends for both Alameda county and the greater Bay Area see a similar decline in the migrant farmworker student population. Generally, the number of farmworkers living in Alameda county has been declining since 2012, with fewer than 400 residents working in the industry in a permanent position. It is important to recognize that farmworkers could be under-counted by the census due to their HOUSING NEEDS 50

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
migrant nature. Farming and farmworkers are a significant element of the state's economy, but play less of a role in the Bay Area. Due to lower wages, language barriers, and inconsistent work, farmworkers can have difficulty securing housing, and for these reasons could experience overcrowding and substandard housing conditions. To support these populations, program H2.6 Work in Partnership with Newark Unified School District to ensure that housing resources are reaching families that need them and and Program H5.2 Affordable Housing Development Programs work to increase the number of affordable housing constructed in the city.

HOUSING NEEDS 51

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
SECTION 3 AFFIRMATIVELY

FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Historic and current land use policies and planning play a key role in the ability of individuals and families to live in neighborhoods with opportunity, including academically and culturally supportive schools, a wide variety of living wage jobs, and convenient access to transit and services. In response to continued housing discrimination, which prohibits discrimination regarding the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, and disability status — people within protected classes continue to encounter limits in housing choice and mobility. In 2018, the California State Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 686 to expand upon the fair housing requirements and protections outlined in the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); and, protect the requirement to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) as published in the 2015 U.S. Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HUD) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule. California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) defines AFFH as taking meaningful actions to explicitly address, combat, and reverse disparities resulting from past patterns of segregation to foster more inclusive communities. As part of this, housing elements are required to include the following components:
● Inclusive and Equitable Outreach: Housing elements must make an effort to equitably include all community stakeholders in the housing element participation process. ● Assessment of Fair Housing: All housing elements must include an assessment of fair housing. This assessment should include an analysis of the following four fair housing issues: integration and segregation patterns and trends, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk.
● Analysis of Sites Inventory: Local jurisdictions must evaluate and address how particular sites available for housing development will meet the needs of households at all income levels. The housing element must analyze and conclude whether the identified sites improve or exacerbate conditions for fair housing.
● Identification of Contributing Factors: Based on findings from the previous steps, housing elements must identify, evaluate, and prioritize the contributing factors related to fair housing issues.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 52

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
● Goals and Meaningful Actions to AFFH: Local jurisdictions must adopt fair housing goals and actions that are significant, meaningful, and sufficient to overcome identified patterns of segregation and affirmatively further fair housing. The housing element should include metrics and milestones for evaluating progress and fair housing results.

B. History of the Land and People
The land that is now Newark is the aboriginal homeland to the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, Ohlone, Confederated Villages of Lisjan and Tamien Nation. Throughout the period of European colonization, aboriginal tribes were removed from their lands and in some circumstances moved into mission settlements, such as the Mission San José, and subjected to religious conversion practices and forced labor. In the Early 20th century Newark was still primarily marshland and waterways leading into the San Francisco Bay. Land speculation brought investors to the area and Newark became home to a dairy farm and tourism from around the county for picnicking and entertainment. Over time a railroad connection was established south to Santa Cruz and North to Alameda and industry followed. Incorporated as a city in 1955, Newark has been the home to steel foundries, manufacturing, and a large and successful solar evaporation of salt production that rivaled the entire Bay Area. Newark’s development and land use was divided, with manufacturing isolated to the western portion of the city. The residential portion consisted of single family homes built during the post war building boom that were accessible to white families only through government backed low interest loans provided by the Federal Housing Administration. As manufacturing moved out of Newark in the 1970’s and 1980’s, Newark has transitioned to an economy of technology and education. The transition has also transformed the city from primarily White to one with a majority of residents from Asia and Latin America.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 53

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Ann Marie Sayers, Ruth Orta, Corrina Gould and Caleen Sisk at Living On Ohlone Land, Photo by Christopher McLeod
Although Newark has no redlining maps or racially restrictive covenants on file, de facto discrimination has shaped access to housing historically and into the present day. From discrimination in governmental lending for single family homes, to the real estate industry and personal prejudice, Newark’s growth as a city coincided with unregulated racial discrimination in housing during the 1950s and 1960’s. Through oral history accounts of Jean Ficklen, founder of Afro-American Cultural & Historical Society and first African American teacher in Newark, we learn of the discrimination her family faced in finding housing in the Bay Area as an African American family in the 1960’s. Ms. Ficklen and her family were looking for housing closer to her husband’s employment at the Lockheed Missile and Space Center in Sunnyvale, California, a 54 mile commute one way to Richmond where they lived. They found a home in Hayward that they liked, and after meeting with the realtor, were set to move to a house there. The day before they were scheduled to move, the house was no longer available to them. They were offered a house to rent in Newark but were asked not to tell who rented it to them. Soon after they moved to the neighborhood, for sale signs went up, typical of the times of neighborhood blockbusting fueled by fear and discrimination (J.Ficklen, Personal communication, January 21, 2021).

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 54

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
C. Summary of Fair Housing Need
Fair housing
● A lack of affordable housing for residents for sale and rent is one of the largest fair housing issues Newark faces. Due to decades-long reduction in federal funding for affordable housing production, and a lack of affordable housing production at the city level, there is a shortage of housing at prices that meet the needs of current and future residents. ● Disability and race are the highest reported instances of discrimination in Newark over the past five years. In 2020-2021 Echo Housing saw 10 cases of reported discrimination based on disability and 4 cases in National origin. The city heard from residents, specifically the Latinx community that there are significant challenges to accessing housing. A report from El Tiempano found that women and undocumented residents faced the most challenges, specific issues faced by residents were:
○ Difficulty of providing documentation when many undocumented immigrants are paid under the table or are not named on rental leases
○ Challenges accessing information digitally
○ Complicated/confusing applications without assistance readily available Segregation and Integration
● There is a significant level of segregation between Latinx and White residents with an index of .229 or 22.9%. Meaning that 22 percent of Latinx or white residents would need to move to address this. Due to the fact that the Latinx community is 30 percent of the population in Newark, this indicates a significant level of segregation between Latinx and White residents in Newark, slightly higher than segregation at the regional level. ● Asian residents are the most isolated at 0.451, meaning the average Asian residentlives in a neighborhood thatis 45.1% Asian. Asian residents also have the highest percentage (36.7%) of residents making more than 100 percent of area median income. ● Other ethnicities in Newark have a higher likelihood of interacting with people outside their race. White residents have seen the greatest reduction in isolation, from 43 percent in 2000 to 27 percentin 2020.

Access to Opportunities
● Overall, Newark consists of two census tracts that are considered high resource areas (NewPark Place and Birch Grove) while the remaining six tracts (Lake- Rosemont, Mirabeau Park, Mayhews Landing, Gateway/Bayshore, Old Town and Central Newark) are considered moderate resource areas.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 55

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
● The City’s high resource areas have both dominant and secondary populations that are either White or Asian. In NewPark Place, nearly 51% of the population is Asian and 23% is White. In Birch Grove, 35% is White while nearly 29% is Asian. ● Five out of six of the City’s moderate resource areas have dominant populations that are Hispanic/Latinx, ranging from almost 34% in Mayhews Landing to nearly 53% in Old Town/Central Newark. In the remaining moderate resource area, Lake-Rosemont, 40% of the population is White, making it the dominant population while nearly 29% is Hispanic/Latinx.
● There are large disparities in environmental outcomes in Newark, with low outcomes in central Newark and a portion of the Old Town area that is also home to a majority of lower income and Hispanic/Latinx residents.

Disparate Housing Needs
Overcrowding
BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color) populations are the most cost burdened and experience disproportionate rates of overcrowding. Central Newark in the Old Town area has 9 percent of households experiencing overcrowded housing, with 5 percent of households experiencing extreme overcrowding in the Northwest corner of the city. As shown in Figure 3-2, these two areas are predominantly occupied by communities of color, with 80 to 100 percent of residents in the Old Town area. Mixed race residents face the highest rates at 33 percent, followed by Hispanic/Latinx (30%) and Indigenous residents at 22 percent.

Cost Burdened
Newark’s low and moderate income populations and renters experience the highest levels of cost burden. BIPOC communities, Black (41%), Indigenous (46%), Multi Racial (46%), and Latinx (47%) residents are the highest cost burdened, and most vulnerable to displacement, overcrowding and homelessness. Asian and White residents are the least cost burdened at 27 percent and 21 percent respectively. Renters are more likely to be cost burdened, with twice the number of renters (30%) spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing compared to 16 percent of homeowners.

Families
Households with children face additional challenges accessing housing that meets their needs for both size and cost. Housing survey results conducted from March 15th through April 30th 2022, found that when asked what are the most urgent housing needs at this time, 50 percent responded that housing for families was the greatest need. There was a special interest in housing for single AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 56

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
parents, as female-headed households make up 17 percent of all households and 22.8 percent of female-headed households with children fall below the Federal Poverty Line.

People Experiencing Homelessness
Through community engagement we have been alerted to the high number of residents experiencing homelessness that are finding shelter in local motels that are not reflected in point in time counts. Homelessness in Newark affects all racial and ethnic groups, although not equally.

There is a significant population of families experiencing homelessness, with about 5% of all students In Newark, which further indicates the lack of affordable housing. Notably, about 96 percent of homeless students in Newark are students of color, with over 167 of these students being Hispanic or Latino. While NUSD has only a small number of Pacific Islander students (98 students), about 28 percent of them are homeless.

D. Fair Housing Assessment
Regional Barriers to Fair Housing
The following is a summary of key barriers to housing in Alameda county, compiled by Alameda County, in the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in January of 2020. ● Across the County, segregation has increased between White residents and BIPOC communities within the last decade, with White residents comprising the majority of homeowners but only approximately a third of the County’s population. ● BIPOC households continue to have disproportionate levels of housing discrimination as renters and in the housing market. Overall, the rate of mortgage approvals has gone up in the last seven years, but the disparities in the rate of approval across race and ethnicity has stayed relatively the same. Black applicants continue to have the lowest approval rate at

59.1 percent and Hispanic applicants the second lowest at 61.5 percent compared to White applicants at 70 percent.
● BIPOC communities are displaced residents are being displaced from areas with a traditionally large population and have less access to proficient schools, jobs, and environmental health.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 57

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
● The average home sales prices have increased from approximately $300,000 to nearly $900,000 in less than 20 years (unadjusted for inflation). ● Wages have not kept up with rent increases, currently the wage needed to rent an average housing unit in the County is $44.79 an hour or $93,000 a year. Median rents have risen an average of $1,000 (unadjusted for inflation) since 2010, representing an increase of 55 percent in a 9-year period.
● Homelessness has increased by 42 percent since 2017.
● BIPOC households, especially black and Hispanic/ Latinx households, have the highest rate of disproportionate housing needs, which includes having incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1 person per room, and households with a cost burden greater than 30 percent.
● Based on community feedback, Housing Choice Voucher holders and those with disabilities often find it difficult to find an appropriate housing unit. Some find it difficult to find an appropriately sized unit that will take their voucher and others experience that the vouchers will not cover the rent of an appropriately sized unit. ● Disability, race, and familial status are the most common bases of housing discrimination complaints forwarded to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.

Fair Housing Outreach Capacity and Enforcement
Fair housing complaints can be used as an indicator to identify characteristics of households experiencing discrimination in housing. Pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act [Government Code Section 12921 (a)], the opportunity to seek, obtain, and hold housing cannot be determined by an individual’s “race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, genetic information, or any other basis prohibited by Section 51 of the Civil Code.” Fair housing issues that may arise in any jurisdiction include but are not limited to:
● Housing design that makes a dwelling unit inaccessible to an individual with a disability; ● Discrimination against an individual based on race, national origin, familial status, disability, religion, sex, or other characteristic when renting or selling a housing unit; and ● Disproportionate housing needs including cost burden, overcrowding, substandard housing, and risk of displacement.

The following are organizations at the state and county level that provide resources and support for fair housing and eviction defense.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 58

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
East Bay Community Law Center (EBCLC): EBCLC’s Housing Program focuses on defending eviction lawsuits brought against low-income tenants, as well as enforcement of local rent and eviction control ordinances. The program emphasizes defense of long-term tenancies to preserve the value of rent-controlled units. EBCLC also prioritizes subsidized tenancies such as those in Section 8 and conventional public housing programs, as well as on behalf of tenants with disabilities.

Housing and Economic Rights Advocates (HERA): HERA is a California statewide, not-for-profit legal service and advocacy organization dedicated to helping Californians — particularly those most vulnerable — build a safe, sound financial future, free of discrimination and economic abuses, in all aspects of household financial concerns. They provide free legal services, consumer workshops, training for professionals and community organizing support, create innovative solutions and engage in policy work locally, statewide and nationally.

Housing Equality Law Project(HELP): HELP seeks to expand legal protections in fair housing through advocacy, leadership training, education and outreach, and enforcement of anti-discrimination laws.

Newark works with ECHO Housing for fair housing enforcement. ECHO provides fair housing counseling and education, tenant/landlord counseling and mediation, and other housing-related programs. To address the needs of Limited English Proficient speakers, ECHO provides services and classes in Spanish, has online information available in multiple languages, and has access to interpretation and translation services. ECHO programs include:
● Fair housing counseling, investigation, education, and enforcement ● Tenant/landlord counseling and mediation
● Rental Assistance Program
● Home Seeking Services
● Shared Housing Counseling & Placement
● Homebuyer Education Workshops
ECHO Housing has compiled fair housing complaints in Newark that align with those at the county level, with the majority regarding race and disability. In Newark, disability has the highest share of complaints filed from 2016 to 2021 at 27, with race at 16 complaints. City staff conducted one on one interviews with affordable housing providers. Through communication with Darin Lounds on April 29th, 2022, Executive Director of the Housing Consortium of the East Bay, he shared that many people with disabilities are well educated in the process, which can make it appear there are a larger number of instances of discrimination in comparison with other types of discrimination.

El Timpano is a non profit, community based organization in Alameda County that provides access AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 59

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
to information for Spanish and Mayan speaking communities through a text based SMS platform.

They conducted an in depth investigation on the barriers that residents are experiencing accessing housing resources during COVID-19. They found that women and undocumented residents faced the most challenges, with specific issues faced by residents were:
● Difficulty of providing documentation when many undocumented immigrants are paid under the table or are not named on rental leases,
● Challenges accessing information digitally
● Complicated/confusing applications without assistance readily available Through communication through text and phone interviews, the organization found that changes that would be most impactful in supporting increased access would be less documentation-heavy requirements, help with the application process over the phone or in person, more promotion and support in Spanish, and a shorter application process.

Table 3-1: Newark Fair Housing Complaints, 2016-2021
Fiscal Year Race
National
Origin
Disability
Familial
Status
Marital
Status
Religion Sex
Source of
Income
Age Other TOTAL
2016-2017 10 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
2017-2018 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
2018-2019 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
2019-2020 1 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
2020-2021 0 4 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 14
Source: ECHO Housing
Table 3-2: Fair Housing Complaints Forwarded to Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Alameda County, January 2017- June 2020
Complainttype
2017-2021
Total
2017 2018 2019 2020 Cases % of Total
Color 1 1 1 0 3 1.5%
Disability 32 26 28 15 101 49.8%
Familial Status 10 5 3 2 20 9.9%
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 60

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Complainttype
2017-2021
Total
2017 2018 2019 2020 Cases % of Total
National Origin 4 4 0 1 9 4.4%
Hispanic Origin 2 2 0 0 4 2.0%
Race 7 9 5 2 23 11.3%
Asian 0 1 0 0 1 0.5%
Black 5 4 5 2 16 7.9%
Black and White 0 1 0 0 1 0.5%
Native American 1 1 0 0 2 1.0%
White 1 2 0 0 3 1.5%
Religion 1 2 2 0 5 2.5%
Retaliation 7 9 8 1 25 12.3%
Sex 7 5 5 0 17 8.4%
Total Cases 69 61 52 21 203 100%
HUD Note: Percents do not add up to 100 due to cases containing multiple bases of discrimination.

Local Knowledge on Capacity and Enforcement
Four key issues in the capacity and enforcement of fair housing have been identified in the Alameda County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing document, and by the Executive Director of ECHO Housing:

1. Inadequate funding and organizational capacity are the primary limitations for improving and expanding upon existing fair housing enforcement. Recividng funding from a couple jurisdictions in the County is insufficient.

2. Limited sources of funding and HUD capping allocation amounts of Community Development Block Grants for fair housing activities limits the participating jurisdictions from being able to utilize more of these funds for fair housing work.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 61

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING

3. Reduction in the number of fair housing organizations and activities in the region has taken place, with at least two fair housing agencies in the East Bay have closed their doors.

4. A lack of affordable housing supply due to significant decreases in funding from the federal government since 2008. Guidance from HCD suggests a connection between fair housing complaints and that the lack of affordable housing that is needed is affordable to persons on public assistance, accessible housing for persons with disabilities, and senior citizens, single parent households and large families. Although local tax funding has been approved in select jurisdictions, a large funding shortcoming remains.

The Alameda County Collaborative, an ad-hoc group of housing program professionals working for local Alameda County jurisdictions, held a panel with representatives from community-based organizations (CBOs) on April 25, 2022. The participating CBOs’ clientele included members of protected classes, including immigrants and non-English speakers; households with special needs, including persons with disabilities and seniors; and persons who are experiencing fair housing issues. This document synthesizes key points the CBOs presented.

Community-Based Organizations identified key barriers and obstacles thatthey and their clients face related to fair housing, including:
● Insufficient access to information due to language/technology barriers (particularly for immigrant communities and seniors); fear/distrust of the system; and difficulty understanding rights/resources
● Complex, inflexible application requirements for housing resources that may vary between jurisdictions, exclude certain people (e.g., undocumented, formerly ● incarcerated), or be difficult to meet
● Communication between CBOs and property owners is difficult to navigate, requires individual relationships with each location
● Overall cost of housing (most CBOs’ clients fall under the 30% AMI) and need for tenant protections
The CBOs recommend these strategies to strengthen outreach efforts:
● Meet people where they are—engage with existing outreach channels ● Partner with school districts to distribute information, as well as any civic organizations such as libraries, religious institutions, medical services ● “Train the trainer” approach to educate existing service providers on housing rights and referrals for their clients
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 62

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
● Provide materials appropriate for audience (e.g., physical flyers for seniors; video/audio content for Mam speakers)
Solutions that panelists recommended for housing projects to better serve their clients:
● Identify onsite supportive services that are appropriate for residents early in process ● Early and sustained relationships between service providers and properties, especially relative to preparing eligible residents for the document/application needs for housing ● Renters’ protection and long-term rental subsidies, particularly for households under 30% AMI
● Greater flexibility in application process (make it easier for CBOs and their clients to navigate, remove barriers for undocumented people)
Through housing survey responses and small group conversations in community meetings, The city has constantly heard from Newark residents and community organizations that there is both not enough affordable housing at levels accessible for those earning lower wages, as well as access to housing resources and application requirements for housing that make accessing housing out of reach.

Segregation and Integration Patterns
Segregation Patterns in the Bay Area
Across the San Francisco Bay Area, White residents and above moderate-income residents are significantly more segregated from other racial and income groups . The highest levels of racial segregation occur between the Black and white populations. The analysis completed for this report indicates that the amount of racial segregation both within Bay Area cities and across jurisdictions in the region has decreased since the year 2000. This finding is consistent with recent research from the Othering and Belonging Institute at UC Berkeley, which concluded that “although 7 of the 9 Bay Area counties were more segregated in 2020 than they were in either 1980 or 1990, racial residential segregation in the region appears to have peaked around the year 2000 and has generally declined since.” However, compared to cities in other parts of California, Bay Area jurisdictions have more neighborhood level segregation between residents from different racial groups. Additionally, there is also more racial segregation between Bay Area cities compared to other regions in the state.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 63

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Segregation is the separation of different demographic groups into different geographic locations or communities, meaning that groups are unevenly distributed across geographies. The city looked at two spatial forms of segregation: neighborhood level segregation within a local jurisdiction and city level segregation between jurisdictions in the Bay Area.

Neighborhood level segregation: Segregation of race and income groups can occur from neighborhood to neighborhood within a city.

City level segregation: Race and income divides also occur between jurisdictions in a region.

Newark and Regional Segregation
To understand how Newark is connected to the total segregation of the Bay Area, one can look at the difference in the racial composition of a jurisdiction compared to the racial composition of the region as a whole. The racial demographics in Newark for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table 3-3 below. The table also provides the racial composition of the nine-county Bay Area. As of 2020, Newark has a lower share of white residents than the Bay Area as a whole, a higher share of Latinx residents, a lower share of Black residents, and a significantly higher share of Asian/Pacific Islander residents.

Latinx residents are primarily in close proximity to major highways and arterial roads such as Thornton Avenue, with White and Asian populations predominantly living to the North and South of Newark. The highest non white populations at 80 to 100 percent are concentrated along Thornton Ave in Old Town.

Table 3-3: Population by Racial Group, Newark and the Region, 2000 to 2020 Race Newark Bay Area
2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 21.1% 28.2% 42.6% 28.2%
Black/African American 3.9% 4.5% 3.1% 5.6%
Latinx 28.6% 35.2% 30.2% 24.4%
Other or Multiple Races 6.2% 4.6% 5.3% 5.9%
White 40.3% 27.5% 18.8% 35.8%
Source: Universe: Population. Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 isfrom U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 censustract geographies and isfrom U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 64

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-1: Predominant Racial Groups in Newark
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

Race and Ethnicity
Asian and Hispanic/Latinx populations have grown significantly over the past 20 years to become the majority populations, with decreasing Black and White populations. The Asian population in Newark is multi-ethnic, with the largest being Chinese (10.1 %), followed by Filipino (9.6%) and Asian Indian (8.9%).

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 65

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table 3-4: Race and Ethnicity of Newark Residents, 2000 to 2020 Year
American Indian
or Alaska Native,
Non-Hispanic
Asian / API,
Non-Hispanic
Black or
African
American,
Non-Hispanic
White,
Non-Hispanic
Other Race or
Multiple Races,
Non-Hispanic
Hispanic or
Latinx
2000 148 9,329 1,639 17,103 128 12,145
2010 95 12,005 1,908 11,726 1,845 14,994
2020 107 17,315 1,534 10,629 1,822 15,975
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Figure 3-2: Racial Demographics of Newark, 2018
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 66

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Dissimilarity Index
Dissimilarity Index Guidance for Cities with Small Racial Group Populations The analysis conducted for this report suggests that dissimilarity index values are unreliable for a population group if that group represents approximately less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s total population.

If a jurisdiction has a very small population of a racial group, this indicates that segregation between the jurisdiction and the region (inter-city segregation) is likely to be an important feature of the jurisdiction’s segregation patterns.

Table 3-5 below provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in Newark between white residents and residents who are Black, Latinx, or Asian/Pacific Islander.

The table also provides the dissimilarity index between white residents and all residents of color in the jurisdiction, and all dissimilarity index values are shown across three time periods (2000, 2010, and 2020).

In Newark, the highest segregation is between Black and White residents (see Table 3-5).

Newark’s Black/white dissimilarity index of 0.244 means that 24.4 percent of Black or White residents would need to move to a different neighborhood to create perfect integration between Black residents and white residents. However, this dissimilarity index value is not a reliable data point due to small population size. See callout box above for more information. Latinx residents have rates of segregation between White residents with an index of .229 or 22.9 percent. Due to the fact that the Latinx community is 30 percent of the population in Newark, this indicates a significant level of segregation between Latinx and White residents in Newark, slightly higher than segregation at the regional level.

Table 3-5: Dissimilarity Index Between Racial Groups, 2000 to 2020 Race Newark Bay Area
2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.183 0.170 0.192 0.185 Black/African American vs. White 0.180* 0.204* 0.244* 0.244 Latinx vs. White 0.286 0.230 0.229 0.207
People of Color vs. White 0.204 0.173 0.169 0.168
Universe: Population. Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 isfrom U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 isstandardized to AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 67

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
2010 censustract geographies and isfrom U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004. Note: If a number is marked with an asterisk (*), it indicatesthat the index is based on a racial group making up lessthan 5 percent of the jurisdiction population, leading to unreliable numbers.

Isolation Index
Within the City of Newark the most isolated racial group is Asian residents. Newark’s isolation index of 0.451 for Asian residents means that the average Asian resident lives in a neighborhood that is 45.1% Asian. Other racial groups are less isolated, meaning they may be more likely to encounter other racial groups in their neighborhoods. The isolation index values for all racial groups in Newark for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table 3-6 below. Among all racial groups in this jurisdiction, the white population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming less isolated from other racial groups between the years 2000 and 2020.

Table 3-6: Isolation Index for Newark and the Bay Area, 2000 to 2020 Race Newark Bay Area Average
2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.236 0.307 0.451 0.245
Black/African American .041 0.048 0.032 0.053
Latinx 0.331 0.386 0.334 0.251
White 0.431 0.297 0.207 0.491
Universe: Population. Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 isfrom U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 isstandardized to 2010 censustract geographies and isfrom U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.

Income status
There are fewer very low and extremely low income households in Newark than Alameda County and the Bay Area, and with slightly higher percentages of moderate and above moderate income households than Alameda County and the Bay Area. Low income households at 50-80 percent area median income are relatively equal across geography at 12.6 percent for Newark, Alameda County (11.6 percent) and the Bay Area (13 percent). In Newark, low income households are concentrated in the central portion of the city, with the highest concentrations found along Thorton avenue in the Old Town area. Figure 3-4 shows income by race in Newark. The areas with 50 percent or greater of low to moderate income populations also have the highest concentrations of BIPOC residents. Higher income residents are found outside of Central Newark, as seen in Figure 3-5. While the majority of Newark is single family housing, Central Newark is where older housing stock is found along a major arterial road, with lower rents as a result. The majority of very AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 68

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
low and low income residents are Black, Hispanic/ Latino and Asian/ Pacific Islander. Figure 3-4 shows these populations are approximately 67 percent of the population for very low incomes and 68 percent for low income. For moderate and above moderate income populations, the demographics shift sharply to a greater percentage of White residents (44 percent) for moderate income and above moderate income White residents (36 percent) and Asian and Pacific Islander residents (37 percent) make up the larger percentage of residents in these income categories.

Asian and Pacific Islanders have comprised a large percentage of both the lowest and highest income categories. Although the Censuses data combines the groups, we know from other research that Pacific Islander students in Newark Unified School District have high levels of homelessness.

Figure 3-3: Household Income levels for Newark, Alameda County and the Bay Area, 2013- 2017 Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy. ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 69

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-4: Income by Race and Ethnicity, 2013- 2017
Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy. ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 70

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-5: Median Household Income, 2015- 2019
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 71

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-6: Low to Moderate Income Households and Percent Non-White Population, 2018 Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

Family Status
Newark has the largest household size in Alameda County. According to the County of Alameda’s Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (2020), there is a higher percentage of families with children in Alameda County as a whole compared to other family types, but the overall proportion of families with children has decreased by 6 percent from 1990 to 2017.

According to the 2021 ACS 5 year data, there are 9,693 children under the age of 18 in Newark, with the majority, 7,546 in married couple households. Figure 3-22 Shows 80 percent and higher of married couples with children are found in the north east, north west and south east corners of the city. These areas include Lake-Rosemont, a moderate opportunity neighborhood of single family homes, NewPark Place and Sanctuary Village, a newer single family housing development and an area identified as high opportunity. The neighborhood to the South East surrounding Lincoln Elementary school is an older single family neighborhood with smaller single story homes.

Central Newark has 60 to 80 percent of married couple households with children. This area also AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 72

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
has more civic and commercial uses. Only one area in North central Newark has a concentration of single mother households from 20 to 40 percent. The majority of the city is 20 percent or below.

This is an area with older single family housing stock and a recently closed elementary school.

Disability
As seen in Figure 3-60, there is no concentration of residents with a disability in Newark. The majority of residents with a physical disability are seniors, and are primarily related to ambulatory movement. Through community engagement, especially with the senior community, there is a strong interest in shared housing and accessory dwelling units in order to remain in their communities. City is proposing programs such as H2.2 Accessory Dwelling Unit incentive program, H4.5, connecting residentings to existing shared housing programs and H4.7, Increasing housing opportunities for those with developmental disabilities.

E. Racially and/or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of
Poverty + Affluence
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) are neighborhoods in which there are both racial concentrations and high poverty rates. HUD’s definition of a R/ECAP is:
● A census tract that has a non-white population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) or, for non-urban areas, 20 percent, AND a poverty rate of 40 percent or more; OR ● A census tract that has a non-white population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for the county, whichever is lower. Households within R/ECAP tracts frequently represent the most disadvantaged households within a community and often face a multitude of housing challenges. R/ECAPs are meant to identify where residents may have historically faced discrimination and continue to be challenged by limited economic opportunity. While there are several R/ECAPs in Alameda County, the majority are concentrated in the City of Oakland with a few in Berkeley, one in Hayward, and one in the unincorporated county (see Figure 3-7). No R/ECAPs were identified in Newark.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 73

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-7: Area of High Segregation and Poverty, 2021
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

Racially and/or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) are neighborhoods in which there are both high concentrations of non-Hispanic white households and high household income rates.

HCD has not yet established one standard methodology for determining RCAAs in California, but for the purpose of this analysis an RCAA is defined as a census tract with: 1) an average total AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 74

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
White population that is 1.25 times higher than the average total White population in the Bay Area region and 2) a median household income of $141,996 or higher (1.5 times higher than the Bay Area AMI in 2019). Based on this methodology, there are RCAAs throughout the eastern county spanning from Dublin, Livermore, and the unincorporated eastern county up through Castro Valley and Contra Costa County area. There are also RCAAs in the City of Alameda and Oakland. There are no RCAAs within Newark based on this methodology.

Although Newark does not have areas that have been identified as Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence through this methodology, there are areas of concentrated affluence in Newark, where residents are making more than $141,000, but do not have the levels of white population to identify as an area of Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Area of Influence.

F. Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Historically, and into the present day, affordable housing in the United States has been disproportionately developed in BIPOC neighborhoods that have been disinvested with high poverty rates, thereby reinforcing the concentration of poverty and racial segregation in low opportunity and low resource areas. Several agencies, including HUD and HCD, in coordination with the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), have developed methodologies to assess and measure geographic access to opportunity in areas throughout California. For this assessment, the opportunity indices prepared by HUD and HCD/TCAC are used to analyze access to opportunity in the City of Newark. Access to opportunity is measured by access to healthy neighborhoods, education, employment, and transportation. At the county level, Alameda county is close to equal in the percentage of the county that is high resourced (36%) and the percentage that is low resource (39%). Figure 3-8 shows the distribution of opportunity at the regional level. A large portion of the county is classified as low to moderate opportunity. Higher opportunity areas are found in Berkeley, Alameda, San Leandro, and Fremont. Figure 3-9 shows the composite opportunity areas in Newark. The majority of the city is identified as moderate and high resource, with no low resource areas or areas of high segregation and poverty. Through a community housing survey conducted by the city, residents were asked if they feel their neighborhood has opportunities for you and your family, 18 percent said no and 28 percent said somewhat. When asked what would make it feel that there was more opportunity the top three responses were:

1. City infrastructure that supports physical activity, including sidewalks, bike lanes, parks, and rec centers

2. Affordable, safe, and healthy housing choices

3. Educational opportunities that are academically and culturally supportive “I think increasing accessreally hasto do with increasing the supply first and putting affordable housing in AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 75

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
high resource areas and near public transit as well asretail.” Figure 3-10 shows the distribution of opportunity areas by race. Asian residents comprise the majority of the residents in the high resource areas at 63.8 percent, followed by White residents (16%), and Hispanic/ Latinx (11.5%). Low resourced or high segregation and poverty areas are primarily populated by Hispanic/ Latinx (39.7%) and Asian (38.3%) residents. Moderate resource areas are representative of the population with 36.9 percent of Hispanic/ Latinx residents, Asian residents (29.7%) and African American (3.5%).

HUD Opportunity Index HUD’s opportunity indices compare data indicators by race and ethnicity, for households below the poverty line, between jurisdictions, and for the region overall. The indices include the following:

Table 3-7: Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps, 2021 Domain Indicators
Environmental CalEnviroScreen 4.0 from pollution burdens and socio economic factors are indicators
Economic Poverty, Adult education, Employment, Job proximity, Median home value
Education Math proficiency, Reading proficiency, High School graduation rates, Student poverty rates
Poverty and Racial
Segregation
Poverty: tracts with at least 30 percent of population under federal poverty line Racial Segregation: Overrepresentation of people of color relative to the county (i.e., Tracts with a racial location quotient higher than 1.25 for Black, Hispanic, Asian, or all people of color in comparison to the county) Source: CA Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2021.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 76

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-8: Distribution of TCAC Opportunity Areas in the San Francisco Bay Area, 2022 Source: CA Tax Credit Allocation Committee, 2022
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 77

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-9: Composite of Opportunity Areas in Newark, 2022 Source: CA Tax Credit Allocation Committee, 2022
Figure 3-10: Percentage of Residents in Low, Moderate and High Resourced Areas by Race, 2015- 2019 AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 78

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Highest Resourced Area
Source: CA Tax Credit Allocation Committee / California Housing and Community Development (HCD),Opportunity Maps(2020); U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Table B03002 Economic Opportunity and Jobs proximity Index
The TCAC/HCD Economic Opportunity map measures economic opportunity through poverty, levels of adult education, employment, proximity to employment, and median home values. The majority of Newark has an economic score of less than .25 and .25 to .50, indicating less than positive economic opportunity. The southern corner of the city has higher economic opportunity with a score of .50 - .75. The area has a predominant Asian population and a median income greater than 125,000.

Newark has a close proximity to jobs in the eastern portion of the city, close to Silicon Valley. Areas in the northern portion of the city are furthest from jobs, although in the future the south west portion of the city will potentially have access to regional transportation through the creation of AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 79

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
the Dumbarton rail line. Economic opportunity was not cited though community engagement as a concern. Newark has a relatively low unemployment rate of 3.5 percent, but does have a larger percentage of residents leaving the city for work, than remaining in the city.

Figure 3-11: Jobs Proximity Index Composite, 2014-2017
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 80

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-12: Economic Opportunity Score, 2021
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

Environmental Opportunity
Exposure to a variety of environmental pollutants causes detrimental effects on human health, especially for children. The environmental opportunity score looks at 12 indicators to determine the level of environmental health of a community. The score is created through the consideration of both the pollution burden of exposure, and the population characteristics of an area. Newark has a mixed classification of environmental impacts, with portions of the city identified as having more positive environmental outcomes and others with less.

As a whole, Newark has fine particulate matter rates of 7.2 micrometers, which are higher than the World Health Organization guideline of 5 micrometers, but lower than the US EPA standard of 12 micrometers. These levels can be attributed to industrial outputs, diesel exhaust from major arterials, and two freeways that border Newark. From December 1, 2019 - November 30, 2020, AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 81

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Aclima collated data showing particulate samples of 8.7 micrometers along Thornton Avenue. The CalEnviroScreen score ranks census tracks from 1 to 100, with 100 being the highest percentile of communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution and with population characteristics that make them more sensitive to pollution. Figure 3-13 shows the patchwork distribution of outcomes, with the lowest environmental outcomes in central Newark and a portion of the Old Town area that is also home to a majority of BIPOC and low income residents.

The census tract is 47 percent Hispanic / Latinx, Asian (26.6%) and African American (4.1%) residents. This area has an overall pollution burden percentile of 61 and 76th percentile for asthma, while areas with higher environmental outcomes are in the Northwestern corner of the city. Long-term exposure may increase the risk of respiratory disease, heart disease, decreased lung function, premature birth, and reduced life expectancy. For Newark, with a high percentage of families with children in the city, addressing environmental issues is vital to addressing environmental justice.

According to an analysis conducted by ESA towards the preparation of an Environmental Justice Element in Newark, the following are major indicators of environmental contamination:

1. Ozone Concentrations,

2. PM 2.5 Concentrations

3. Diesel PM Emissions

4. Drinking-Water Contaminants

5. Pesticide Use

6. Toxic Releases from Facilities

7. Traffic Density

8. Cleanup Sites

9. Groundwater Threats

10. Hazardous Waste Generators and
Facilities

11. Impaired Water Bodies

12. Solid Waste Sites and Facilities
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 82

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-13: Environmental Opportunity Score, 2021
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 83

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-14: CalEnviroScreen and Non-White Population, 2021 and 2018 Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

Education
Equitable access to culturally relevant and engaging educational opportunities is foundational in increasing opportunities for all residents. Newark Unified school district has 11 schools in total, with 2 of its eight elementary schools either closed within the past year or scheduled to close in following the 2022 school year. The school board is making the choice to close schools in response to a 6 million dollar budget shortfall, due to declining enrollment.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 84

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-15: Newark School Enrollment, 2017-2022
Source: Data collected by the California Department of Education (CDE) through the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS)
The racial and ethnic makeup of the district is highly diverse, with Hispanic/Latinx students comprising the majority of the population at 51.9 percent, followed by Asian at 16.8 percent, White at 10 percent and Filipino at 8.9 percent . Figure 3-16 goes into detail of the full district breakdown.

Figure 3-16: Race and Ethnicity of Newark Unified School District, 2020-2021 School Year AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 85

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Source: Data collected by the California Department of Education (CDE) through the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS).

Students in the Newark Unified school district have a comparable percentage of students qualifying for free or reduced lunch as Alameda County, at 40.5 percent and 40.7 percent respectively. Both are below the state average at 57.8 percent. Within the district there is a wide range of students that qualify for free and reduced lunch. The California Department of Education district level data for the 2021 to 2022 school year finds Shilling Elementary with the highest percentage of students that qualify for free or reduced lunch at 60 percent, followed by Musick Elementary at 57 percent, one of the schools that is slated to be closed for the 2022-2023 school year, with students distributed among other schools. Schools with the lowest levels of students qualifying for free or reduced lunch are John F Kenedy Elementary school at 23 percent, and Birch Grove Intermediate and Primary schools at 28 and 30 percent respectively.

Table 3-8: Selected District Level Data - 0161234--Newark Unified for the year 2021-2022 School Free or Reduced Price Meals
Non-public non-sectarian schools 3 (42.9%)
August Schilling Elementary 227 (59.9%)
Birch Grove Intermediate 118 (28.0%)
Birch Grove Primary 108 (30.0%)
Bridgepoint High (Continuation) 29 (46.8%)
Coyote Hills Elementary 260 (50.0%)
Crossroads High (Alternative) 70 (43.2%)
E. L. Musick Elementary 101 (57.4%)
John F. Kennedy Elementary 92 (23.0%)
Lincoln Elementary 174 (46.8%)
Newark Junior High 280 (41.2%)
Newark Memorial High 632 (38.7%)
District Total: 2,094 (40.5%)
County Total: 87,363 (40.7%)
State Totals: 3,404,572 (57.8%)
Source: California Department of Education, 2022
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 86

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
The city asked residents through the housing survey what would need to change to feel that their neighborhood is high in opportunity, and residents identified education as one of the top three things. Educational opportunity is measured by Math and Reading Proficiency, High School Graduation Rate, Student Poverty, High Segregation and Poverty. Overall according to the HCD AFFH Data viewer, the majority of Newark has lower than average education opportunities. The one area of Newark that has more positive educational outcomes is near Birch Grove Primary school. The elementary schools have similar performance levels on state indicators, which indicates the role of student poverty in the classification. We recognize that although measures of achievement such as test scores and levels of poverty are indicators, it is difficult to fully measure what a school means for a community. When Graham Elementary was threatened with closure, the primarily Latinx school community rallied together to share what the school community means to them to the school board in hopes of evading closure. Ultimately the school was combined with Snow elementary to form a new school, Coyote Hills Elementary.

Figure 3-17: Educational Opportunity Index, 2021
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 87

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Transportation Access and Cost
To better understand housing affordability, it is important to look at transportation costs associated with a location. Figure 3-19 shows the combined housing and transportation costs in Newark. Due to Newark being low density and auto oriented, with a lack of high frequency public transportation options, the majority of households spend more than 45% of their income on housing and transportation. Only 4 percent of households have combined costs less than 30% of income. Newark has no neighborhoods identified as location efficient, with housing that is close to jobs and services, with a number of transportation options. Due to this fact, 49 percent of residents spend 45 to 54 percent of their income on housing, with 23 percent spending 54 to 66 percent.

Currently, Newark is served by Alameda County Transit (AC Transit) bus service. Public transportation is accessible on major arterials such as Newark Blvd, Ceder, and Thorton. Unlike neighboring Union City and Fremont, there is no BART station in Newark, although a number of bus routes do connect with the Fremont BART station. Public transit options are more accessible in the northern portion of the city, with the addition of three school bus lines from AC Transit during the school year to Newark Memorial High School. Residents in our community meeting expressed the desire for more options beyond the personal automobile such as increased bus service and infrastructure for biking to reduce traffic congestion and be responsive to climate change. Newark’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master plan outlines a number of improvements, such as protected bike lanes, pedestrian overpass for train tracks and an increase in the number of bike lanes.
“Housing close to walkable parks and transit. Also need more transit options.” – Community comment AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 88

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-18: Alameda County Transit Bus Stops and Proposed Transit Stations, 2022 Source: AC Transit, adapted by Community Planning Collaborative, 2022 AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 89

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-19: Housing and Transportation Costs as a Percentage of Income Source: The Center for Neighborhood Technology’s Housing and Transportation (H+T®) Affordability Index, G. Disproportionate Housing Needs for Low-income
Households and Protected Classes
Familial Status
The Fair Housing Act (FHA) bans discrimination based on certain protected classes, including "familial status," which refers to the presence of at least one child under 18 years old. Under the FHA, familial status discrimination occurs when a landlord, property manager, real estate agent, or property owner treats someone differently because they have a family with one or more individuals who are under 18 years of age. A “family” also includes people who are pregnant and people who are in the process of securing legal custody of a person under 18 years of age, including a family that is in the process of adopting a child, or foster parents. All families with children are protected by the FHA against familial status discrimination, including single-parent households and same-sex couples with children. Rules that unreasonably restrict children or limit the ability of children to use their housing or the common facilities at the property may violate the FHA. Moreover, enforcing certain rules only against families with children may also violate the FHA. The following are the types of conduct that may violate the FHA:

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 90

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
● Refusing to rent, sell, or negotiate with a family because the family has one or more children under 18 years of age.
● Advertising a preference for households without children or otherwise discouraging such families.
● Telling an individual or family no unit is available even though a unit is in fact available. ● Forcing families into housing units that are larger than necessary. ● Designating certain floors or buildings for families with children, or encouraging families with children to reside in particular areas.
● Charging additional rent, security deposit, or fees because a household has children under 18 years of age.

Figure 3-20: Percentage of Households With Children Under 18 Years of Age, 2015- 2019 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Table B11005 Newark has many family households with an average family size of 3.61 people (ACS 2016-2020).

The city has 37 percent of households with a child under 18 years of age. This rate is higher than both Alameda County (32%) and the Bay Area (30.5%). Although discrimination based upon family status has not been reported in Newark, it has been reported at the county level. Households with children face additional challenges accessing housing that meets their needs for both size and cost.

Survey results found that when asked what are the most urgent housing needs at this time, 50 percent responded that housing for families was the greatest need.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 91

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-21: Family Structures in Newark, 2015- 2019
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Table S1101 “I would love to see more housing programs accessible for families currently in Newark” – Community Member
Households headed by one person are often at greater risk of housing insecurity, particularly female headed households, who may be supporting children or a family with only one income. In Newark, the largest proportion of households are Married-Couple Family Households at 75% of total, while Female Headed Households make up 17 percent of all family households and male headed comprise 8 percent. Throughout engagement with the community, the city has heard from residents that housing for families, and single parents in particular is a high need. "I’m an inside wireman electrician for 26 years. I cannot afford to buy a home in thistown as a single father of 2. $2million per home isridiculously high. I am a critical worker, not just essential, and cannot afford to stay with these house prices."
Female-headed households with children may face particular housing challenges, with pervasive gender inequality resulting in lower wages for women. Moreover, the added need for childcare can make finding a home that is affordable even more challenging.

Figure 3-24 shows In Newark, 22.8% of female-headed households with children fall below the Federal Poverty Line, while 5.7% of female-headed households without children live in poverty (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17012 ).

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 92

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-22: Percent of Married Couples with Children, 2015- 2019 Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

Figure 3-23: Percent of Children in a Female Headed Household, 2015- 2019 Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 93

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-24: Poverty Levels of Female Headed Households in Newark, 2015- 2019 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Table B17012 Household Size
Figure 3-25: Comparison of Household Size for Owners and Renters in Alameda County and Newark, 2015- 2019
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Table CP04, Comparative AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 94

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Housing Characteristics
Seniors
The senior population in Newark has increased significantly since 2010, with a 47 percent increase, compared with a 39 percent increase from Alameda county. This could partially be attributed to the construction of Newark Station, a 75 unit building completed in 2019. Figure 3-27, shows seniors in Newark are overwhelmingly home owners at all income levels, with seniors at the lowest income level having the highest percentage of renters at 37 percent. Housing needs change as we move through life, and due to seniors living on fixed incomes in smaller households, Newark needs housing types and programs to support seniors to age in place and remain in their community.
“Developing a shared housing program with othersthat need a room to rent, connectseniors with single people who need affordable housing. Helpsseniors on limited incomes” – Community meeting comment
Figure 3-26: Increase of Senior Population, 2010 to 2019 Source: American Community Survey 2015- 2019, 5-Year Estimate AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 95

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-27: Seniors Income Level, Owners and Renters, 2015 -2019 Source: American Community Survey 2015- 2019, 5-Year Estimate Disability Status
The U.S. Census Bureau defines disability as one of the following: hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty. In Newark 3,561 residents over the age of 5 had a disability in 2018. This group equates to approximately 8 percent of the non-institutionalized population over age five in the City, which is slightly lower than the county (10 percent) and lower than the Bay Area (11 percent). Figure 3-28 shows the population of persons with a disability by age in the City. At the local level, seniors in Newark have the highest rates of disability of all age groups at 52 percent. Ambulatory difficulty and independent living were the highest for seniors at 23 and 22 percent, followed by hearing difficulty (13%). African Americans have significantly higher rates of disability compared to other racial and ethnic groups in the city at 22 percent, followed by White residents at 13 percent. Those living with a disability often have specialized housing needs due to living on a fixed or limited incomes, physical or intellectual disabilities or increased health care costs. This points toward a need for housing that incorporates universal design, is integrated within the community, in close proximity to public transportation, and supports seniors to age in place.

In conversation with Darin Lounds, executive director of the Housing Development Consortium of the East Bay, he shared a number of ways that the city of Newark can support inclusive housing options for people with developmental disabilities:

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 96

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
● Work with tax credit developers in larger multi families, to have a percentage devoted to people with disabilities. It is key for jurisdictions to work with developers when they are proposing new developments.
● Transit lines are most important. Only 10% of the demographic own a vehicle. Parking needs are more of a commercial need to provide services, less of a residential need. ● Discrimination: when property owners hear the income is SSI or disability, or someone with visible disability, they form assumptions about their ability to maintain a home. The regional center helps people to live in the community, they have a circle of support. ● Maximum integration is key, not just a big building with one demographic Table 3-9: Residents With A Disability, Newark and Region, 2015- 2019 Geography No disability With a disability Percentage
Newark 43,583 3,561 8%
Alameda County 1,496,381 151,368 10%
Bay Area 6,919,762 735,533 11%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year estimate 2015-2019. Table B18101 Figure 3-28: Disability Status By Age, 2016- 2020
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Table S1810 AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 97

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-29: Newark Senior Population with Disability, 65 years and Older, 2016- 2020 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Disability Characteristics, Table S1810
Figure 3-30: Disability Status by Race, 2016- 2020
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Disability Characteristics, Table S1810
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 98

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Cost Burden and Overpayment
From 2010-2019, Newark has experienced large increases in both rental and homeownership costs. Two-bedroom rents increased by 45 percent, while two-bedroom home prices have increased by 122 percent (Costar, 2010 and 2019 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, Redfin). The growth in housing costs has outpaced the growth in income leading to large numbers of households cost burdened and experiencing homelessness.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development considers housing to be affordable for a household if the household spends less than 30% of its income on housing costs. A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30% of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” In Newark, 44 percent of households spend 30%-50% of their income on housing, while 14 percent of households are severely cost burdened and use the majority of their income for housing. Over time, households have become increasingly cost burdened, with a 20 percent increase from 2010 to 2019. Figure 3-31 shows how households in Newark are cost burdened by income. While residents are cost burdened and severely cost burdened at all income levels, residents making below 50 percent area median income experience the highest levels. Fifty-seven percent of residents earning up to 30 percent of the area median income are severely cost burdened, with 22 percent spending 30 to 50 percent of their income on housing. Homeowners Median income households are still finding themselves costburden with 60 percent of households making 50 to 80 percent of median income are cost burdened.

Figure 3-33 shows that renters are more likely to be cost burdened, with twice the number of renters (30%) spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing compared to 16 percent of homeowners, and 14 percent of renters are severely cost burdened. This places renters at a greater risk of living in overcrowded housing, displacement and homelessness.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 99

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-31: Cost Burden Renter Households in Newark Over Time, 2015- 2019 Source: American Community Survey 2015-2019, 5-Year Estimate Figure 3-32: Cost Burdened by Income, 2013- 2017
Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy. ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 100

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-33: Cost Burdened Households, Renters and Homeowners, 2015- 2019 US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5 year data, 2015-2019, Table B25070, B25091 Figure 3-34: Overpayment by Renters, 2015- 2019
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 101

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-35: Overpayment by Homeowners, 2015- 2019
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

Cost Burdened Households by Race
Residents who are cost burdened in Newark are disproportionately experienced by some ethnic groups more than others. Figure 3-36 exhibits the changing demographics of being cost burdened in Newark. Black (41%), Indigenous (46%), Multi Racial (46%), and Latinx (47%) residents are the highest cost burdened, and most vulnerable to displacement, overcrowding and homelessness.

Asian and White residents are the least cost burdened at 27 percent and 21 percent respectively.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 102

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-36: Cost Burdened Residents by Race, 2013-2017 Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release Note: Hispanic category is not exclusive of other categories.

Overcrowding
An overcrowded household is defined as having more than one person per room, with severe overcrowding with more than 1.5 people sharing a room. Often immigrant communities, low income families and renter-occupied households are more likely to experience household overcrowding. Referred to as "doubling up"—living with family members or friends for economic reasons—is the most commonly reported living situation for families and individuals before experiencing homelessness.
10 Renters in Newark are more likely to live in overcrowded conditions than homeowners. Figure 3-37 shows renters experience overcrowding at 3 times the rate as homeowners at 18 percent, and severe overcrowding at 9 percent.

Central Newark in the Old Town area has 9 percent of households experiencing overcrowded housing, with 5 percent of households experiencing extreme overcrowding in the Northwest corner of the city. As shown in Figure 3-39, these two areas are predominantly occupied by communities of color, with 80 to 100 percent of residents in the Old Town area. Mixed race residents face the highest rates at 33 percent, followed by Hispanic/ Latinx (30%) and Indigenous residents at 22 percent. The Old Town Neighborhood specific plan has zoning changes that 10 Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project, California Department of Public Health, Percent of Household Overcrowding, 2017
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 103

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
remove constraints to the production of affordable housing. The upcoming development in the Old Town neighborhood by Satellite Affordable Housing, will provide 56 units of affordable housing, a quarter are 3 bedrooms specifically for large families. “Familiesthat are doubled up, tripled up can really use some programsthat help them find more suitable accommodationsin the community they want to stay in”
— Community meeting breakoutsession comment
Figure 3-37: Percent of Owner and Renter Households Living in Crowded Conditions, 2013- 2017 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), ACS Tabulation 2013-2017
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 104

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-38: Overcrowding by Race and Ethnicity, 2015- 2019 Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5 year data, 2015-2019, Table B25014 Figure 3-39: Overcrowding and Severe Overcrowding in Newark and Non-White Population, 2015- 2019 and 2018
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 105

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Housing Choice Vouchers and Subsidized Housing Developments Newark has seen minimal development of subsidized housing, with three subsidized senior housing developments in the city, and a fourth subsidized senior housing development under construction with 79 units. The use of housing choice vouchers is low in Newark, with the majority of the city seeing a 5 to 15 percent use, and the remainder with 5 percent or less. Table 3-10 details the current subsidized housing in Newark. The city has 274 low income units at a low risk of conversion, with no units at the moderate, high and very high income brackets. The majority of subsidized housing in Newark is found in moderate resource areas, with one development in a low resource designated area
Table 3-10: Housing Units at Risk of Conversion, 2022
Name Address
Affordable
Units
Total
Units
Active
Program(s)
Risk
Level
2021 TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map
Designation
Newark Station
Seniors
37433 Willow
Street,
Newark
74 75 LIHTC Low Low resource
Rosemont aka
Newark Gardens I
35300 Cedar
Blvd, Newark
150 150 HUD Low Moderate resource
Newark Gardens II
35322 Cedar
Blvd, Newark
50 50 HUD Low Moderate resource
Source: California Housing Partnership, 2022
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 106

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-40: Subsidized Housing and Housing Choice Vouchers, 2021 Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

Rates of Homeownership
Homeownership in the United States has functioned as the key to generational wealth. Due to historic discrimination from the federal government, the real estate industry, BIPOC communities have lower homeownership rates in comparison to White residents. Addressing disparities between races in rates of homeownership is one way to address historic discrimination and access to wealth, furthering fair housing work. Newark has higher rates of homeownership at 69 percent, than Alameda County (54%) and the Bay Area (56%). Figure 3-42 shows homeowners in Newark are predominantly identified as White and Asian, with the lowest rates of homeownership being found with Indigenous, Black and Hispanic or Latinx residents. This corresponds with rates of acceptance for mortgages. Figure 3-43 shows that White and Asian residents have the highest rate of loan approval with Indigenous and Hispanic/ Latinx residents having the highest rates of application denied.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 107

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-41: Housing Tenure in Newark, 2015- 2019
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 year data, 2015-2019, Table B25003 Figure 3-42: Rates of Homeownership by Race, 2015- 2019 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 year data, 2015-2019, Table B25003 AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 108

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Mortgage Loan Access/Rates of Denial Loan Access/Rates of Denial Figure 3-43: Mortgage Applications and Acceptance by Race, 2018-2019 Source: Federal Financial Institutions Examination Councils(FFIEC) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Loan/ Application register Files
Substandard Housing
Concern over increased risk of displacement due to code enforcement violations has prompted a look at how substandard housing is addressed in communities. The majority of the community’s housing stock is older than 40 years old, which can increase the need for repairs. Oftentimes it is low income renters and homeowners that will be living in substandard housing conditions. While rates of substandard housing, including housing without kitchen or bathroom facilities, is less than one percent, these units could be underreported. As described in section 2 of the housing needs assessment, the neighborhoods of Mirabeau and Old Town / Central Newark through code enforcement data show significant need of rehabilitation. Currently Newark is responsive to code enforcement reports of housing in need of repair, and is planning to develop a new system for addressing code violations that reduce the risk of housing being removed from the market.

Program H1.2 outlines how the city will develop a rental inspection program that will provide a structured process for property owners to address code violations. There will be a process of reinspection, and the creation of an online reporting process for tenants. Program H1.1 Programs for housing repair and rehabilitation works to expand upon the existing program, to incorporate targeted outreach to identified neighborhoods of need.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 109

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
People Experiencing Homelessness
The City has provided continuous support for regional efforts to end homelessness, such as the Alameda County EveryOne Home Program, which prioritizes supportive housing. Newark adopted a resolution declaring a shelter crisis, and authorized the City’s participation in the Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP).

People experiencing homelessness have steadily increased at the county level since 2017, with 9,747 sheltered and unsheltered people at the most recent point in time count on February 22, 2022. The city of Newark has a documented reduction from 89 people experiencing homelessness in 2019, to 58 people in 2022. Data from a 2021 Newark Police Department report provides an overview of unsheltered persons in Newark including known encampments:
● Eucalyptus Grove (Highway 84, north of Jarvis Avenue) ● Highway 84 Eastbound off-ramp to Newark Boulevard
● Residence Inn hotel area (near the off-ramp)
● Sycamore Street at the Union Pacific railroad tracks
● Thornton Avenue at Interstate 880
● Home Depot and surrounding businesses parking lot
Housing and homeless support is the most prevalent service request for Newark callers to the countywide 2-1-1 referral service, representing about 42% of all service requests. Newark residents are seeking referrals for low cost rental listings, rent payment and deposit assistance, supportive and transitional housing, emergency shelter, among other services (Eden I&R Referral Service, January 2020 through March 2022). Currently Second Chance provides transitional housing for those experiencing homelessness in Newark. The facility has 32 beds, with the shelter at 81 % capacity on the point in time count. The city has engaged in a number of actions to address homelessness in Newark. There is a partnership with the Fremont Family Resource Center to provide support to Newark households at risk of becoming homeless, and has been awarded a HomeKey grant to convert the Towne Place Suites extended stay hotel into 124 supportive, affordable residential units known as Cedar Community Apartments. Most recently the city has created a Homelessness Committee with members from various City departments to develop a cohesive plan to address homelessness.

Through community engagement, the city has been alerted to the high number of residents experiencing homelessness that are finding shelter in local motels. The challenge with this is that these populations are uncounted, so while the city does not have a full sense of how many individuals and families are there, through communication with parent liaisons with the Newark Unified School district and from a community member experiencing homelessness that those residing in the hotels hold jobs outside of the home, but due to a variety of issues such as the cost of housing, requirements such as three times the income, and credit scores, these community members are kept from accessing stable housing.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 110

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Although the documented number of people experiencing homelessness in Newark is low, there are high rates of racial disparity compared to the population of Newark and Alameda County as a whole. As exhibited in Figure 3-46, although the African American population in Newark is 3 percent, they make up 27 percent of the population experiencing homelessness. The Latinx population of Newark is almost equal to that of those experiencing homelessness at 31 percent.

White residents have the highest rate of residents experiencing homelessness at 58%, with their portion of the population in Newark at 29 percent.

Figure 3-44: Total Count of People Experiencing Homelessness For The Point In Time Count On February 22, 2022
Source: 2022 Point in Time Count. Everyone Count, February 22, 2022.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 111

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-45: Unsheltered Individuals in Newark and Alameda County, 2022 Source: 2022 Point in Time Count. Everyone Count, February 22nd 2022.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 112

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-46: Sheltered Individuals by Race, 2022
Source: 2022 Point in Time Count. Everyone Count, February 22nd 2022.

Access to affordable, stable housing is foundational for children and their families to be healthy - mentally and physically and support student success in school. Over the past few years the pandemic has amplified the disparities in housing, and with learning transferring online, many students did not have the resources to make that transition. Although schools have returned to in-person teaching, the number of families that are still struggling to access resources and affordable housing are high.

In Newark, the student population experiencing homelessness totaled 300 during the 2019-20 school year and increased by 9 percent since the 2016-17 school year. By comparison, Alameda County has seen a 18.7 percent decrease in the population of students experiencing homelessness since the 2016-17 school year, and the Bay Area population of students experiencing homelessness decreased by eight percent. During the 2019-2020 school year, there were still some 13,718 students experiencing homelessness throughout the region, adding undue burdens on learning and thriving, with the potential for longer term negative effects.

The number of students in Newark experiencing homelessness in 2019 represents 10.5 percent of the Alameda County total and two percent ofthe Bay Area total.

In the most recent school year (2021-22), NUSD had 251 students that were homeless (about 5% of all students), which further indicates the lack of affordable housing. Notably, about 96 percent of homeless students in Newark are students of color, with over 167 of these students being Hispanic or Latino. While NUSD has only a small number of Pacific Islander students (98 students), AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 113

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
about 10.8 percent of them are homeless (Source: California Department of Education (ED-Data).

Table 3-11: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness, 2016 to 2020 Academic Year Newark Alameda County Bay Area
2016-17 275 3,531 14,990
2017-18 236 3,309 15,142
2018-19 192 3,182 15,427
2019-20 300 2,870 13,718
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools. Notes: The California Department of Education considersstudentsto be homelessif they are unsheltered, living in temporary sheltersfor people experiencing homelessness, living in hotels/motels, or temporarily doubled up and sharing the housing of other persons due to the loss of housing or economic hardship. The data used for thistable was obtained at the schoolsite level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography. Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020). Thistable isincluded in the Data Packet Workbook as Table HOMELS-05.

Farmworkers
The number of farmworkers living in Newark has declined over the years, with the student population at 57 students for the 2019-2020 school year. The previous years saw 79 students for 2017-2018 and 72 for the 2018 to 2019 school year. Table 3-12 shows the trends for both Alameda county and the greater Bay Area see a similar decline in the migrant farmworker student population. Generally, the number of farmworkers living in Alameda county has been declining since 2012, with fewer than 400 residents working in the industry in a permanent position. It is important to recognize that farmworkers could be under-counted by the census due to their migrant nature. Farming and farmworkers are a significant element of the state's economy, but play less of a role in the Bay Area. Due to lower wages, language barriers, and inconsistent work, farmworkers can have difficulty securing housing, and for these reasons could experience overcrowding and substandard housing conditions.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 114

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table 3-12: Migrant Farmworker Student Population, 2016 to 2020 Geography 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-2020
Newark 75 79 72 57
Alameda County 874 1,037 785 790
Bay Area 4, 630 4,607 4,075 3,976
Source: California Department of education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data system, Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020) Figure 3-47: Permanent and Seasonal Farmworkers at the County Level, 2022 to 2017 Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers(2002,2007,2012,2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor.

Note: Farm workers are considered seasonal if they work on a farm lessthan 150 days a year, while farm workers who work on a farm more than 150 days are considered to be permanent workersfor that farm.

Gentrification and Displacement
“It isreally sad to see what is happening to our little old town of Newark. I moved here back in 1995 to raise my family. It was a small town and where I wanted to raise my family. My children are NUSD and now currently in college. The Tech Giants have moved into our backyards causing GENTRIFICATION raising rentsthat our families can't afford. Forcing them to leave and forsome to become homeless sleeping in their cars with school-aged children. Also the high number of Homeless on ourstreets with mental health issues on the corners of all freewaysintersections. How isit that we all live in one-million-dollar houses and see all this around us? This breaks my heart we need to see more affordable housing, rent control, good schools with proper equal education for all of ourstudentsin our community.

All the tech giants use these Big Charter busesto send their employeesto Facebook, Google, and Yahoo.

Newark should start charging them a fee so that we can have funds available to provide free tutoring for school-aged studentsstruggling in math.” – Newark Resident AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 115

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Defining Sensitive Communities: (Urban Displacement Project, 2020) Communities sensitive to displacement were measured through a number of indicators.

Neighborhoods with a high proportion of residents vulnerable to displacement in the case of rising housing costs, and market-based displacement pressures present in and/or near the community.

Communities were designated sensitive if they currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost.

Vulnerability includes metrics for the share of very low income residents, share of renters, share of people of color, and share of very low income households (50% AMI or below) that are severely rent burdened (spending 50% of income on rent). Market-based displacement pressures include percent change in rent between 2012-2017 above county median rent increases.

The City of Newark has grown its job base by 37% since 2010, significantly outpacing the County’s job growth, which was also strong. While the City has a higher share of job growth in high-paying industries compared to the County, over 40% of the City’s job growth still came from lower wage industries paying less than $75,000 a year. Currently, residents are unable to find housing at a cost and requirements accessible to them, which has led to residents finding shelter in motels. Concern around gentrification is a consistent narrative from residents, many of whom find themselves unable to find housing in a city they have grown up in, and have community connections. “Programas de vivienda que combaten la gentrificación.” (Housing programsthat combat gentrification) – Community Meeting Comment
Figure 3-49 shows areas in Newark that are vulnerable to gentrification and displacement, according to the 2017 study from the Urban Displacement Project, University of California, Berkeley. The area corresponds to a majority of BIPOC populations with an average of 82 percent non white, specifically Hispanic/ Latinx communities, cost burdened and overcrowded households.

The city of Newark has a number of redevelopment projects underway in the Old Town Area, Bayside, and ParkPlace. These projects are working to add more housing to the city through the redevelopment of industrial land into a walkable neighborhood close to commuter rail, repurpose an aging shopping mall, and revitalize a historic district.

Old Town
Old Town is the historic commercial district of Newark that has experienced disinvestment over the years. The neighborhood has a history of a variety of housing types and businesses, with a number of food manufacturing and local restaurants. The Old Town Specific plan looks to revitalize the neighborhood, making it more pedestrian friendly and implement zoning changes to bring higher density housing and mixed use buildings into the neighborhood.

The area has lower rents than the surrounding areas of the city, and is home to a predominantly AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 116

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Hispanic/ Latinx population of residents and associated small businesses (fig 3-49). The neighborhood has the highest level of low income residents, with 53 percent of renters cost burdened.

With improvements to the Dumbarton transportation corridor, connecting Newark and the surrounding area to Silicon Valley, this will open up the area for increased development pressure that could result in displacement of existing residents and small businesses.

Bayside Newark
Bayside Newark is a 200-acre planned neighborhood on land previously used for industrial production and manufacturing. The city is implementing a specific plan for a walkable neighborhood with a variety of housing types, recreational open space, and everyday services adjacent to the future Dumbarton rail line. Although there was no residential or small business in the planning area, it is still important to note the impact that the commuter rail line and the inclusion of hundreds of new market rate housing units will have on the demographics of the city.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 117

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-48: Map of Plan and Dumbarton Corridor, 2010
Source: Dahlin Group, 2010
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 118

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-49: Areas in Newark Vulnerable to Displacement and Percentage of Communities of Color, 2018 and 2022
Source: HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 119

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Displacement From Environmental Hazards
Environmental hazards can cause both physical and social vulnerabilities specifically in low income, disabled, and BIPOC communities. Many communities and households face social vulnerabilities that are intensified during the short- and long-term recovery period after a disaster.

Access to information, housing, and social services are disrupted during and after a disaster, straining local housing markets and service providers. Due to the lack of affordable housing due to a mismatch between housing costs and income, communities are vulnerable to local shocks such as a natural disaster. For households that were struggling to find and/or maintain affordable housing before a major event, resulting in displacement of residents and an increase in homelessness.

These events also compromise the ability for residents with disabilities to find accessible temporary shelter.

Newark is susceptible to multiple major types of environmental hazards that are visible through the Association of Bay Area Governments Hazard Viewer: Flooding due to sea level rise, tsunamis, and earthquakes. Figure 3-50 of the FEMA flood map shows extreme flooding at the 100 year flood line, engulfing much of the southern portion of the city. At the 500 year flood level, the flooding will move well into established housing, schools and commercial establishments. Flooding most significantly affects areas that are identified as high in opportunity currently, but also encroaches on areas in the city that have been identified as vulnerable to displacement through the Urban Displacement Project.

With Newark being in close proximity to the Hayward fault line, there is the possibility of severe shaking in the event of an earthquake. Residents in our community survey cited multi-year drought as their greatest environmental concern at 52 percent, followed by flooding and sea level rise (44%) and earthquakes (35%). In our community meeting, concern about development in sensitive areas was highlighted, especially ensuring that vulnerable residents are aware of the environmental hazards in their neighborhood.
“Restrict or limit construction of new development in zones or overlay areasthat have been identified or designated as hazardous areasto avoid or minimize impactsto coastal resources and property from sea level rise impacts.” – Community meeting comment
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 120

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-50: 100 Year and 500 Year Flooding Projections for the City of Newark Source: Association of Bay Area Governments Hazard Viewer AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 121

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
H. AFFH Analysis of Sites
State law, Government Code Section 65583(c)(10), requires the sites analysis to be analyzed with respect to AFFH to ensure that affordable housing is dispersed equitably throughout the City rather than concentrated in areas of high segregation and poverty or low resource areas that have historically been underserved. By comparing the sites inventory to the fair housing indicators in this assessment, this section analyzes whether the sites included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element sites inventory improve or exacerbate patterns of segregation, fair housing conditions, and access to opportunity throughout the City.

Newark was allocated a total of 1,874 new housing units to plan for during the Sixth Cycle Housing Element planning period. This RHNA allocation includes 464 very low-, 268 low-, 318 moderate-, and 824 above moderate-income units. Using data and research from the HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool 1.0, Table 3-13 presents the housing unit capacity and existing conditions as they relate to indicators of fair housing analyzed in this assessment for each census tract in the city. For more information about the indicators, refer to the local assessment discussed previously in this chapter. The census tracts and sites inventory are mapped and shown in Figure 3-51.

Newark has several physical constraints that present challenges in developing the sites inventory and planning for future growth. These constraints include sensitive wetland habitat and flood plains along the western city boundary and limited vacant land. Because of these constraints, sites included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element inventory are largely located in specific plan areas that are redeveloping existing shopping malls and former industrial lands, with several additional sites located in the Old Town/ Central area.

Newark is a racially and ethnically diverse city, with higher levels of segregation than neighboring jurisdictions such as Union City. As shown in the Table 3-13 BIPOC residents are the majority of the population in all census tracts. Residents identifying as Hispanic/ Latinx compose the largest segments of the population in census tract 4443.02 (Bayside/ Old Town), and census tract 4444 (Old Town/ Central Newark). The sites inventory provides some opportunity to balance the distribution of the various racial/ethnic groups in the city as well as access to opportunity, as sites at all income levels are found in areas with high opportunity and lower predominance of Hispanic/ Latino populations. The sites in NewPark Place, Birchwood, Bayside /Old Town, and Old Town/Central Newark open up opportunities to diversify the area through income and race/ethnicity. Although there are no sites included in the inventory in the northern neighborhoods of the city (Lake-Rosemont, Mirabeau, and Mayhews Landing), proposed programs will work to address the concentration in specific neighborhoods and open up single family neighborhoods to new missing middle housing types identified through community engagement as filling a crucial need for large and small households throughout the city.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 122

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-51: Housing Sites for the RHNA 6th Cycle
Source: Community Planning Collaborative, 2023.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 123

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table 3-13: Distribution of Housing Capacity by Census Tract with AFFH Indicators RHNA Capacity
AFFH Indicators
Integration and Segregation
Access to
Opportunity
Displacement
Risk
Census
Tract
Neighborhood
Total
Households
Owner
Households
Renter
Households
Lower Moderate
Above
Moderat
e
Median
Household
Income
AMI less
than 50%
AMI
50 -
80%
AMI 80
- 100%
AMI
greate
r than
100%
Hispanic /
Latino
Non-White
Population
Disability
Rate
Resource
Designation
Overcrowding
Rate
4441
LakeRosemont
2,573 2,162 411 0 0 0 $116,812 20% 8% 10% 62% 28% 74% 10% Moderate
Resource
0%
4442
Mirabeau
Park
1,887 1,484 403 0 0 9 $126,028 14% 12% 9% 64% 35% 81% 7% Moderate
Resource
2%
4443.01
Mayhews
Landing
1,189 862 327 0 0 0 $121,156 11% 6% 12% 72% 38% 76% 8%
Moderate
Resource
2%
4443.02
Bayside/ Old
Town
1,500 762 738 70 21 649 $105,188 24% 12% 13% 51% 66% 89% 6% Moderate
Resource
6%
4444
Old Town /
Central
Newark
1,519 848 671 201 44 120 $93,094 19% 13% 19% 49% 59% 86% 8% Moderate
Resource
0%
4445
Old Town /
Central
Newark
2,025 879 1,146 118 42 36 $109,441 16% 14% 9% 60% 21% 88% 7% Moderate
Resource
5%
4446.01 Birch Grove 1,779 1,543 236 155 1 296 $139,119 9% 11% 4% 76% 18% 84% 7% High
Resource
0%
4446.02
NewPark
Place
1,575 1,129 446 178 18 536 $128,229 14% 5% 8% 74% 11% 90% 5% High
Resource
0%
Source: Community Planning Collaborative, City of Newark. HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 124

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Potential Effects of Segregation and Integration
Race and Ethnicity
In Newark, neighborhoods are predominantly Hispanic/ Latinx. Lake-Rosemont and Birch Grove Neighborhoods are the only neighborhoods in the city where White residents have a slim or sizable gap. The NewPark Place and Sanctuary West areas throughout the city have a predominantly Asian population (composed of a mix of different ethnicities). Generally, the sites inventory will provide some opportunity to balance the distribution of the various racial/ethnic groups in the city. As described above, Hispanic/ Latinx residents are the most segregated group and Asian residents are the most isolated compared to other groups. The sites inventory will not exacerbate segregation by race and ethnicity in Newark due to the high numbers of housing sites in areas that are predominantly Hispanic/ Latinx and Asian, providing new opportunities for housing mobility in the city.

Using the residential sites identified in the site inventory, we look to understand how new housing will impact segregation and integration of race, ethnicity and income level. Figure 3-52 shows the majority of identified sites are concentrated in the areas with a predominantly Latinx/Hispanic population. These areas correspond with the Old Town specific plan, that increases zoning to encourage investment in affordable housing and the transit oriented nature of Bayside Newark. In the Birchwood area, with the highest median incomes in the city, two housing projects, one the Timber Affordable senior housing project and the second, the E-Z 8 Motel site will provide 184 low and moderate income homes, and opportunities for those of other races with lower incomes in an area that has a slim white majority. The redevelopment of NewPark Mall, within the NewPark Place area, will provide 174 low and moderate income units in a high resource neighborhood with a predominantly Asian population. While the increase in above moderate income housing in areas that are predominantly low and moderate income will increase the diversity of incomes and increased investment in the area, it can also lead to higher rents for the surrounding households, and displacement. In response to the concentration of housing opportunity sites located in the central and southern portions of the city, Newark will be implementing a number of programs to expand housing development and housing choice for multiple incomes throughout the city.

Programs include: Program H2.1 SB9 and SB10 ordinance as well as H2.8 Zoning for Missing Middle Housing, H2.2 to reduce constraints and expand accessibility for ADU production, in order to achieve a greater geographic diversity of housing type and location. Program H2.6 looks at public school sites in Newark as locations for affordable housing to district employees, and has the potential to both provide affordable family sized housing and increase access to opportunities throughout the city.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 125

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-52: Sites by Racial Predominance, 2010
Source: Adapted by Community Planning Collaborative, 2022. HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

Income
Newark has a population with a high median income, with 50% of residents making more than 100 percent of the median income. Despite this, there is still a large population of residents who are low income, with 10 percent of residents making less than 30 percent of the median income and 13 percent with moderate incomes. Through a variety of programs, the City is working to increase the development of housing for all income types, including housing for those with extremely low incomes, seniors, large families and those with moderate incomes. The Housing Element includes programs to establish development standards that facilitate missing middle housing that is affordable to middle-income households in single-family neighborhoods (Program H2.8) and promoting the development of ADUs throughout the city (Program H2.2).

Fifty percent of sites (2,075 units) are located within the NewParkPlace and the areas, which have a median income of $139,000. The NewParkPlace developments have 28 percent of the total low income units, the largest number of low income units in the city, along with the largest percentage AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 126

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
of above moderate units at 58 percent. Although the lower income sites are distributed amongst The Old Town/ Central, Bayside, Birch Grove and NewParkPlace areas, these census tracts have a range of median incomes between $93,094 to $1390,111, and accounts for 91 percent of the lower-income capacity, 84 percent of the moderate-income capacity, and a majority (2,291 units) of the above-moderate income capacity. The sites in the Bayside /Old Town area are zoned for a variety of housing options to be built, with the greatest capacity of low and moderate income sites which will in turn help to diversify income levels in the area. Table 3-14 show that 23 percent of the lower-income sites are in census tracts with incomes below $93,000. This is driven by the capacity on sites in the Old Town/ Central area along Thornton Boulevard and works to ensure that housing is affordable to existing residents in order to support them to stay in place as investments come to the area. The sites inventory for all other income levels (i.e., lower-income sites, moderate income sites, mixed income sites, and pipeline projects) will not have a significant impact on patterns of segregation and integration by the remaining fair housing indicators including familial status and disability status due the even distribution of those populations in the City.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 127

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-53: Site Distribution by Median Income, 2015- 2019 Source: Adapted by Community Planning Collaborative, 2022. HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 128

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table 3-14: Site Distribution by Median Income, 2015- 2019 Census
Tract
Neighborhood
Lower
income
Moderate
income
Above
Moderate
Total Units
units % units % units %
unit
s
%
Median
Household
Income
AMI less
than 50%
AMI 50
- 80%
AMI 80
- 100%
AMI
greater
than
100%
4441
LakeRosemont
0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% $ 116,812 20% 8% 10% 62%
4442 Mirabeau Park 0 0% 0 0% 9 0.5% 9 0.4% $ 126,028 14% 12% 9% 64% 4443.01
Mayhews
Landing
0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% $ 121,156 11% 6% 12% 72%
4443.02
Gateway /
Bayshore/ old
Town
70 10% 21 17% 649 39% 740 30% $ 105,188 24% 12% 13% 51% 4444
Old Town /
Central
Newark
201 28% 44 35% 120 7% 365 15% $ 93,094 19% 13% 19% 49%
4445
Old Town /
Central
Newark
118 16% 42 33% 36 2% 196 8% $ 109,441 16% 14% 9% 60%
4446.01 Birch Grove 155 21% 1 1% 296 18% 452 18% $ 139,119 9% 11% 4% 76% 4446.02 NewPark Place 178 25% 18 14% 536 33% 732 29% $ 128,229 14% 5% 8% 74% Source: Community Planning Collaborative, 2023.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 129

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-54: Site Distribution By Percent of Low and Moderate Income Residents, 2015- 2019 Source: Adapted by Community Planning Collaborative, 2022. HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

Potential Effects on Access to Opportunity
According to 2022 TCAC data, Newark is a mix of moderate and high resource areas. The Birchwood, NewParkPlace areas comprise Newark’s high resource areas, while the rest of the city is considered moderate resource areas, as highlighted in Figure 3-56. Newark does not have any low resource areas, areas of high segregation, or highest resource areas.

A percentage breakdown of proposed and sites zoned for housing by resource area in Figure 3-56 shows that 46 percent of low income units are located in high resource areas. A significant percentage of planned and proposed moderate income housing, 85 percent, are located in moderate resource areas as are 54 percent for low income units. For the most part, both low and above moderate housing are relatively evenly distributed across moderate and high resource areas. While a high percentage of moderate units are planned and proposed for moderate resource areas, this figure does not take into account the additional units expected from missing AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 130

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
middle and ADU programs which will be prioritized for high resource areas.

In the higher resource areas there is a mix of housing both in the pipeline for development and sites identified for new housing. Pipeline projects include site 9, Cedar Community Apartments, a HomeKey project that provides 124 units of housing for those with extremely low incomes. The focus will be on providing housing for those that are homeless and those at risk of homelessness, with 11 units reserved for veterans that have experienced homelessness. The redevelopment of NewPark Mall consists of two mixed income projects providing housing for very low, low and moderate income households, and one pipeline project serving those with above moderate incomes. Pipeline and housing opportunity sites in the Birchwood and NewPark Place areas will provide 352 units of low and moderate income housing in high opportunity areas. By providing housing opportunities for very low, low and moderate income households in high resourced areas the city is addressing the need to expand housing choices available to those looking for affordable housing close to shopping, parks, transportation and quality schools and support vulnerable populations.

Newark is making targeted investments in the Old Town/ Bayside area, with active transportation infrastructure improvements connected to the Old Town Specific Plan and the Bicycle master plan, and supporting small businesses and community members through facade improvement grants for small businesses in the Old Town area and the construction of a family resource center. See the chapter on transportation and the Public Realm for more details on city lead investments. These investments will provide needed improvements in an area that is lower income than surrounding areas.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 131

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Environmental Outcomes
Figure 3-55: Site Distribution by CalEnviroScreen Percentile Score, 2021 Source: Adapted by Community Planning Collaborative, 2023. HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool and CalEnviroScreen Data
CalEnviroScreen is a mapping tool that helps identify California communities that are most affected by many sources of pollution, and where people are often especially vulnerable to pollution’s effects. The tool uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic information to produce scores at the census tract level and is indexed allowed for cross community comparison.

Tracts with high scores experience a much higher pollution burden than areas with low scores.

As displayed in Figure 3-55 above, sites identified by Newark as being suitable for accommodating lower-income RHNA housing during the planning period are located in areas with low to very-low levels of environmental risk. Both planned and proposed projects and sites zoned for housing are in areas with a relatively low incidence of environmental contamination per CalEnviroScreen.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 132

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Environmental Quality
Bayside Newark
This project area includes 233 acres of land that historically has contained various industrial, manufacturing, chemical processing and salt production facilities since the early twentieth century. Due to the history of industrial use on the site, the city has remediated portions of the site. One form of contamination was a groundwater plume that exists in shallow groundwater beneath portions of the Plan area. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is directing mitigation of this groundwater plume in collaboration with the Alameda County Water District (ACWD). Some properties within the Specific Plan area also contain soil impacted hazardous substances. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is directing the remediation of impacted soils at these properties.

The specific plan includes neighborhood focused retail, new infrastructure to support new residential and commercial development, new parks and the Bayside Trail, as well as new residential units in a variety of sizes and types.

Old Town Specific Plan Area
Central Newark and sites within the Old Town Specific Plan are at high risk of exposure to particulates from diesel fuel. In an effort to increase health equity in the area, and create a safer environment for walking and biking, the city will conduct a truck route study in 2023, looking to remove semi trucks from using Thornton avenue in the old town district.

Transportation and the Public Realm
Through public participation, pedestrian improvements and access to public transportation have been consistent themes that are associated with opportunity for a variety of populations, as well as being conscientious of climate change and the environment.

Figure 3-57 shows the distribution of housing sites and bus routes in Newark. We have heard from the disability community that having affordable housing in close proximity to transit is important for their community. There is also an understanding that transportation can be a significant expense, to providing housing in close proximity to transportation, new developments can lessen the cost burden and support more sustainable development.

In 2017 Newark City Council approved the Pedestrian and Bicycle master plan, in order to prioritize and implement infrastructure improvements and educational/enforcement programs that will improve the biking and walking environment in Newark. The following is an overview of pedestrian and bicycle improvements to be undertaken during the Housing Element cycle:

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 133

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
● Cherry street will be improved by a class 4 separated bike lane from Central Ave to Stevenson blvd.
● The Central ave overpass, with an estimated completion in 2025, will eliminate railroad grade crossing for pedestrians, creating a separated crossing at Sycamore and Filbert, make it easier for pedestrians to cross safety, and the addition of new bike lanes ● In Old Town, with an estimated completion date of 2025 there will be bike and pedestrian improvements: a road diet, widened sidewalks, bike lines where there are none, high visibility crosswalks.
● The Bay Trail will be extended through the Bayside Newark development ● The city has received grant funding to add sidewalks and for the development of a cycle track on Thornton ave, between Gateway blvd and Hickory street, to improve access to the wildlife refuge. This will add bike lanes to the west side to make it safer to access the wildlife refuge. Estimated project completion will be in 2029. ● Grant funding to install the rapid fire beacons where the residents have expressed concerns over safe crossing, especially for students. One is planned for Old Town at Mulberry street, and near the Bayshore district on Enterprise drive.

Through area specific plans, Newark is investing in their public realm through pedestrian improvements for active transportation and pedestrian safety through more human scale streets.

The Old Town Specific plan will be directing infrastructure investments in the form of streetscape improvements, such as wider sidewalks, bike lanes, high visibility crosswalks and traffic calming.

Through the Old Town Area, Thornton Avenue will be reduced to slow traffic and increase space for walking and biking. Public art and new gathering spaces will support placemaking efforts to celebrate Newark past and present.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 134

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table 3-15: Sites along transit lines and High or Moderate Opportunity Areas, 2022 Housing Site
Specific Plan Area and / or
Opportunity area Pedestrian Improvements
14 High Resource (NewPark
Place)
5, 6, 7, 13, 17, 22 High Resource (Birchwood)
8, 9, 16, 19, 21, 28
Moderate Resource (Old
Town)
Changes will be made to Thornton Ave to facilitate
safer walking and biking in the area. There will be
traffic calming measures, bike lanes and wider
sidewalks.
10, 15, 20, 21, 24, 25
Moderate Resource (Old
Town / Central Newark)
Source: Tax Credit Allocation Committee, 2022, ACTrans 2022, City of Newark Figure 3-56: Percentage of Housing Units by Resource Opportunity Area, 2022 Source: Tax Credit Allocation Committee, 2022, Community Planning Collaborative Sites Analysis AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 135

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-57: Site Distribution by Resource Level and Transportation Access, 2022 Source: Adapted by Community Planning Collaborative, 2022. HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool Potential Effects On Disproportionate Housing Needs
As previously mentioned, Newark has a large portion of residents that have housing needs that make them vulnerable to displacement due to being cost burdened, large families, female headed households or a senior. As highlighted in Figure 3-59 the areas vulnerable to displacement also correspond with portions of the city with BIPOC populations above 80%, specifically Hispanic / Latinx residents. The areas that are vulnerable to displacement in the Old Town, Bayside area also have higher rates of cost burden. With a focus on increasing affordable housing opportunities in the Old Town/ Central area, 57 percent of sites are for lower income households, as well as sites identified as mixed income developments will provide housing options that will support community members ability to remain in their neighborhoods.

The city is planning to develop and implement a number of policies and programs to support residents to stay in place such as a local preference policy, program H4.2 a community/tenant AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 136

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
opportunity to purchase act, and program H4.1 Develop Anti Displacement programs for the Old Town area.

Figure 3-58 Distribution of Sites by Rates of Cost burdened, 2015- 2019 Source: Adapted by Community Planning Collaborative, 2022. HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

Cost Burdened Households
● 30% of housing sites are affordable for very low, low and moderate income households and are distributed throughout the city.
● Recognizing the role that access to transportation plays, 25 percent of housing units are along existing bus lines and are affordable to very low, low, and moderate income households.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 137

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-59: Distribution of Sites by Displacement Risk and Percent BIPOC population, 2017 and 2018 Source: Adapted by Community Planning Collaborative, 2022. HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

People with Disabilities
Residents with disabilities in Newark are a lower percentage then the county at 8 percent, and are equally distributed throughout the city. Through conversation with the executive director of the Housing Consortium of the East Bay, he identified important aspects of housing development for those with physician and developmental disabilities. Having housing in close proximity to public transit to connect with jobs and services is key, as only 10 percent of the demographic owns a car.

In Newark, major transit lines run along Thornton Ave, Central Ave and Sycamore street. Housing sites are well positioned to be within a half mile walking distance of transit as shown in Figure 3-57. With The majority of sites centrally located near parks, libraries and transit, new housing in Newark will be accessible to those with limited mobility. Fifty two percent of housing sites along existing transit routes are to be affordable to those with very low, low and moderate incomes, yielding an expected total of 754 units.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 138

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Figure 3-60: Housing Sites Vis-a-Vis Disability Status, 2015- 2019 Source: Adapted by Community Planning Collaborative, 2022. HCD AFFH Data Resources and Mapping Tool.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 139

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
I. Contributing Factors and Meaningful Actions
The City of Newark has a significant Asian and Hispanic/Latinx population, a large number of families, and few affordable rental and home ownership opportunities available for residents. A history of housing discrimination and disinvestment have brought uneven opportunity and quality of life for BIPOC residents. Housing pressures from workers in Silicon Valley are increasing housing costs for long term residents. The city is constrained by ecologically sensitive marshlands of the San Francisco Bay, and is vulnerable to flooding and sea level rise, which plays a key role in planning for growth in a sustainable manner.

There is an urgent need for affordable housing, especially for families and seniors. There is a high percentage of students experiencing homelessness, single parent households in poverty, and multigenerational families - all with disparate housing needs. Old town and Central Newark have low environmental outcomes, due to pollution from industrial and truck traffic that disproportionately affects children and seniors.

Newark’s BIPOC community are disproportionately cost burdened renters, who face increasing rents with few protections. Many residents shared the challenge of finding affordable rental housing, and the desire for stability and the opportunity to build wealth through homeownership.

The city is committed to furthering fair housing in Newark and has identified the contributing factors, and policies and programs to implement in order to increase access to opportunity and affordable housing options in the city, especially for those communities most vulnerable to gentrification and displacement.

Mobility Strategies Removing barriers to housing in areas of opportunity and strategically enhancing access.

PROGRAM H2.8: Zoning for Missing Middle Housing Types.

PROGRAM H5.1: First-Time Homebuyer Assistance
PROGRAM H7.1: Develop training programs in collaboration with Alameda County Housing Authority for property owners to understand the housing choice voucher program
PROGRAM H4.6: Support tenant stability though minimum lease terms and relocation assistance
PROGRAM H4.8: Connect Residents with Foreclosure Assistance PROGRAM H7.4: Affirmatively Market Affordable Housing
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 140

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
New Housing Choices in Areas of Opportunity Promoting housing supply, choices and affordability in areas of high opportunity and outside of areas of concentrated poverty
PROGRAM H2.1: Encourage New Housing options in areas of the city close to services such as parks, schools and grocery stores.

PROGRAM H2.2: Accessory Dwelling Unit program
PROGRAM H2.6: Work in Partnership with Newark Unified School District to develop new housing
PROGRAM H2.7: Affordable housing development fund.

PROGRAM H2.8: Zoning for Missing Middle Housing types
PROGRAM H2.10: Single Room Occupancy Housing
PROGRAM H4.5: With community partners, connect residents to existing shared housing programs
PROGRAM H5.2: Affordable Housing Development Programs
PROGRAM H5.6: Affordable Housing Overlay Zone
PROGRAM H5.3: Public Lands for dedicated affordable housing.

PROGRAM H2.3: A Community Plan for the 4 Corners Area
Place Based Strategies (Amenities, Economic Development) Conserving and improving assets in areas of lower opportunity and concentrated poverty such as targeted investment in neighborhood revitalization, preserving or rehabilitating existing affordable housing, improving infrastructure, schools, employment, parks, transportation and other community amenities.

PROGRAM H1.1: Housing Rehabilitation and Repair Programs.

PROGRAM H2.9: Area Specific Plans
PROGRAM H4.1: Develop anti displacement programs for the Old-Town Newark Specific Plan area
PROGRAM H6.3: Cool Roofs for cool homes
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 141

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Anti Displacement Strategies + Tenant Protection (Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement) strategies that protects residents in areas of lower or moderate opportunity and concentrated poverty and preserves housing choices and affordability
PROGRAM H1.2: Develop a citywide rental inspection program to maintain high quality housing throughout the city
PROGRAM H4.2: Develop a Tenant/Community Opportunity to Purchase Policy PROGRAM H4.3: Develop a Just Cause Eviction Ordinance
PROGRAM H4.4: Small Sites Program
PROGRAM H4.9: No Net Loss of Units
PROGRAM H5.1: First-Time Home Buyer Assistance
PROGRAM H7.2: Partner with community organizations to ensure that community members have access to tenant rights information and Fair Housing in multiple languages
PROGRAM H7.3: Work with Newark Unified school district to distribute housing resources to families enrolled in the district
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 142

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table 3-16: Summary of Contributing Factors and Actions Regarding Housing Issues in Newark Fair Housing Identified Issue Contributing Factor
Prioritization and
Geographic target Meaningful actions
Population of children and
families experiencing
homelessness.

Lack of available rental housing
that is affordable to those making
at or below the median income.

There is no affordable housing
available for rent and for those
transitioning out of homelessness.

HIGH.

City wide with a
focus in supporting
the students in
schools in the Old
Town/ Central area
● Develop a strong working relationship and partnership with the Newark Unified School district to increase access to resources to families in the District. PROGRAM H7.3
● Build more housing for low and extremely low income residents and those transitioning from and experiencing homelessness.

PROGRAM H2.7
● Prioritize publicly owned land for affordable housing development. PROGRAM H5.3
● Implement an affordable housing overlay zone to incentivize the construction of affordable housing for very low, low, and moderate income households in targeted areas. PROGRAM
H5.6
● Develop a local response to support people experiencing homelessness, with specific attention to the racial disparities and large population of youth and families. PROGRAM H2.5; PROGRAM H7.3
● Support Tenants through minimum lease terms and relocation assistance. PROGRAM H4.6
● Work with partners to develop scattered sites for shared housing utilizing funding sources such as Project Home Key.

PROGRAM H4.11
Ineffective outreach and
access to information for
renters and property
owners,those with limited
English, lack of existing
knowledge of resources, or
limited time
Resources for renters are not
easily accessible currently. Those
with limited English language, lack
of access to a personal computer
and or internet connection need
additional support and resources
tailored to their needs. Landlords
need training to better understand
laws and regulations
HIGH
Citywide with a
focus on supporting
the significant
Hispanic/ Latinx
and Asian
populations in the
Old Town / Central
area
● Partner with a local non profit to co produce tenants rights materials and support systems for communities that have not been equitably served by existing resources and processes.

PROGRAM H7.2
● Update the city website to make housing resources easier to access for populations that have limited English. PROGRAM H7.2; PROGRAM H7.3; PROGRAM H7.4
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 143

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Fair Housing Identified Issue Contributing Factor
Prioritization and
Geographic target Meaningful actions
Significant negative
environmental outcomes for
existing low income BIPOC
communities & increased
risk of climate related
displacement
Due to high levels of air pollution
from freeway pollution and truck
traffic on Thornton Avenue, and
high levels of cost burden
residents, the majority of Newark
has less positive environmental
outcomes.

MEDIUM
Focus on the
Bayside/Old Town
● Flood Risk Disclosure for New Development. As a significant portion of Newark falls within the 100 and 500 year flood plain, ensuring that development is built in response to climate change. PROGRAM H6.4
Displacement pressure for
BIPOC communities. Large
cost burden BIPOC
community and a low
inventory of affordable
rental homes for all
segments ofthe population
Due to close proximity to Silicon
Valley, the housing market has
become more attractive to those
working in the tech industries in
the area. As rents continue to
increase, residents with incomes
at or below the median income are
not able to find rentals they can
afford.

HIGH
Focus on areas
identified as
vulnerable to
displacement such
as the Old
Town/Central,
Bayside areas and
renters around the
city
● Increasing renter support by developing and implementing a Just Cause Eviction Ordinance, to ensure that renters clearly know their rights. PROGRAM H4.3
● Developing a Local Preference policy to support housing that prioritizes those residents currently living in Newark. POLICY H4.1
● Developing a community / tenant opportunity to purchase ordinance. PROGRAM H4.2
● Develop an anti displacement plan for the Old Town/ Central Newark areas. PROGRAM H4.1
● Support tenant stability though minimum lease terms and relocation assistance. PROGRAM: H4.6
● Develop a city wide rental inspection program. PROGRAM H1.2
Lack of affordable rental
homes for all segments ofthe
population, with protected
classes being the most
affected. A large number of
single parentfamilies in
Newark in poverty
Newark’s housing stock is
primarily composed of market rate
single family homes for ownership
or rent. The most recent
subsidized housing constructed
was the first built in the city in over
20 years, and currently all
subsidized housing is for seniors.

HIGH
Citywide focus on
new housing on
Newark Unified
school district sites,
and a focus on
missing middle
housing types in the
Birch Grove, Lakes,
Mirabeau, and
● Develop an Affordable Housing NOFA to encourage affordable housing developers to locate projects in the city for high need populations. POLICY H5.5
● Develop a program for the development of low and moderate income Accessory Dwelling Units in the city, with the intention of increasing housing options for public service workers and residents that are in need of affordable housing such as single parents. PROGRAM H5.5
● Update the inclusionary zoning policy to include home AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 144

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Fair Housing Identified Issue Contributing Factor
Prioritization and
Geographic target Meaningful actions
Mayhews Landing
neighborhoods.
ownership opportunities, encourage more on site affordable units and ensure affordability requirements will address those at residents at low incomes
● Generate local funds for affordable housing production and programming through an affordable housing fee program.

PROGRAM H5.2
● In collaboration with a non profit organization, implement a shared housing program in Newark. PROGRAM H4.5
● Work in partnership with the Newark Unified School District to plan for affordable housing production and build upon the existing partnership between the City of Newark and Newark Unified School District to bring forward implementable plans for affordable housing school owned properties. PROGRAM H2.6
● Develop new housing options in established neighborhoods of the city close to services such as parks, schools and grocery stores. PROGRAM H2.1
Low homeownership levels
for Black, Indigenous and
Hispanic/ Latinx residents
History of housing discrimination
in Newark as well as mortgage
lending discrimination has led to a
lack of access to home ownership
opportunities for Black,
Indigenous and HIspanic/ Latinx
residents.

MODERATE
Focus on supporting
BIPOC residents, as
part ofthe Newark
Affordable Housing
Action Plan work
● Develop a below market rate homeownership program in
partnership with a non profit organization to expand home ownership for first time homebuyers and BIPOC community members. PROGRAM H5.1
● Connect residents to foreclosure assistance, With a focus on Hispanic/Latinx, Indigenous and Black residents. PROGRAM H4.8
Disproportionate access to
opportunity across the city.

Areas with low access to
opportunity are primarily in
areas with high proportion of
Hispanic/ Latinx, Asian and
Older areas of the city such as Old
Town have seen a lack of
investment over the years in the
historic commercial and
residential district and private
investment has gone into newer
HIGH
Programs and
policies focused in
the Old Town/
Central Newark
area. Family sized
● Develop new affordable homes in opportunity areas
throughout the city, close to parks, schools and public transportation. PROGRAM H2.1
● Invest in improving the infrastructure and affordable housing opportunities in Old Town and Bayside neighborhoods in
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 145

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Fair Housing Identified Issue Contributing Factor
Prioritization and
Geographic target Meaningful actions
Indigenous residents
High segregation of Hispanic
/ Latinx population
developments. Due to the
disinvestment, the area has
supported lower rents than the
surrounding neighborhoods,
supporting a primarily BIPOC
neighborhood of residents.
housing and
pedestrian
improvements are
planned/in process
Newark through the Old Town specific plan, to create areas of high opportunity where residents currently reside. PROGRAM H2.9
● Open up single family zoning in larger portions of the city for low scale “missing middle housing” types such as courtyard housing that were identified in the housing survey. PROGRAM H2.8
● Update inclusionary zoning policy to ensure new affordable homes are built on site, with no in lieu fee option
● Accessory Dwelling Unit program to support the development of new housing distributed throughout the city and with 25 percent in high opportunity neighborhoods. PROGRAM H2.3 ● Develop an Anti Displacement program for the Old
Town/Central areas, PROGRAM H4.1
● Develop a program for the preservation of unsubsidized affordable housing in the city, especially in areas of high displacement risk. PROGRAM H4.4
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING 146

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
SECTION 4 HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
State housing law requires the City to review both governmental and non-governmental constraints to the maintenance and production of housing for all income levels. Examples of such constraints include development standards, local processing and permit procedures, development fees, construction costs, and compliance with various State laws to facilitate housing for lower-income and special needs households. State law requires the local governments to take action through their Housing Element to “address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities,” (Government Code Section 65583(c) (3)). A thorough understanding of the potential constraints to development can help to create appropriate policy responses
A. Governmental Constraints
Government regulations can potentially constrain the supply of housing available in a community if those regulations limit opportunities to develop housing, impose requirements that unnecessarily increase the cost to develop housing, or overcomplicate the development process for developers. State law requires that housing elements contain an analysis of the governmental constraints on housing maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels including special needs households and persons with disabilities (Government Code, Section 65583(a) (4)). Potential constraints to housing include land use controls, development processing procedures and fees, impact fees, on- and off-site improvement requirements, and building and housing codes and enforcement. This section discusses these standards and assesses whether any serve as a constraint to affordable housing development in Newark.

Land Use
The City of Newark controls the location, type, density, and scale of new development through the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and various specific plans.

General Plan
Every jurisdiction in California is required to prepare a comprehensive, long-term General Plan to guide decision making. Newark’s General Plan, adopted in 2013, sets forth the City’s vision, goals, and policies to shape development of the city. The updated plan created new opportunities for residential and mixed-use development throughout the city and has subsequently been supplemented by Specific Plans (described below) that further set forth plans and policies to HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 147

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
accommodate a range of housing types in key priority growth areas to create inclusive housing opportunities for Newark residents. These new residential development opportunities are reflected in the increased capacity of the Housing Element sites inventory. The Land Use Element of the General Plan has five land use designations that allow for residential use as follows:

Table 4-1: General Plan Land Use Designations
Land Use
Designation
Housing Capacity General Uses
Low Density
Residential
Less than 8.7 units
per net acre
This designation is intended for single-family residential development on lots larger than 5,000 square feet. It corresponds to most of Newark’s residential neighborhoods. Multiple zoning districts apply within Low Density Residential areas to distinguish areas with different minimum lot sizes. Other compatible uses, such as schools, childcare centers, parks, and religious facilities may also be located in areas with this designation, subject to appropriate permitting requirements.

Low-Medium
Density
Residential

8.7 to 15 units per
net acre
This designation is intended for small lot single-family homes, zero lot line and patio homes, mobile home parks, and other areas characterized by a mix of older single-family homes and small multi-unit buildings.

These areas have the basic characteristics of single-family neighborhoods, such as front and rear yards, driveways, and garages, but have smaller lots and a wider variety of housing types. Densities in areas with this designation range from 8.7 to 15 units per net acre, but the higher end of this range (e.g. from 11 to 15 units per acre) will only be allowed on properties which have their primary access on an arterial or collector street and which are found to be compatible with the character and intensity of residential development in the immediate area. Other compatible uses, such as schools, childcare centers, parks, and religious facilities may be located in all areas with this designation, subject to appropriate permitting requirements.

Medium
Density
Residential
14 to 30 units per
net acre
This designation is intended for garden apartments and condominiums, townhomes, row houses, 4 to 8 plexes, and older areas that contain a mix of multi-family and single-family homes within this density range. These areas tend to be multi-family in character but retain some of the characteristics of suburban neighborhoods such as landscaped yards, off-street parking, common open space, and low building heights.

Densities in areas with this designation range from 14 to 30 units per net acre, but the higher end of this range (e.g. from 22 to 30 units per acre) will only be allowed on properties which have their primary access on an arterial or collector street and which are found to be compatible with the character and intensity of residential development in the immediate area.

Additionally, to ensure that land with this designation is used as efficiently as possible, a minimum density standard of 14 units per net acre applies. Other compatible uses, such as schools, childcare centers, parks, and religious facilities may also be located in areas with this designation, subject to appropriate permitting requirements.

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 148

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Land Use
Designation
Housing Capacity General Uses
High Density
Residential
25 to 60 units per
net acre
This designation is intended for apartment and condominium complexes that are generally three stories or more. On larger parcels with this designation, common open space and other shared amenities are typically provided. Structured (or basement level/ podium) parking is also common. Densities range from 25 to 60 units per acre, corresponding to site area allowances of 725 to 1,450 square feet of lot area per each dwelling unit. To ensure that land with this designation is used as efficiently as possible, a minimum density standard of 25 units per net acre applies. Other compatible uses, such as schools, childcare centers, parks, and religious facilities may also be located in areas with this designation, subject to appropriate permitting requirements.

Commercial
Mixed-Use
30 to 60 units per
net acre.

FAR of 0.5 to 2.0
This designation supports a combination of office, residential, and retail use, with an emphasis on specialty commercial uses such as antique stores, boutiques, galleries, cafes, and restaurants. Development standards should foster a walkable, pedestrian-oriented character that emphasizes a fine-grained building scale and streetscape. Structures that are entirely residential or entirely commercial are both permitted, but the optimal development form on larger sites would include housing located above ground level retail shops or services. This designation is used in Old Town Newark, where it recognizes the historic scale, lot pattern, and context of this district. Floor area ratios (FARs) are generally in the range of 0.5 to 2.0. The actual intensity of development on any given site is dictated by a number of factors, including height limits, parking and landscaping requirements, and site size and dimensions.

Multiple zoning districts apply in this designation, with one zone focused on ground floor retail uses and the other allowing more diverse ground floor uses, such as offices and housing.

Regional
Commercial
Greater than 30
units per acre.

FAR of 0.2 to 4.0
This designation supports the largest and most complete shopping facilities in the city. The emphasis is on a broad array of goods and services, including department stores, retail shops, restaurants, entertainment facilities, and similar uses which draw patrons from throughout Newark and the surrounding region. This designation is applied to NewPark Mall and some of the commercial areas on the Mall’s perimeter. Uses such as hotels and corporate office buildings are acceptable in areas with this designation. Housing at densities greater than 30 units per acre may be included in Regional Commercial areas if such housing is a component of a large-scale planned development which is primarily oriented around regional retail commercial uses. FARs are generally in the range of 0.2 to 4.0. The actual intensity of development on any given site is dictated by a number of factors, including height limits, parking and landscaping requirements, and site size and dimensions.

Source: City of Newark General Plan, 2013
HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 149

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Zoning
The City’s zoning and development regulations establish permitted and conditionally permitted uses within each zone and standards which dictate how much development can occur on a given parcel of land such as minimum and maximum densities, height, setbacks, and lot coverage. The City Zoning Ordinance is adopted as Title 17 of the Municipal Code. Title 17, as well as all the other titles that comprise the Newark Municipal Code, are easily accessible on the city’s website at www.newark.org.

The current zoning ordinance includes four residential zoning districts (RS Residential Single Family, RL Residential Low Density, RM Residential Medium Density, RH Residential High Density, and two mixed-use/commercial districts that allow for residential development (CMU Commercial Mixed Use, RC Regional Commercial). These “base” zoning districts are supported by combining districts or “overlay” districts, including the Form Based Code Overlay District, Planned Development and Old Town Newark Overlay District (Table 4-2).

As shown in Table 4-1, the current zoning districts which permit multifamily housing provide a base density range of 30-60 DU/A with the exception of the RC zone, which permits higher densities. In practice, projects in Newark such as the Newpark Place Phase 1A have significantly exceeded these base densities.

Development Standards
Residential development standards established in the Zoning Ordinance are designed to provide orderly development of the City and to protect and promote the health, safety, and welfare of local residents and to implement the policies of the General Plan. An analysis of the residential standards, shown in Table 4-2, shows that Newark’s development standards (prior to the adoption of the zoning amendment required by Program H3.6) are typical for Bay Area communities and are not a constraint to the development of housing. These standards are intended to balance the need for predictable, orderly development with the need to allow the maximum possible residential density. Through program H2.12, the City will address potential barriers to residential development at all density levels through regular review and if necessary, amend the relevant development standards.

Minimum Lot Area
In the RS district, the vast majority of residential development during the planning period is anticipated to occur through ADUs and SB 9 Urban Lot Splits and Urban Housing Developments. These development types are not required to observe minimum lot size requirements for the underlying zoning district. The minimum lot sizes for the RS district HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 150

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
range from 6,000 to 10,000 square feet depending on the zoning designation which correlates to the development patterns of the surrounding subdivisions. The minimum lot sizes for the RM and RH districts, 6,000 square feet, do not affect the development potential of multi-family developments which allow multiple units to be constructed on a single parcel. The minimum lot size for CMU is 20,000 square feet which could be considered a constraint since many of the CMU parcels abutting Thornton Avenue are less than half an acre which would require lot consolidation in order to facilitate redevelopment. The City will investigate this possible constraint as part of Program H2.12 Setbacks
In the RS district, the vast majority of residential development during the planning period is anticipated to occur through ADUs and SB 9 Urban Lot Splits and Urban Housing Developments.

These development types are not required to observe setback requirements for the underlying zoning district. As a program of the Housing Element, a local SB 9 ordinance will be prepared to provide specific development standards for SB 9 projects. A standard residential subdivision in an RS district would not be constrained from achieving maximum density by setback requirements.

As shown in the Table 4-2, front setbacks decrease from 20 feet in RL to 15 feet in RM and RH districts, Street side setbacks decrease from 10 feet in RL to 8 feet, and rear setbacks decrease from 15 feet to 10 feet. CMU and RC districts can be developed to the lot line, but have setbacks imposed if they are adjacent to RS districts or a lot which is developed with a single family residence. The City’s setbacks are typical for a community of its size and development patterns and are not considered barriers to achieving maximum density.

Height
Height limitations are intended to allow projects to achieve the maximum allowable density, while also being responsive to community character. In the RS district, the height limit is 30 feet which allows for the construction of typical two-story homes. In the RM and RH districts, heights greater than 35 feet and up to 75 and 100 feet respectively are permitted with a Minor Use Permit, which may be granted at the discretion of the Community Development Director without a public hearing. In practice, these height limits are reasonable to allow the maximum density and range of product types that are typical in these zones. However, the requirement for an MUP may still be a constraint to development, so Program H2.12 includes the objective of removing this barrier. In the RL, RM, and RH districts, the height limits are 35, 75, and 100 feet respectively, which allow for the construction of three-story townhomes up to multi-story apartments or condominiums in the upper range.

Planned and proposed projects included in the Element generally do not reach the maximum allowable heights for their respective zoning districts but still achieve considerable residential densities. The proposed SAHA development, zoned RH, shows that heights are not a barrier in HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 151

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
achieving maximum densities since the project has a height of 60 feet and achieves a density of 105 dwelling units per acre. Waymark Homes, a proposed three-story attached townhome development which is zoned RM, reaches a height of 37 feet and a density of 22 dwelling units per acre, which is the maximum for the district.

The districts that provide the highest densities for residential development also provide for the highest maximum heights, including the RC district which is 250 feet and the CMU district which is 60 feet or 75 feet within the Old Town Newark Specific Plan area. According to an analysis of the CMU zone, currently only one parcel is outside of the Old Town Specific Plan area and is subject to the 60-foot height limit. While few parcels are zoned CMU in Newark, the 60-foot height limit could potentially be a barrier to reaching maximum allowable densities, especially if the City decides to use this zoning in future locations. The City will review this concern (Program H2.12) and provide flexibility as needed to make maximum densities achievable.

In order to be responsive to community character, the City has scaled height restrictions if the parcel is adjacent to a less intensive zone district. However, this restriction only applies to the area of the parcel which is within 20 feet of the less intensive district, including setbacks, therefore it is not considered a barrier to achieving maximum density. As with other development standards described in this section, height limits and any associated city processes will be continually evaluated during the course of the planning period per Program H2.12.

Lot Coverage
Maximum lot coverage standards vary from 50 percent in RS and RL districts to 55% in RM and RH districts. Lot coverage increases in the RM district to 65% for development within the Old Town Specific Plan area. The CMU and RC districts have no maximum standards. These standards are typical in many Bay Area communities and in Newark have not been perceived as a barrier to development and achieving maximum densities.

Parking
Because off-street parking often requires large amounts of land and structured parking is expensive to build, parking requirements are one of the development standards that can most negatively impact the feasibility of new housing development. Compared to many neighboring jurisdictions, Newark currently has somewhat higher parking requirements for most housing types than neighboring jurisdictions. For multifamily housing, Newark has higher requirements for studio and one-bedroom units than Fremont, as well as higher requirements for covered parking.

Although Newark and Fremont have the same guest parking requirement of 0.5 spaces per unit, Fremont does not have the same requirements for covered parking, and removes minimum parking requirements entirely in areas near transit. Additionally Newark requires one space per unit to be located in a garage, a requirement that can significantly increase the cost of development.

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 152

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Senior housing. Although it has been found that seniors do not have the same rates of driving, Newark has higher parking requirements than neighboring Union City and Fremont, at one space per unit.

ADUs. Union City does not list a parking requirement for ADU’s, but Newark has a higher parking requirement than Fremont, which has no parking requirements at all for ADU and JADU units.

Because Newark has higher parking requirements for multi-family, senior housing and accessory dwelling units this Housing Element update provides an opportunity for significant changes in parking requirements such as removing parking minimums and aligning requirements to be more in line with neighboring jurisdictions. Although the City complies with State density bonus parking standards upon request, the City’s parking requirements can be a potential constraint on the production of housing in some cases. In order to address this constraint, the City will implement Program H3.5 and will commit to developing new, lower parking standards to facilitate residential development, particularly on sites identified for the development of lower-income housing. This will also include a reduction of required guest parking from 0.5 to 0.25 spaces per unit.

Open Space Requirements
Newark has open space square footage requirements per unit in the RL, RM, RH and CMU and RC districts which are 400, 300, 200, 50, and 50 square feet respectively. The required open space is the product of the number of units multiplied by required square footage. Required open space consists of two types: common and private. This is no minimum private open space requirement.

Common open space must be a minimum of 50% of the required open space, but may be more, up to 100% of the requirement. Within the Old Town Specific Plan area, the RM district only requires 100 square feet of open space per unit. The open space requirements in the RL and RM districts may be considered high and have the potential to limit densities. Through Program H2.12, the City will review and revise the open space requirements as necessary including adjustments to the minimum area and dimensional requirements, as well as to provide more flexibility for open space types, location, and usability.

Minimum Commercial Component in Mixed Use Zones
Parcels within the CMU zone that have frontages on Newark Blvd. and Thornton Ave. between the Union Pacific Railroad and Olive Street are required to have nonresidential uses that occupy no less than 15% of the gross lot area on their ground floors. Ground non-residential use is also a requirement for all development in the RC district. The intent of this standard is to promote walkable and vibrant mixed-use neighborhoods with a strong sense of place, however the standard is a potential barrier since recent development in Newark has been predominantly residential. Outside of these major commercial corridors, 100% residential projects are permitted.

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 153

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table 4-2: Residential Development Standards, Newark 2022 Zoning
District
Minimum Lot
Area (sq. ft.)
Max Units Per
Acre
Minimum
Lot Width
(ft.)
Minimum/
Maximum
Setbacks (ft)
Maximum Main
Building
Coverage (%)
Maximum
Height(ft.)
Required
Open Space
Per Unit(sq.
ft.)
RS
RS-6,000:
6,000;
RS-7,000:
7,000;
RS-8,000:
8,000;
RS-10,000:
10,000

8.7 RS-6,000:
60;
RS-7,000:
65;
RS-8,000:
70;
RS-10,000:
80 Front: 20
Interior Side: 5
Street Side: 10
Rear: 20
50 30 n/a
RL
6,000; 3,000
for Single unit
dwelling,
detached
11, up to 15 with
CUP depending
on street
classification
60 Front: 20
Interior Side: 5
Street Side: 10
Rear: 15
50 35 400
RM 6,000
22; up to 30 with
CUP depending
on street
classification, 50
within the Old
Town Specific
Plan area
60 Front: 15
Interior Side: 5
Street Side: 8
Rear: 10
55, 65 within the
Old Town Specific
Plan area
75 (over 35
requires a MUP),
48 within the Old
Town Specific
Plan area, 35
within 20 ft. of an
RS or RL District
300; 100
within the Old
Town Specific
Plan area
RH 6,000 60 60
Front: 15
Interior Side: 5
Street Side: 8
Rear: 10
55 100 (over 35
requires a MUP);
35 within 20 ft. of
an RS or RL
district
200
HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 154

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Zoning
District
Minimum Lot
Area (sq. ft.)
Max Units Per
Acre
Minimum
Lot Width
(ft.)
Minimum/
Maximum
Setbacks (ft)
Maximum Main
Building
Coverage (%)
Maximum
Height(ft.)
Required
Open Space
Per Unit(sq.
ft.)
CMU 20,000
60, 100 within
the Old Town
Newark Specific
Plan area
100
Front: 0, max. of 10
Interior Side: 0, 20
abutting a RS
district or any lot
developed with a
single family
residence
Street Side: 0, max
of 10.

Rear: 0, 10 abutting
a RS district or any
lot developed with a
single family
residence
n/a
60; 75 within the
Old Town Specific
Plan area; 48
within 20 ft of an
RM District
boundary, 35
within 20 ft. of an
RS or RL District
boundary
50 RC 20,000 120 100
Front: 0
Interior Side: 0
Street Side: 0
Rear: 0
n/a 250 50
Source: City of Newark Zoning Ordinance, 2022
HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 155

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
An analysis of the residential standards, shown in Table 4-2, indicates that these requirements overall are not a constraint to the development of housing.

Specific Plans
The City has four (4) adopted specific plans which have significantly increased the City’s capacity to accommodate new housing development through the coming Housing Element update period and beyond. These plans are expected to guide new housing development during the timeframe of the 2023-2031 Housing Element and are described in more detail below.

Bayside Newark Specific Plan, Adopted July 2021
The Bayside Newark Specific Plan, formerly known as The Dumbarton Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), provides the framework for a proposed new neighborhood that will provide a broad range of new housing, retail and business opportunities in Western Newark, centered around the proposed Dunbarton Commuter Rail station.

This project area includes 233 acres of land that has contained various industrial, manufacturing, chemical processing and salt production facilities since the early twentieth century. The plan steers the development of a contemporary version of a pedestrian oriented neighborhood where housing, recreation, neighborhood retail center and employment opportunities are integrated and connected via pedestrian and bicycle networks. The community would include shops, parks and open space amenities, including a bayside trail. Approximately 8% of the area is designated as low density residential, 33% for medium density residential, 29% for medium/high residential, and 2% for high density residential.

In the proposed design, higher densities of residential development-such as condos-would be located within a quarter-mile radius of the transit station, medium densities-such as townhomes-are located slightly further, and single family dwellings are located farthest from the station. Retail stores and shops are concentrated near the transit station at the intersection of Willow Street and Enterprise Blvd. Higher density housing would be adjacent to the retail area and the transit station. Neighborhood parks would be located within the residential areas and a larger community park would be included. Blocks are generally short and pedestrian-oriented. The street circulation network of streets will have one travel lane in each direction and will utilize traffic calming measures such as bike lanes in both directions, on street parking, and single lane roundabouts with the goal of prioritizing active transportation. The plan has a unit cap of 2,500.

Old Town Specific Plan, Adopted September 2021
The Old Town Specific Plan addresses a 76-acre area which encompasses Thornton Avenue spanning seven blocks from Elm Street to Cherry Street, and residential parcels north and south of the commercial corridor. The plan seeks to develop this corridor into a mixed-use area that accommodates a range of housing types, retail and service businesses, expanded public spaces, and mobility improvement. The Old Town Specific Plan does not allow single unit dwellings, HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 156

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
requires densities between 30 and 100 dwelling units per acre, and height maximums of up 75 feet (48 feet within 20 feet of a RM district and 35 feet within 20 feet of an RS or RL district). The plan also requires ground floor retail commercial uses on projects that front Newark Boulevard and Thornton Avenue between The Union Pacific Railroad Tracks and Olive Street.

Through zoning amendments, streetscape improvements, and public and private investments, the plan envisions Old Town Newark as a revitalized mixed-use neighborhood with a strong sense of place, thriving retail and commercial businesses, a range of housing choices for existing and future residents, a streetscape that prioritizes bicyclists and pedestrians, and public spaces. The plan’s grand visions are matched by clear realistic steps for implementation of long-standing goals for revitalization and provide steps to maintain the existing housing stock and avoid displacement of existing residents and businesses.

NewPark Place Specific Plan
The NewPark Place Specific Plan (Plan), adopted in 2018 and implemented as revised in 2021, provides a comprehensive planning and development implementation strategy for a 125-acre area in the southeastern portion of the city adjacent to I-880 which includes the existing NewPark Mall retail center (mall), the parking facilities that surround it, and commercial uses on the perimeter of the center.

The Plan’s vision is to transform the Greater NewPark Mall area into a vibrant urban place through thoughtful land use design, which includes mixed-income residential areas, retail and dining opportunities, community venues, a movie theater, inviting pedestrian-oriented streets and public spaces, and enhanced sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and transit facilities. Creating a premier Bay Area and local destination will re-power the regional retail uses within the mall itself as a vital economic engine for the city. Higher-density multifamily housing across types and affordability levels will comprise the predominant land use type in this reconfigured and revitalized area.

The Plan includes guidance in the form of plans, policies, development standards, and design guidelines and serves as an extension of the general plan making it both a policy and regulatory document. To achieve the development vision for the Greater NewPark Mall area, the Plan contains a framework that is flexible in land use types, development standards, and design guidelines. In collaboration with the city, the developer project sponsor will work within this framework to deliver project designs and programs with desired uses, development form, mobility improvements, and public amenities that create a unique “sense of place”.

The plan is anticipated to build out over an approximate 20-year timeframe, with a total capacity of 1,519 multifamily residential units. The Mixed Use I area (where Phases A through D are located and highlighted in this Element) is expected to redevelop first based on the expressed interest of the property owner/developer. Diverse affordable housing will be an important component of the overall unit mix in the plan area, with at minimum 6 percent of units being affordable to very-low income households, 3 percent to low-income households and 3 percent to moderate-income households per City Council Resolution 10,184.

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 157

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
The plan calls for building heights between 30 and 200 feet, with a preferred minimum of 60 feet.

The residential densities must be within a minimum of 60 dwelling units to the acre and a maximum of 160 dwelling units per acre, which can be accommodated within the overall plan development area under the Specific Plan’s development standards. Building heights are currently constrained by the lack of adequate emergency response infrastructure Newark and the surrounding communities to safely respond to emergencies on high rise buildings. Because of this, the current plan shows densities on the lower edge of the spectrum.

Southwest Newark Residential and Recreational Project (Area 3 and 4 Specific Plan) This is the largest area proposed for future development in Newark, comprising 856 acres in the area bordered by Mowry Avenue on the west, Stevenson Boulevard on the east, Cherry Street on the north, and Mowry Slough on the south. The Union Pacific Railroad bisects the area. Most of the land is vacant, although the area near the end of Mowry Avenue includes an auto-dismantling yard. The remainder of this area has been disked and graded for agricultural use since the early 1900s.

A Specific Plan was adopted in 2010 and 2015 (Newark Specific Plan - Area 3 and 4 of the General Plan). The Plan calls for the development of housing, a major recreational facility such as an 18-hole golf course, and the dedication of conservation open space on some of the low-lying areas south of the railroad tracks. Areas 3 and 4 contain sub areas where development would be focused.

Area 3, Sub Area B has been developed with 386 single-family residential units; construction was substantially complete by early 2021. This sub area, on land facing Cherry Street just east of Ohlone College, has been developed with a three acre community park, as well as a possible future elementary school on a six acre parcel.

A residential project within Area 3, Sub Area C and Area 4, Sub Area B was approved by City Council in November 2019. This project would include 469 detached single-family homes, open space, new utility infrastructure, and roadways, including a new connecting roadway at the existing terminus of Stevenson Boulevard to the project area. A substantial number of homes are expected to be constructed within the period of the Housing Element.

The City is currently considering a development application for 203 detached single-family homes within Area 4, Sub Area D on a parcel which contain an automobile dismantling yard with retail sales. Entitlements have not been granted as of the publication of the Housing Element.

Once the proposed project within Area 4, Sub Area D has been considered and a final decision has been made, the city may take action to retire the plan in a manner consistent with applicable laws and conforming to previously adopted agreements and approved entitlements.

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 158

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Zoning for a Diversity of Housing Types
Housing Element Law (Government Code Section 65583(c) (1) and 65583.2(c)) requires that local governments analyze the availability of sites that will “facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units (SROs), emergency shelters, and transitional housing.” This section discusses relevant regulations that govern the development of the types of housing listed above as required by Government Code Section 65583(a) (3). Table 4-3 summarizes the permitted housing types by zone.

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 159

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table 4-3: Housing Types Permitted by Zone, Newark 2022 Land Use RS RL RM RH CMU RC
Accessory Dwelling Units Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Single-Unit, Detached Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted - - Single-Unit, Attached - Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted 11 -
Two-Unit Dwelling - Permitted Permitted Permitted -
Multi-Unit Development - Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted 12 Conditional Use
Permit
Required
19 Manufactured/Mobile Home - - - - - -
Employee Housing (6 or
fewer persons)
- - - - - -
Residential Care Facilities (6
or fewer persons)
Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted -
Residential Care Facilities (7
or more persons)
- Minor Use
Permit Required
Minor Use
Permit Required
Minor Use
Permit Required
- -
Family Day Care (Group
Residential)
- - Minor Use
Permit Required
Minor Use
Permit Required
Minor Use
Permit Required
-
Family Day Care (Large) Minor Use
Permit Required
Minor Use
Permit Required
Minor Use
Permit Required
Minor Use
Permit Required
- -
Family Day Care (Small) Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted - 12 Not allowed on the ground floor. Residential units shall be intended to support retail commercial uses of the project. 11 Single-Unit Dwelling, Attached uses are not permitted in the Old Town Newark Specific Plan area. Residential uses are not allowed on the ground floor along Newark Boulevard frontage and Thornton Avenue frontage, between the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and Olive Street.

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 160

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Land Use RS RL RM RH CMU RC
Single-Room Occupancy
Units
- - -
Conditional Use
Permit Required
Conditional Use
Permit Required
-
Emergency Shelters
- - Minor Permit
Required
Permitted _ -
Supportive Housing Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted - Transitional Housing Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted - Source: City of Newark Zoning Ordinance, 2022
HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 161

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Multifamily Housing
As shown in Table 4-3, multifamily housing is permitted throughout the City of Newark in all RL, RM, RH and CMU zones. Multifamily housing is also permitted in RC zones with a conditional use permit.

Manufactured Housing and Mobile Homes
State law limits the extent to which cities and counties can regulate the installation of manufactured homes, including mobile homes. Government Code Section 65852.3 requires that cities allow installation of certified manufactured homes on foundation systems on lots zoned for conventional single-family residences. This section and Government Code Section 65852.4 generally require that manufactured homes be subject to the same land use regulations as conventional homes. Government Code Section 65852.7 deems mobile home parks to be a permitted use in all areas planned and zoned for residential use. The City of Newark permits manufactured and factory-built housing in designated residential zoning districts. Because of the high cost of land, manufactured housing is not commonly placed on private property, except perhaps as caretaker residences within industrial districts. There are currently no mobile home parks or manufactured housing in Newark. Pursuant to State law, any site that can be developed for site-built residential development is also available for the development of factory-built (manufactured) housing or for mobile homes. There are no specific restrictions upon the development of manufactured housing or mobile home parks within the Newark Municipal Code or General Plan.

Housing for Farmworkers
The provisions of Section 17020 (et seq.) of the California Health and Safety Code relating to employee housing and labor camps supersede any ordinance or regulations enacted by local governments. Such housing is allowed in all jurisdictions in California pursuant to the regulations set forth in Section 17020. Section 17021.5(b) states, for example:
“Any employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer employees shall be deemed a single-family structure with a residential land use designation for the purposes of this section. For the purpose of all local ordinances, employee housing shall not be included within the definition of a boarding house, rooming house, hotel, dormitory, or other similar term that implies that the employee housing is a business run for profit or differs in any other way from a family dwelling. No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required of employee housing that serves six or fewer employees that is not required of a family dwelling of the same type in the same zone.”
Section 17021.6, concerning farmworker housing, states that:
“No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required of this employee housing [consisting of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units] that is not required of any other agricultural activity in the same zone.” HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 162

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Emergency Shelters, Transitional Housing, and Supportive Housing Emergency Shelters
The California Health and Safety Code (Section 50801[e]) defines an emergency shelter as “housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.”
Pursuant to State housing law (California Government Code Sections 65582, 65583, and 65589.5), jurisdictions must identify at least one zone where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use permit or other discretionary permit. The identified zone must have sufficient capacity to accommodate the shelter need, and at a minimum provide capacity for at least one year-round shelter. Permit processing, development standards, and management standards for emergency shelters must be objective and facilitate the development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters. Emergency shelters “may only be subject to those development and management standards that apply to residential or commercial development within the same zone” along with a list of exceptions that may be made.

Assembly Bill 139, passed in 2019, revised State housing element law by requiring that emergency shelters only be required to provide sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone.

Emergency shelters are permitted by right in the Residential High Density, Public Facility, Transit Station, and Park zones and with a Minor Use Permit in the Residential Medium Density zone.

In Newark emergency shelters are subject to the following development standards:
● Location. Emergency shelters shall be located at least three hundred feet from another emergency shelter.
● Number of Residents. No more than fifty clients may be present on the premises at any one time.
● Length of Occupancy. Occupancy by an individual or family may not exceed sixty days.

Extensions up to a total stay of one hundred eighty days may be provided if no alternative housing is available, upon determination by the director. ● Common Area. The shelter shall provide at least ten square feet per bed of public or communal gathering space, exclusive of hallways.
● Parking Reduction. The director may reduce the number of on-site parking spaces required by Section 17.23.040, Required Parking Spaces, where a shelter is located on a bus route, or other evidence is provided to indicate that less parking will be needed. The shelter shall, however, provide at least one space for each staff member who will be on duty when residents are present, and at least one space for residents. ● Lighting and Illumination. The shelter shall provide outdoor lighting sufficient to provide illumination and clear visibility to all outdoor areas, with minimal shadows or light leaving HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 163

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
the property. The lighting shall be stationary, directed away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way, and of intensity compatible with the neighborhood. ● Outdoor Activities. All functions associated with the shelter, except for children's play areas, outdoor recreation areas, and parking shall take place within the building proposed to house the shelter. There shall be no space for clients to congregate in front of the building, and there shall be no outdoor public telephones. ● Designated Smoking Area. The shelter shall provide a designated smoking area, preferably outside, that is not visible from public rights-of-way. ● Noise. The use shall be conducted in conformance with the noise standards set forth for multifamily housing in the noise element of the general plan. ● Supervision. On-site management shall be provided any time that clients are present at the shelter.
● Management and Security Plan. The operator of the shelter shall submit a management and security plan for approval by the director. The plan shall address issues identified by the director, including emergencies, transportation, client supervision, security, client services, staffing, and good neighbor issues.

Newark’s standards for emergency shelter facilities comply with the allowances made for standards set forth under Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A). The shelter size of 50 beds provides sufficient space for the identified need and flexibility for parking requirements show that the current zoning is not a constraint for development.

Zoning for Emergency Shelters
As described in Chapter 2, Needs Assessment, the 2022 point-in-time count identified 32 unsheltered homeless individuals in Newark, a reduction from the 2019 estimate of 89 people. As described above, emergency shelters are permitted by right in the Residential High Density, Public Facility, Transit Station, and Park zones. In Newark, there are many parcels owned by the City that are zoned as Public Facility and Park and one site that is zoned as Residential High Density.

Collectively, the sites in these zones could be developed with shelter beds needed to accommodate the 2022 demand and reported in the 2022 Point In Time count. Below are some of the sites that could be developed with an emergency shelter.

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 164

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
Table 4-4: Potential Sites for Emergency Shelters in Newark, 2022 APN Description
Total
Acreage
Estimated
developable
Acreage
92A-1045-13-11 Civic Center Park 5 acres 3.1 acres
92A-1036-11-1 Civic Center, Old Library Site 5.1 acres 0.75 acres 92-150-12-3;
92-150-15-1
Ash Street Park, Senior Center and adjacent site 1.4 acres 1.1 acres 92-148-14-1 Ash Street Park, Former Head Start Site 0.69 acres 0.5 acres Total 12.19
acres

5.45 acres
Source: City of Newark, 2023
In 2023, Newark initiated a facilities master plan effort to assess all city-owned buildings, including the buildings listed in Table 4-4. The facilities master plan will provide an assessment of each building and the costs to either maintain, improve, or replace each building. Existing and new uses will be considered as part of this effort. The master plan is expected to be completed in 2024.

All of the sites identified in Table 4-4 are centrally located, close to bus routes, community centers and other services that support those experiencing homelessness with access to food and community organizations providing supportive resources.

None of these sites have existing structures intended to be used as shelters. Any shelters to be constructed on these sites will be appropriate for human habitability, consistent with the Minimum Habitability Standards for Shelter and Housing Policy published by HCD’s Emergency Solutions Grant Program.

Transitional and Supportive Housing
Transitional housing is designed to assist homeless individuals and families in moving beyond emergency shelter and into permanent housing by helping people develop independent living skills through the provision of supportive services. Permanent supportive housing is housing that is linked to services that assist residents in maintaining housing, improving health, and maximizing ability to live and work in the community.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583 and Section 65651, transitional and supportive housing types are required to be treated as residential uses and subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. Furthermore, per recent changes in State law (AB 2162), the City must also allow 100 percent affordable projects by right where multi-family and mixed-use development is permitted if the project includes 25 percent, or 12 units of, supportive housing.

The Zoning Ordinance allows supportive and transitional housing in all residential districts and in HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 165

NEWARK GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
all zones that allow multifamily and mixed-use development including nonresidential zones, per Government Code Sections 65583 and 65650. No additional parking is required beyond what is required for the residential housing type. While parking requirements can be a constraint, program H3.5 Parking Standards Update will address parking to encourage housing development.

Employee Housing
Consistent with Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6, employee housing is permitted by right in every residential zone, including single family zones.

Low Barrier Navigation Centers
Assembly Bill 101, passed in 2019, requires that a low barrier navigation center be a use permitted by right in mixed-use zones and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses if it meets specified requirements. AB 101 defines “low barrier navigation center” as a housing first, lowbarrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing.

For a navigation center to be considered “low barrier”, its operation should incorporate best practices to reduce barriers to entry, which may include, but is not limited to, the following:
● Permitting the presence of partners if it is not a population-specific site, such as for survivors of domestic violence or sexual assault, women, or youth ● Pets
● Ability to store possessions
● Providing privacy, such as private rooms or partitions around beds in a dormitory setting or in larger rooms with multiple beds
Accessory Dwelling Units
An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is an additional self-contained living unit, either attached to or detached from the primary residential unit on a single lot, also referred to as a secondary dwelling unit. The unit is required to include cooking, sleeping, full sanitation facilities, and separate, exterior entrance. ADUs are an important source of affordable housing since they can be constructed relatively cheaply and have no associated land costs. They can also provide supplemental income to the homeowner, allowing them to remain in their homes or moderate-income families to afford houses.

Newark City CouncilJanuary 8, 2026

Newark City Council
January 8, 2026